Delhi

New Delhi

CC/589/2015

Surbhi Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rama Krishna Medical centre - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

 

         CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

              (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

 

Case No.CC/589/2015                                                                     Dated:

 In the matter of:-

Surbhi Gupta

R/o 3681, Maman Street,

Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006                                                                                                                                                                                                …..Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1.          Incharge Medical Centre,

Ramakrishna Mission Medical Centre,

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005.

 

2.            Secretary

Rama Krishna Mission Ashram

R.K. Ashram Marg, Paharganj

New Delhi-110001 .…… Opposite Parties

 

 

PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA

 

   ORDER                   

        Complainant has stated in the complaint that she underwent orthodontic (Braces for teeth) treatment at Rama Krishna free medical centre. The treatment being of long duration she deposited money over a period of time (Rs. 500/- and total instalments of Rs. 17,500/- and an amount of Rs. 7500/- shown due) as per the receipt filed. It is further stated that the doctor who initiated treatment was removed abruptly without any notice and arbitrary terms were imposed on her, to which she was neither a party nor signatory. It is alleged that no grievance or complaint against the doctor who initiated her treatment, but the new doctor appointed by management had namesake equal qualification but lacked  experience; so, his skills were not timetested. Further the doctor had no independent observations and asked to deposit money again as per the management instructions, so, she chose not to continue the treatment. It is prayed that she is entitled for the refund of treatment cost which remained incomplete due to deficiency and dereliction of service on the part of OP, compensation for delay and mental agony thereof.

The OPs were noticed, and the version/ written statement was filed denying all allegations. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable being a gross abuse of the process of law to harass the OP and extract the money. It is stated that OP- Ramakrishna Mission Ashram is functional since 1933 as charitable institution serving the mankind at a very nominal cost. The complainant visited to OP-1 on 18/06/2011 for her orthodontic treatment, when Dr. Anupam Adlakha was in service of OP-2, who worked with OP-1 till 09/08/2014. The said treatment has long drawn process and regular follow up of patient is indispensable for success. Long gapes in treatment may lead to reversal of corrections already achieved and as such seriously compromised the efficacy of treatment causing major waste of time, efforts and costly treatment material. The complainant visited till 09/11/2013 and thereafter stopped visiting OP-1 without completion of treatment. The last payment of treatment was made on 03/08/2013. As per the attendance sheet of the OP-1, the complainant last visited on 09/11/2013 and no further payment was made and an outstanding amount of Rs. 7500/- is still unpaid. The OP-1 made a telephonic call on 03/02/2014 as the complainant was not reporting for treatment. The phone was attending by mother of the complainant who categorically informed that she was getting treatment from some other centre and they would not clear the dues. Regarding change of doctor, it is stated that it is an internal matter of OP-1 and appointment and termination of services of their staff are the sole prerogative of the OP and the obligations of the OP-1 cannot be construed to include providing the services of particular doctor of the patient’s choice. The reasons for the dismissal of an employee are confidential and cannot be made public. The competence of the new doctor has been asserted and the allegations made by complainant are denied. Prayer to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost is made.

The complainant filed rejoinder, affirming the contents of complaint and alleged that the OP has not filed the documents showing that the patient was irregular nor any notice is attached. Further the OP has not placed the documents of treatment, treatment plan.  Further the OP failed to give proof that the Dr. Anupam Adlakha was on rolls of institution and proof to implicate him. Deficiency of service is alleged with identical prayer as made in the complaint. The complainant also filed evidence in affidavit, stating to have no grievance of complaint against the Dr. i.e. Anupam Adlakha, who initiated the treatment but the new doctor, who was lacking experience and skills.

The OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit affirming the text of the reply/version.  It is also stated that the OP-1 is a charitable institution running a free TB clinic and a separate medical centre i.e OP-2 in the same premises providing various medical services at a very modest cost is also being run.  Copies of the documents of the payment received, patient attendance register, letter dated 20/12/2011,19/08/2014 addressed to Dr. Anupam Adlakha have been filed by the OP. The letter dated 19/08/2014 is the letter of termination of the services of the said doctor.

Both the parties have addressed oral arguments, Dr. Anupam Adlakha appeared as AR of the complainant, a number of times in the proceedings and also addressed oral arguments on behalf of the complainant. It is argued that the OP failed to place on record the complete details of treatment and therefore has acted malafidly. The complainant has shown dissatisfaction with the treatment given by his successor doctor.  The complainant is entitled for the relief by refund of the entire amount paid with suitable compensation and interest thereon.

Per contra, it is argued on behalf of the OPs that Dr.  Anupam Adlakha, who initially treated the complainant, cannot appear on her behalf, more so, for the reason that there is no written authorization by the complainant to appear on her behalf. It is argued that in absence of such authorization, the arguments by him cannot be considered. It is also argued that there is no deficiency in service as alleged as there is not even a referral iota indicative of any reason of dissatisfaction in treatment as the complaint simply speaks of alleged removal of the doctor Adlakha arbitrarily. Further, there is no documents supporting any complication consequent upon the treatment given to the complainant and/or any document showing further treatment after discontinuance of treatment from the OPs. In nutshell, it is argued that complaint is devoid of merits, is frivolous and merits dismissal with exemplary cost.

We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments with relevant provisions of law. Even though there is no authorization by the complainant in favour of Dr. Anupam Adlakha, who has put in appearance in this case, however in the interest of justice, we have considered the arguments on behalf of complainant as addressed by him.

 The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant had some orthodontic treatment from the OP-2 and after her last visit on 09/11/2013, she did not visit for treatment.  Dr. Adlakha was terminated w.e.f. 09/08/2014 as per the letter dated 08/08/2014 sent by speed post on 19/08/2014 as per the letter filed by the OPs as RW-1/6.

 The present complaint has been filed on 03/09/2015. There is not even a whisper in the complaint about any deficiency in treatment causing any complication or otherwise attracting further treatment/ incurring expenses further except bald allegations. No document supporting the alleged deficiency in service/ treatment has been filed by the complainant.

We are therefore of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the sheer allegation of dismissal of Dr. Adlakha on 09/08/2014 does not constitute any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In view of above discussions, we dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 15/11/2018.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

            (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                               (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                           MEMBER