Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 102
Instituted on : 12.02.2021
Decided on : 04.05.2023
Randhir Singh age 72 years son of Sh. Parbhu resident of VPO Dighal, District Jhajjar.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
Rathi Eye Hospital, Sukhpura Chowk, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager/Owner.
…………...Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Naresh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Balram Sharma Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that wife of the complainant was suffering from cataract in right eye and as he got the treatment from the respondent hospital, where she was advised for surgery/operation of right eye. Complainant was assured by the respondent hospital that the medical bills of that hospital of opposite party will be got reimbursed from his employer as the complainant was a retired Govt. servant. The wife of complainant had undergone surgery in that hospital on 22.05.2020 and she was discharged on the same day. An amount of Rs.9500/- was charged by the respondent hospital and for further medicines advised by them some more amount was spent. Complainant had applied for reimbursement of the medical bills with the department and he was asked to get the bills verified from the respondent hospital. The complainant kept on approaching the respondent for verification of bills but the same was refused by the opposite party. Since the complainant is retired Govt. employee and legally entitled to get the reimbursement of the medical bills from his employer. But due to non verification of bills by the opposite party, the complainant has not received the reimbursement. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to verify the medical bills of the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that para no.2 of the complaint is admitted to the extent that the wife of complainant namely Bharto Devi was suffering from cataract in right eye and as such he got treatment from the respondent hospital. Each and everything about the charges/packages etc. was explained before the surgery/operation on date 22.05.2022 and it was also told to the complainant that the bills issued by the respondent may be reimbursed only if he opts for the Haryana Govt. Panal package(Previously package rate Rs.18500/-) But the complainant choose for the General/concessional package/scheme. Under which the total charges was Rs.10000/- only and after discount of Rs.500/- the respondent was charged Rs.9500/- only and the bill was issued for the same and the patient was discharged on the same day. After that on 19.11.2020 the complainant again came for the surgery/operation of cataract in left eye of his wife and this time he opted for the Haryana Govt. Panal Package/scheme(Now package rate Rs.29500/-). The respondent charged fixed package rate Rs.29500/- only as per the guidelines issued by the Govt. for the same. And now the complainant wants to get the bill dated 2.05.2020 of Rs.9500/- verified for reimbursement due to greed, which cannot be possible to verify the said bill under the Haryana Govt. Panal Package/scheme as the complainant opted for the General package instead of Haryana Govt. Package/scheme at that time. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on 14.11.2022. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 14.02.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant got eye operation of his wife and had paid Rs.9500/- for the same. Discharge copy is placed on record as Ex.C2. As per the complainant he applied for re-imbursement of the medical bill with the department and the department officials asked the complainant to get verified the medical bills from the respondent officials but the respondents refused for the same.
6. As per the documents placed on record by the complainant a bill cum receipt Ex.C3 is placed on record, as per which complainant had paid Rs.9500/- to the opposite arty for the eye operation of his wife. The opposite party had refused to verify the said bill on the ground that complainant want to get the bill dated 22.05.2020 of Rs.9500/- verified for reimbursement due to greed. In this regard it is observed that complainant is a Govt. employee and the Govt. has given the facility of reimbursement to its employees. Hence there is no question of any greed. If there would have any greed, the complainant would have make false bills and would have applied for reimbursement of Rs.29500/- from the Government as he has taken reimbursement of Rs.29500/- for the operation of second eye. The complainant is not making any illegal demand from the opposite party and it is the duty of the opposite party to verify the bills as the operation was done by the hospital of opposite party. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to verify the bill dated 22.05.2020 amounting to Rs.9500/- and also to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to verify the bill dated 22.05.2020 amounting to Rs.9500/- and to pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay Rs.50/- per week to the complainant from the date of decision till its realisation to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.05.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
