The above appeal is directed against the order dated.28.6.05 passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.A.5/04. The complaint in the aforesaid Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party claiming refund of the amount collected by the opposite party, hospital with compensation of Rs.25.000/-, on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The alleged case of deficiency of service   and unnecessary collection of amount by way of medical bill was denied by the opposite party. But the forum below on an appreciation of the evidence available on record accepted the case of the complainant to certain extent and thereby the opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1899/- which was collected unnecessarily. The opposite party was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.400/-. The opposite party was further directed to pay the aforesaid amount with interest. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite party.

2. Notice of this appeal was issued to the respondent/the complainant and he appeared through counsel of his choice.    Subsequently there was no representation for the respondent. So we heard the counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:-

1.     Whether the alleged case of deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party can be upheld?

2.      Is there  any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the forum below in OP.A.5/04?

4. Points 1 & 2:-

              There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant was admitted in the appellant’s (opposite party) hospital on 9.12.03 with a wound on the left shoulder of the complainant.    It is also admitted that the complainant sustained a hair thin fracture on the left arm with other mild injuries. The complainant was discharged from the opposite party   hospital on 10.12.03 for better treatment at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. There is also no dispute that the opposite party collected the total of Rs.4802.25/- by way of the hospital bills. It is the case of the complainant that no operation was conducted for the complainant,   But the opposite party collected a sum of Rs.650/- towards operation charge;   Rs.200/- towards operation theatre charge; Rs.400/- as anesthesia charge and other amounts by way of ward rent   Rs.40; doctor’s fee Rs.240; nursing care Rs.15; water and electricity Rs.10; I.P.registration fee Rs.20; medicines used in operation theatre Rs.1249; lab charges Rs.975; Pharmacy charge Rs.400; R.M.O consultation fee Rs.40/-. Thus the total of Rs.4239/- was collected by way of I.P. bill on 10.12.03. Over and above, the opposite party has also collected Rs.563.25/- by way of 3 pharmacy bills dated.10.12.03. The forum below came to the conclusion that the sum of Rs.650/- towards operation charge and Rs.1249/- towards the charges for medicines used in operation theatre were collected without rendering any service or using those medicines.   So, the forum below directed the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.1899/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

5. The copy of the treatment proceedings produced from the side of the opposite party would make it clear that no operation was performed for the complainant. A perusal of the testimony of RW1 Dr.Sanjay Nair attached to the opposite party   hospital would make it clear that no operation was conducted for the complainant,   But only some minor surgerical procedure were done for the complainant. So, there is no basis in collecting operation charges from the complainant.    Ext.A2   bill would make it clear that a sum of Rs.240/- was collected as Doctor’s fee and another sum of Rs.40/- was collected as R.M.O consulatation fee. Thus the total of Rs.280/- was collected by way of doctor’s fee for a treatment which lasted less than 24 hours. It is to be noted that the complainant was admitted on the    night of 9.12.03 and he was discharged from the hospital on 10.12.03 A.N.   RW1 admitted in his cross examination that no operation was conducted for the complainant. It is the case of the opposite party that after administering the initial doss of the anesthesia medicine. There was B.P shoot up   and so they abandoned the procedure. If that be so, there is no justification in releasing a sum of Rs.650/- by way of operation charge. It is also to be noted that operation theatre charge,   Anesthesia charge etc were collected from the complainant.

6. So the forum below can be justified in ordering refund of the aforesaid sum of Rs.650/- which was collected by the opposite party by way of operation charge. 

7. The opposite party has also collected a sum of Rs.1249/- towards the charge of medicines used in the operation theatre. But the case records produced would make it clear that the medicines given to the complainant were purchased from the pharmacy attached to the opposite party hospital. The pharmacy bills three in numbers amounting   to Rs.563.25/- was also paid by the complainant from his pocket.    If that be so, the case of the opposite party that medicines worth of Rs.1249/- were administered for the complainant from the operation theatre cannot be believed for a moment. The hospital record would show that the medicines administered are covered by the pharmacy bills three in number dated.10.12.03. Thus, the forum below is perfectly justified in ordering refund of the aforesaid sum of Rs.1249/- also. We do not find anything wrong with the aforesaid order directing the opposite party(appellant) to refund the total of Rs.1899/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 10.12.03.

8. The forum has also awarded compensation of Rs.3000/- for deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party. It is established in this case that the appellant/opposite party   hospital unnecessarily collected a sum of Rs.1899/- from the complainant. Thus, in   fact the opposite party cheated the complainant by unnecessarily collecting the said sum of Rs.1899/-. The material on record would make it clear that the sum of Rs.1899/- was collected by the opposite party hospital without rendering any service to the complainant and without administering any medicine as stated in Ext.A2 I.P. bill dt. 10.12.03. So, the aforesaid unauthorized action on the part of the opposite party   hospital can be treated as deficiency of service on their part. If that be so, the opposite party   hospital is to be fastened with the liability to pay compensation for the deficiency of service. The forum below awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation. We are of the view that the said compensation of Rs.3000/- is on the higher side. A sum of of Rs.1500/- can be treated as the just and reasonable compensation so the compensation of Rs.3000/- awarded by the forum below is reduced to Rs.1500/-. The cost of Rs.400/- is confirmed. We are of the view that the compensation amount of Rs.1500/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the impugned order (28.6.05). These points are answered accordingly.

     In the result the appeal is allowed partly thereby the impugned order dated.28.6.05 passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.A.5/04 is modified. The appellant/opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.Rs.1899/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 10.12.03 and also to pay compensation of Rs.1500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the impugned order passed by the forum below and also cost of Rs.400/-. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                              SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN   : JUDICIAL MEMBER