BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

FA NO.986 OF 2012 AGAINST CC NO.115 OF 2008

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR

Between:

1)       The Medical Director-cum-

          Chief Medical Officer,

          Chalmeda Anand Rao Institute of Medical Sciences,

          Bommakal (village), Karimnagar district.

2)       Dr.(Mrs) Ezhilarsi,

          Chalmeda Anand Rao Institute of Medical Sciences,

          Bommakal (village), Karimnagar district.

…Appellants/Opposite parties

And

Pegada Shankaraiah,

S/o Rajesham, aged about 44 years,

Occ: Conductor, APSRTC, Godavarikhani Depot,

R/o 3-17, Main Street, Poosala village,

Sultanabad Mandal, Karimnagar district.

…Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants      :         Sri D.Devender Rao

Counsel for the Respondent    :         Sri G.Vijay Kumar

Coram                  :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla   …      President

and

Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member

Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of March

Two thousand Seventeen

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

          This is an appeal filed by the Opposite parties aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar dated 05.03.2012 made in CC No.115 of 2008 in allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to compensate the expenditure incurred on medicines, pathological tests, radiation and Chemotherapy, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs granting time of one month.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3)       The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is resident of Poosala village of Sultanabad mandal, Karimnagar district and he is the elder son of deceased viz., Pegada Rajesham.  In the month of February 2007, complainant got admitted his father in OP No.1 as an in-patient for throat disease vide IP No.07069532 and OP No.2 attended on him.  During the course of treatment, the OP No.2 conducted entire tests for a period of about three months to evaluate the nature of disease of the patient.  In the month of June, 2007 OP No.2 advised the Complainant to continue treatment of the patient in their hospital as an out-patient as their hospital is well equipped with oncological surgeries as well as having laboratory facility and also for the reason that their hospital is providing the benefit under Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.  OP No.2 also issued a certificate dated 30.07.2007 confirming to avail the benefit under CM Relief Fund.

4)       Believing the advises of the Opposite parties, the complainant trusted them and continued treatment of his father in the Ops hospital.  The Ops gave an estimation on 20.02.2008 for Rs.1,50,000/-.  The complainant had already incurred Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment of his father but there was no progress, instead, deterioration in the health condition of his father.  Thereby, the Ops discharged him from hospital prescribing some medicines.  Later, on 20.03.2008 his father died while being shifted to hospital of Ops at Gunturpalli (vg) of Karimnagar mandal with cancer ca epiglottis.  Thereafter, complainant made representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to make available the benefit of CM Relief fund but the same was rejected on the premise that the Ops hospital has no recognition to avail the same.  When the complainant approached Ops with a request to give concession in hospital expenses as he fell in debts, the same was rejected.

5)       Time and again, it was represented by the Ops that their hospital is provided with financial assistance under CMRF and due to the said promises, the complainant joined his father.  Though the Ops promised to refund the amount, they failed.  Hence, he got issued the notice on 12.04.2008 calling upon to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenses incurred by him for the treatment.  Neither the Ops complied with notice nor replied to the notice, instead, threatened the complainant with dire consequences.

6)       Complainant is working as Conductor in APSRTC at Godavarikhani.  He attended his father by taking leaves on loss of pay whenever he took his father for investigations.  After the death of his father, the Complainant made several visits to the hospital of Ops to settle the dispute.  Thereby, the complainant sustained further sum of Rs.30,000/- towards travelling charges and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, hence, claims Rs.50,000/- under loss of estate, mental agony and consortium.  Hence the complaint praying to direct the Ops to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenditure incurred for his father, Rs.1,50,000/- towards interest on the above sum and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate, mental agony and costs of the proceeding.

7)       On account of suppression of material information regarding his age at the time of effecting the assurance, the claim under the policy was repudiated and the same was communicated to the nominee by letter dated 27.07.2012.  Even the inquest panchanama and PME discloses the age of deceased as 16 years.  Hence, there is suppression of material information on the part of the deceased, as such, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

8)       Opposite parties filed their written version contending that they are unaware of the relationship of the complainant with deceased Pegada Rajesham.  In fact, the deceased was diagnosed elsewhere and receive treatment at Sushrutha Cancer Hospital.  As the disease was progressive and required emergency tracheotomy, he was admitted at their Institute.  As they were happy with the treatment, they continued further treatment and their timely services prolonged the survival of the deceased since death is certain for a patient who is at an advanced stage of cancer.  The discharge summary report of the deceased shows that the cancer disease is at an advanced stage and he had one episode of severe bleeding from mouth and nose.  At the time of discharge, the patient was in a stable condition.

9)       The Ops institution served and prescribed medicines for prolonging the survival of the deceased.  At the request of complainant’s family though the Ops institution is at the stage of getting recognition to avail the benefit under CMRF, and as the complainant’s family were known to the local MLA and would get the CMRF sanctioned, the Ops gave an estimation certificate on 20.02.2008 showing the approximate expenditure to be incurred.  Complainant also tried to avail the benefit of CMRF.  Even they refused to go to APSRTC Hospital at Hyderabad.  No assurance was given that the disease will be cured.  There is no negligence on their part in treating the deceased during the course of his stay and consultation with the Ops. 

10)     In fact, a patient by name B.Anil who was admitted in Ops hospital got the CM Relief fund to the tune of Rs.10,000/- through cheque No.075402 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad payable to the Director, CAIMS, Karimnagar by letter dated 01.05.2006.  Thus, it is evident that the patients admitted in their hospital can get the CM Relief Fund.  They never promised to refund the expenses incurred by complainant.  The notice issued by complainant is with ulterior motive to extract money from the Ops.  They are nothing to do with the loss occasioned to the complainant.  Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

11)     During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainant got filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 and the affidavit of one Pegada Shyam Sunder as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A25 and on behalf of the Opposite parties, got filed the evidence affidavit of one Dr.Ezhilarsi as RW1 and Ex.B1 to B7.

12)     The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.115/2008 by orders dated 05.03.2012, as stated, supra, at paragraph no.1.  

13)     Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellants/Opposite parties preferred this appeal contending that the forum below (a) went on to decide the matter on assumptions and presumptions without taking into consideration the material facts on record, misreading and misconstruing the estimation given by the appellants to the respondent for getting CMRF; (b) is not in consonance with the settled principles of law; (c) failed to consider the fact that the father of the respondent was terminally ill with cancer.  Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the forum below.

14)     The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?

15)     It is not in dispute that the father of the Respondent had been taken to the hospital of the Appellant for the purpose of treatment of cancer and paid the hospital expenses thereof.  The only dispute that remains is that the Appellants assured the Respondent that all the expenses that would be incurred will be reimbursed under the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.  To that effect, the Respondent placed his reliance on the certificate issued by the Appellant hospital under Ex.A3 and A4, which are not in denial.  The reason assigned for issuance of the said exhibits is that the Respondent family is known to local MLA, the same has been issued.  It was specifically mentioned in Ex.A3 that as the Appellants have started the Oncology department on full-fledged basis, they recommended for Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. 

16)     And only for the reason that the Appellants have issued the certificate to the Respondent so as to enable him to claim the benefit under CMRF, the respondent joined his father in the Appellants hospital.  Considering the said aspect, the forum below has allowed the complaint and passed the orders, which are impugned in this appeal.  The same cannot be found fault with, which clearly amounts to deficiency of service.  The forum below gave detailed findings in that regard.  Had really the hospital of the appellants is recognized, the respondent would have availed the benefit of expenditure under Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, which was denied to him by the government under Ex.A6.

17)     It was the specific case of the Respondent that the appellants have wrongly informed him that their hospital is covered under Chief Minister’s Relief Fund scheme and for that reason, he joined his father in the hospital of the Appellants.  Having issued the certificate under Ex.A3, the Appellants cannot make a turn round and contend that they are no way concerned with the same.  At the first instance itself, the appellants could have discarded to admit the patient and ought not to have issued the Ex.A3 certificate, which gave hopes to the Respondent that he could avail the benefit under CMRF scheme.  As such, we do not find any illegality or infirmities in the well-considered orders of the forum below in the above regard.  Accordingly, we answer the point framed for consideration at paragraph No.14 against the appellants and in favour of the Respondent.   

18)     In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.  Time for compliance : four weeks.

PRESIDENT                       MEMBER

Dated 22.03.2017

​