DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.219 of 30.5.2016

                                      Decided on:   2.2.2021

Sh.K.K.Sachdeva, aged about 64 years son of Sh.Amar Nath Sachdeva, r/o H.No.161/3, Near Shiv Mandir, Sunder Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Nitin Hospital, SCO-46, New Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala 147001, through Dr.S.P.Gupta.
2. Dr.Nitin Gupta, Nitin Hospital, SCO-46, New Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala 147001.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Smt.Sneh Lata, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Atul Gupta, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by K.K.Sachdeva  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Nitin Hospital and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) .
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he retired from Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala and is drawing pension from the PSPCL having medical reimbursement facility of indoor.
3. It is averred that due to ailment, he visited the OPs on 15.1.2016 and remained admitted under medical treatment till 19.1.2016 during which period the OPs prescribed medicines, charged doctors fee and room rent and also got other tests conducted upon the complainant but  he did not issue receipts for doctors fee and room rent amounting to Rs.10,000/- by OPs. On request the OPs flatly refused to issue the said receipts. The OPs also refused to sign the essential certificate amounting to Rs.24022/- to be submitted by the complainant to his department for reimbursement. The complainant got issued legal notice upon the OP on 29.3.2016 to do the needful but of no avail.
4. It is averred that earlier the complainant has also filed the complaint against the OPs before this Forum which was decided in favour of the complainant and thereafter on 10.5.2016 the complainant received letter dated 7.5.2016 from OP No.1 alongwith cash memo of Rs.10,000/- with a direction to the complainant to get the essentiality certificate signed from the OPs in reply to which the complainant stated that the original documents were already sent to the OPs alongwith the notice but the OP no.1 denied the receipt of the same. That the act and conduct of the OPs is illegal null and void, unfair trade practice and the OPs are bound to sign and verify the essentiality certificate as presented by the complainant.
5. On this background of the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to verify and sign the essentiality certificate amounting to Rs.24022/-, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also to pay costs of the complaint.
6. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In the written reply the OPs raised preliminary objections that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous and vexatious; that the complaint is bad for non arraignment and mis arrangement of parties.
7. On merits, It is submitted that the complainant came to the OPD of Dr. S. P. Gupta with an ultrasound report for operation of gallstone disease and the doctor told him to be case of uncontrolled diabetes resulting in severe kidney infection with gallstone and was admitted on emergency vide OPD slip dated 15.1.2016 and after the complainant responded to treatment was discharged on 19.1.2016 in good condition. The complainant was given a hand written bill for his treatment which he paid and left hospital & took with him the hospital file alongwith treatment, nursing record and investigation. There is no medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs denied all other averments made in the complaint and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. In evidence the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C29 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
9. The ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Nitin Gupta and closed the evidence.
10. The OP No.1 filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has retired from Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala and he was admitted in the hospital of OPs on 15.1.2016 to 19.1.2016.The ld. counsel further argued that the OPs did not issue receipts of doctors fee and room rent charged by them. The ld. counsel further argued that legal notice was issued to the OPs alongwith the original essentiality certificates and receipts with the request to do the needful but these receipts have not been verified by the OPs. As the verification is need for medical reimbursement from the department so the complaint be allowed.
12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant has filed a false complaint. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant was diagnosed for gallstone disease in the emerge ward of the hospital and that the receipts have been issued to the complainant. So the complaint be dismissed.
13. Previously also complainant filed complaint No.169 of 26.4.2016 against the OPs and the OPs were directed to issue cash memo for the amount received by them but as per the allegations the documents were not certified by the OPs.
14. To prove this case complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is legal notice, Ex.C2 is the postal receipt,Ex.C4 is also the postal receipt,Exs.C3and C5 are the document of India Post,Ex.C6 are the bills when the complainant admitted in Nitin Hospital which are to be verified.Ex.C7 to Ex.C23 are the receipts and documents of Nitin Hospital.
15. To rebut the evidence of the complainant Sh.Nitin Gupta has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per his written statement.
16. Ex.C6 is the main document and remaining exhibited documents are the receipts of Nitin Hospital. Ex.C17 is the complete record when complainant was admitted in the Nitin Hospital. So it is clear that despite the fact that the complainant had filed a previous complaint which was allowed but still complainant has to file another complaint as OPs doctor incharge of Nitin Hospital has not verified all the documents which are needed by the complainant for reimbursement.
17. So due to our aforesaid discussion, the complaint stands  allowed and the OPs are directed to verify all the documents which belong to their hospital and pharmacy, needed by the complainant for  reimbursement, within 30 days .The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.          

ANNOUNCED

DATED:2.2.2021         

                                    Y.S.Matta                           Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President