Haryana

Panchkula

CC/605/2019

SMT PREM WATI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

OJAS THE SUPER SPECILITY. - Opp.Party(s)

VINEET DHANDA.

28 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                              

Consumer Complaint No	:	605 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	04.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	28.01.2022

 

Smt. Premwati wife of Sh.Kitab Singh Dhanda, resident of House No.GHS 2, Flat No.603, Sector-27, Panchkula, Tehsil and District Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

Ojas The Super Specialty Hospital, Sector-26, Panchkula, District Pachkula through its Director.

                                                                                   ..….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:    Sh.Vineet Dhanda, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                           Sh.Pradeep Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OP.

                          

 

                                             ORDER

Satpal, President

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant met with an accident on 31.07.2019 and after getting some first aid complainant was got admitted in the OP Hospital on 31.07.2019. She has suffered a head injury and also complaint of severe pain in her leg, accordingly the OP-Hospital advised her to get done CT-scan which was conducted by the Op Hospital and the complainant was further examined by the Doctors there. After giving first aid and having done stitches on the head injury the complainant was kept under observation for next 72 hours by the OP Hospital. On 1.8.2019 the complainant was having severe pain in her leg and the concerned Doctor after examining her advised X-ray to be got done, by the Op Hospital but after X-ray was done the complainant was informed that there was no fracture in her leg and ultimately the complainant was discharged on 1.8.2019 but after discharge from the Hospital the complainant was still feeling severe pain in her leg and she with a view to have second opinion conducted the Specialist at Golden Hospital, Zirakpur where the concerned doctor told the complainant that she had a minor fracture in her leg and accordingly administered some medicines to the complainant which were accordingly taken under the advise of concerned Doctor Golden Hospital, Zirakpur and with the treatment at Golden Hospital, Zirakpur the complainant was feeling comfortable and has been able to walk without pain in her leg. It is also stated the OP Hospital has initially prepared a bill for a sum of Rs.34,429/-, wherein a sum of Rs.15000/- were charged for Wound suturing-Large and on the agitating by the complainant, the OP reduced these charges to Rs.10,000/- thus reducing it from a sum of Rs.15,000/-. This bill of Rs.34,429/- which the complainant had paid to the OP Hospital at the time of discharge. Even the OP has not issued the first bill whereby they have claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- but any how the attendants of complainant clicked a photo by means of mobile phone. The complainant served a legal notice upon the OP on 27.9.2019 but no response has been received from the OP. Due to act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and baseless; non-joinder and misjoinder; the complainant has not come with clean hands and concealed material facts and estoppels. On merits, OP stated that the complainant met with an accident on 31.07.2019. Initially she went to another hospital i.e. Alchemist Hospital, Sector-21, Panchkula, but it is wrongly alleged that staff of that hospital was on strike. OPD record of said hospital shows that complainant was duly attended by the said hospital and advised CT scan and further evaluation. Thereafter, she was admitted in the Emergency Department of OP Hospital on same day i.e. 31.07.2019. It is stated that after conducting the X-ray of complainant, OP Hospital wrongly opined that there was no fracture in her leg and discharged the complainant inspite of the fact that she was complaining pain in her leg and from second opinion taken by her from Golden Hospital Zirakpur, it was found that she had fracture. When the complainant was admitted with OP she had chief complaints of pain in head, giddiness, nausea and vomiting and pain in right hip region as she had fallen from backseat of an activa a scooter as a pillion rider. She had told that she had fracture in right femur(post operation)9 months back, had hip replacement and also had hesterectomy approximately 20 years back. She had a head injury/blunt trauma injury in parietal region at head (near centre of brain), suturing and NCCT head was done immediately as she also had a small extra-dual Haemorrhage along right Occipital Convexity with overlying undisplaced fracture of the occipital bone and mild diffuse age-related cerebral atrophy with Microvascular Ischaemic changes, which is related to head injury/brain related. In the admission form dated 31.07.2020 the complaint’s provisional diagnosis was of head injury and accordingly complainant/patient was referred to Neurosurgery department under the consultancy of Dr.B.K.Batish and Dr.A.K.Sharma and Dr.Manish Budhiraja working for OP. The said admission form was signed by son of the complainant. After taking the Radiology report in respect to NCCT head, proper treatment by the Neurosurgery department of OP was given to the complainant and she was also fully satisfied with the said treatment. As far as pain in thigh was concerned, the complainant was advised to get the thigh bone imaged through X-ray and meet the orthopedic doctor for his opinion. The attendants of the complainant got the X-ray of complainant done but did not wish to take the opinion of Orthopedic Doctor and were in a hurry to get the complainant discharged from the OP hospital. Thereafter, on the same day i.e. 01.08.2019 at 04:00 PM complainant’s condition was reviewed and it was found that she was having no fresh complaints and at 04:30 pm Neurosurgeon again advised Orthopedic consultation but the attendants of the complainant refused for Orthopedic consultancy and wanted discharge of the patient immediately. On the request of the complainants’ attendants including the son of the complainant, she was discharged on 01.08.2019 at 04:35 pm. The notes in this respect as maintained in the ordinary course, signed by Nurse Mrs. Parvinder Kaur and signed by Dr.Munish Budhiraja. After receiving and reviewing discharge summary with all investigation report and understanding the medication schedule and the follow-up procedure, complainant’s son also signed checklist-admission and discharge documents on 01.08.2019 at 08:20PM. Further, it is wrong and denied that OP have charged hefty fees i.e. It is submitted that it was only an estimate of expenses for an amount of Rs.34429/- which was given to the son of the complainant during the course of admission of complainant in the OP hospital. It is therefore, wrong and denied that the OP Hospital had prepared initial bill for a sum of Rs.34,429/- wherein a sum of Rs.15,000/- were charged for wound suturing-large. It is submitted and clarified here that complainant was given a discount of Rs.5,000/- in suturing procedure at his request and final bill of Rs.29,429/- was paid by the complainant without any protest.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.               To prove his case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavits Annexure R-A & R-B along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-7 and closed the evidence.

4.               We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant and OP and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed by the learned counsels for complainant as well as OP, carefully and minutely.

5.               Admittedly, the complainant was admitted in Ojas Hospital (OP) on 31.07.2019 with the problem of pain in head on account of moderate head injury and pain in right hip region and discharged on 01.08.2019 at the request of the complainant’s son and a sum of Rs.29,429/- was paid as per bill(Annexure C-10) by the complainant in lieu of the expenses incurred during her treatment in the Hospital. The deficiencies and unfair trade practice on the part of OP has been alleged on the following two counts:

i.       That as per initial bill amounting to Rs.34,429/-(Annexure C-8), a sum of Rs.15,000/- was charged for wound suturing large and on protest it was reduced to Rs.10,000/- by mentioning a wound suturing medium and thus another bill (AnnexureC-10) amounting to Rs.29,429/-was prepared which was whooping and hefty.

ii.      That as per X-ray report (Annexure C-3 & C-4), there was no fracture in her leg whereas fracture has been opined by Dr. Varun Aggrawal (Golden Hospital) vide his opinion dated 07.09.2021(Annexure C-2).

6.               Now coming to the first grievance as mentioned above pertaining to the preparation of initial bill amounting to Rs.34,429/-(Annexure C-8) and final bill of Rs.29429/-(Annexure C-10), it is found that the OP while raising the first bill amounting to Rs.34,429/-(Annexure C-8) had shown the nature of suturing as large but when the complainant’s son protested against the excessive charging an another bill (Annexure C-10) amounting to Rs.29,429/- was prepared showing the kind of suturing as medium and thus, a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been found to have been raised on account of large suturing but the same has been found to have been reduced to Rs.10,000/- by showing the suturing as medium. The team of the doctors, namely, Dr.B.K.Batish and Dr. A.K.Sharma and Dr. Manish Budhiraja was the same when the first bill (Annexure C-8) and final bill(Annexure C-10) were prepared.

7.               The OP has justified its action of reducing amount of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- stating that a discount of Rs.5,000/- was given on account of goodwill gesture and first bill was just an estimate.

8.               The contentions of the OP are not acceptable to us on several counts. Firstly, we find that there is a specific column of discount in the final bill(Annexure C-10) amounting to Rs.29,429/- but no discount has been shown in the said bill against the suturing. Secondly, the first bill(Annexure C-8) amounting to Rs.34,429/- was not just an estimate because an estimate is always prepared either prior to or at the time of admission of the patient but the said bill was prepared on 01.08.2019 showing the receipt of Rs.10,000/-. Undoubtedly, the first bill(Annexure C-8), which was clicked by the complainant’s son from his mobile, was prepared for demanding a sum of Rs.34,429/- from the complainant, in lieu of the treatment of the complainant, at the time of her discharge but after raising the protest by the complainant’s son over excessive charging, the second bill amounting to Rs.29,429/- was raised and thus, the first bill(Annexure C-8) was not just an estimated bill as alleged by the OP. Undisputedly, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the Hospital and service provider while giving a discount but in the present case, the preparation of two separate bills showing the different nature of the suturing at the same time cannot be termed as fair, correct and justified from any angle. Moreover, the preparation of two separate bills showing the different kind of suturing by the same team of doctors cannot be justified on any ground. Furthermore, the OP, admittedly, has not issued the first bill which in turn amounts to unfair trade practice on its part.

9.               Now, coming to the next grievance, we find that the complainant was admitted in the hospital complaining of head injury, hearing problem and pain in legs. The complainant has no grievances pertaining to the treatment relating to head injury and hearing problem but with regard to pain in legs it has been alleged that she was having severe pain in her legs and in this regard, X-ray was got conducted, according to which, she was informed that there was no fracture and ultimately, she was discharged. In this regard, it is found that complainant was discharged on her request and that she was not forced or pressurized to leave the hospital. Even, there is no report from the treating doctor of OP that there was no fracture. However, as per Dr.BabithaM, Radiologist, fracture was not reported whereas the fracture has been opined by Dr. Varun Aggarwal(Golden Hospital) vide his report/opinion(Annexure C-2). It is pertinent to mention here that evidentiary value is liable to be attached to said opinion (Annexure C-2) given by Dr.Varun Aggarwal (Golden Hospital) as the same is uncontroverted and unrubtted and moreover, there is no affidavit of Dr.BabithaM, Radiologist, in support of the contents contained in reports (Annexure C-3 & C-4).  The problem in the leg of the complainant cannot be denied because as per report (Annexure C-2) of Dr.Varun Aggarwal(Golden Hospital) it is clear that the complainant got the treatment from the said doctor after discharge from the OP hospital. Regarding the discharge of the complainant at her request, nothing wrong can be attributed to her because, admittedly, her treatment from Orthopedic Surgeon was possible as an out-door patient instead of in-door patient. In our opinion, the complainant and her relatives took the right decision in leaving the hospital so as to avoid further expenses on account of room charges, Doctor’s visit etc.

10.             On the other hand, the OP has been found to have failed while not advising to complainant and her relatives that the treatment of complainant is feasible as an out-door patient. The learned counsel for the OP has placed reliance on several judgments/case laws which are as follows:-

i.       Ramesh Kumar versus Dr. Akhil Saxena 2014(3) CPJ(NC).

ii.        C.P.Sreekumar versus S.Ramanujam 2009(7) SCC 130.

iii.       Kusum Sharma and others versus Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and others, 2010(3) SCC 480.

iv.       Sanjib Kumar Dey versus Chabbi Dey 2015(4) CPR(NC).

 

The law laid down in the aforementioned cases is not disputed but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case being distinguishable on facts and law.   

11.             From the above discussion we can, safely, conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty that, apart from lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP, it has adopted unfair trade practice while delivering services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.  

12.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs. 29,429/- to the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment.

 

3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/-as litigation charges.

13.             The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the awarded amount in Para No.12 shall carry an interest @9% per annum till its realization. The complainant also shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 28.01.2022

 

                  Dr.Sushma Garg    Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                      Member                    Member                           President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                Satpal

                                              President