DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.734/2008
1. Sardar Swarn Singh
S/o Late Sardar Gurbachan Singh
2. Smt. Manjeet Kaur
W/o Sh. Swarn Singh
through Sardar Swarn Singh
Both R/o 33/37, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi
….Complainants
Versus
1. Rockland Hospital
through its Vice Chairman
B-33-34, Qutub Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110016
2. Dr. K. K. Pandey
Rockland Hospital
B-33-34, Qutub Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110016
3. Dr. Srivastava
Rockland Hospital
through its Vice Chairman
B-33-34, Qutub Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110016 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 06.11.2008 Date of Order : 13.09.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
As per averments made in the amended complaint, the case of the complainants is that the OPs had made unnecessary /arbitrary and exorbitant bills and had conducted unnecessary tests which were not necessary and the reports were not provided to the complainants. The OPs also harassed, tortured and misbehaved with the patient (complainant No.2) and her family members for not fulfilling their illegal and unjustified demands. The complainant No.2 was having trouble in food pipe and as such she was taken to Kolmet Hospital & Medical Research Centre on 08.09.08. She was admitted in the hospital and started giving the initial treatment and advised for certain important tests. The Multi-Slice CT Scan of the Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis- Oral & I.V. Contrast (Non-Tonic) were got conducted from Dr. Doda’s Imaging Research Centre, and biopsy test was conducted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Endoscopy tests were conducted by the Kolmet Hospital. As per the reports of the tests cancer in food pipe was diagnosed and she was advised to follow up the G.I. Surgeon for further course of management for possible mitotic growth, lower third oesophagus. She was advised to take proper treatment and she was discharged from Kolmet Hospital on 09.09.08. On the instruction of the Kolmet Hospital the complainant No.1 took his wife to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 12.09.08 and met the specialist Dr. Adarsh Chowdhary, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. On the very same day, as per the instructions of Dr. Adarsh Chowhary further tests were conducted for verifying the aforesaid reports. The complainant No.2 was advised for surgery of Oesophage gaotecomy and feeding jeju mostomy. The complainant No.1 had asked about the expenses for the said surgery to be conducted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and the estimate given by Dr. Adarsh Chowdhary was for an amount Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- (economy room, having six beds including everything surgery, consultation, pharmacy, ICU and wards charges etc.). The complainant No.1 was not in a position to bear the expenses because of his financial condition and, therefore, he had consulted with his both sons-in-law. It was suggested by his sons-in-law to take the complainant No.2 to Rajeev Gandhi Cancer Institute as they knew Dr. K. K. Pandey who had earlier treated the mother of the sons-in-law of the complainant. It was informed by the hospital that Dr. Pandey was not working in the Rajeev Gandhi Cancer Hospital and he is working in Rockland Hospital. On 15.09.008 the complainant No.1 alongwith his both sons-in-law met Dr. K. K. Pandey after paying the charges of Rs.650/-. After seeing the reports of the complainant No.2 she was suggested surgery. They asked the expenses for surgery. Dr. K. K. Pandey told the approximate expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,75,000/-. The complainant No.1 had requested Dr. K. K. Pandey to reduce the expenses for the said surgery as Sir Ganga Ram Hospital was charging Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- for the said surgery. After making many requests, Dr. K. K. Pandey had agreed for conducting the surgery of the complainant No.2 between the expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- including everything like ICU charges, Ward Charges, Doctor Consultation, Doctor visits, pharmacy charges and other misc. expenses. As per the assurance of Dr. K. K. Pandey, the complainant No.2 was admitted in the OP Hospital on 15.09.08 for Ivor Lewis Surgery (Oesophage gaotectomy). As per the patient information sheet 90% of the estimate bill was required to be deposited in advance in case the patient was scheduled for surgery. The complainants were directed to deposit Rs.55,000/- in the hospital and the same was deposited by them. On 25.09.08 the OPs had given a bill of Rs.3 lcs to the complainant No.1. After seeing the said bill the complainant No.1 and his sons-in-law were shocked and surprised to see as to how the OPs could make such kind of exorbitant bill when Dr. K. K. Pandey had given the assurance that the OP No.1 hospital will not charge the expenses beyond Rs.1,25,000/- including everything. The complainant No.2 was provided a economy bed i.e. lower category in the hospital, despite this they were charging unnecessary and exorbitant bills which were beyond the capacity of the complainant No.1. It is submitted that on 29.09.08 the OPs had given a bill of Rs.3,87,488.81 to the complainants. The complainant No.1 alongwith his sons-in-law met Dr. K. K. Pandey and shown the bill raised by the OP No.1 hospital. Dr. K. K. Pandey suggested to meet either Dr. Srivastava or Dr. Malhotra. They tried to meet Dr. Malhotra but he instructed to meet with Dr. Srivastava. They met Dr. Srivastava. Dr. Srivastava had stated that “discharge wali din dekhege ki kya karna hai, jau yahan se, abhi samay nahi hai.” The complainant No.1 alongwith his sons-in-law never expected such kind of behaviour from OP No.3. They met Dr. K. K. Pandey and sought help to resolve their grievances. The complainant No.2 was to be discharged on 01.10.08. The OPs had given bill for an amount of Rs.3,97,649.80. It was assured by Dr. K. K. Pandey that the bill will not exceed Rs.1,25,000/-. They immediately contacted Dr. K. K. Pandey and he advised them to take the details of the bill from the hospital. When they saw the bill they found some unnecessary charges were levied by the OP No.1 hospital and some unnecessary tests were conducted by the OP No.1 hospital and made the arbitrary, unnecessary and exorbitant bill which was beyond the capacity of the complainants. They met Dr. Pankaj and Dr. Srivastava but they treated the complainant No.1 like a dog and rebuked him in unparliamentarily language. The complainant No.1 again met Dr. K. K. Pandey and requested him for help. The Dr. K. K. Pandey gave discount of Rs.70,000/- but the remaining bill was also beyond the capacity of complainant No.1. It is submitted that Dr. K. K. Pandey again advised the complainant No.1 and his sons-in-law to meet Vice-Chairman of OP No.1 hospital i.e. Dr. Malhotra. The complainant No.1 and his sons-in-law met with Dr. Malhotra and requested him to reduce the unnecessary, exorbitant and arbitrary charges but Dr. Malhotra did not listen to them and directed them either to deposit the amount mentioned in the bill or to face the consequences. Even Dr. Malhotra had called Dr. Srivastava to sort out the problems of the complainants, but Dr. Srivastava instead of sorting out the problems of the complainants, had also used filthy, abusive and unparliamentary language with the complainant No.1 and his sons- in-law and said “hamne kanglo ke liye hospital nahin khol rakha, jab tumahari okat nahi thi to is hospital me admission lene ki or operation karane ki kya jarurat thi, kahin sarkari hospital me jate.” The complainant No.1 somehow arranged an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposited the same with the OP No.1 on 01.10.2008 and requested the OPs staff to discharge the complainant No.2 as they were not having further money to deposit with the OP No.1 but the doctors and the staff of the OP No.1 hospital refused to discharge the complainant No.2 and even they had closed the door of the hospital with the help of the guards by confining the complainants in the hospital and said to the guards “ agar ye patient to bahar lejane ki koshish kare to inki pitai karma or police bula kar ke juthe case me fasa denna, taki baki patient to bhi sabak mil sake ki bina hospital ka paise chukaye koi bahar nahin ja sakta.” Even the hospital had also refused to give the wheel chair to the patient i.e. complainant No.2. It is stated that the complainant No.1 and his family members again met Dr. K. K. Pandey and Dr. Malhotra, requested them to discharge their patient and not to create such kind of un-tolerable scene as the patient is not in a position to tolerate such kind of scene as her condition was deteriorating in such bad atmosphere created by the OPs and its staff. It is submitted that the complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the OP No.1 beyond his capacity, Rs.1,55,000/- in cash and Rs.35,000/- from the medical card. Dr. Srivastava forced him to issue post dated cheques of remaining balance bill amount otherwise the complainant No.2 will not be discharged from the hospital. The complainants had no option expect to issue 6 post dated cheques for an amount of Rs.22890/- each in favour of OP No.1 hospital under due pressure and compulsion and only then the OPs discharged the complainant No.2. The OPs had given hand written discharge summary without the reports mentioned in the above bill. After that the complainant No.1 took the complainant No.2 to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Institute Rotray Cancer Hospital (AIIMS hospital). The slides provided were sent for review by the AIIMS and as per the report of the department of pathology “strained slides (BHE) sent for review as lower esophagectomy specimen” were of poor technical quality. The complainant No.1 and doctors of AIIMS hospital were also shocked to see that such kind of reputed hospitals are using poor technical quality and charging as 5 star hospital. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
“i. direct the respondents to refund the excess charges i.e. an amount of Rs.65,000/- to the complainants after declaring the arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and exorbitant bill as null and void.
ii. restrain the respondents not to present the six post dated cheques as mention above for encashment as the same were taken from the complainant under compulsion and force as they had threatened the complainants and their family members that they would not discharge their patient.
iii. further direct the respondents to return the aforesaid six cheques to the complainant no.1 immediately and not to misuse the same.
iv. direct the respondents to pay the compensation/damages to the complainants in respect of injuries suffered by the complainants as the respondents have not only given the physical and mental harassment/agony to the complainants and their family members but also led down the good image and reputation of the complainants.
v. direct the respondents to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges, traveling charges, misc. expenses and other expenses as the respondents have compelled the complainant to file the present complaint and take the legal assistance.
vi. fine the respondents for conducting unnecessary tests and for raising unnecessary bills.”
OPs in the written statement have inter-alia stated that the complainants have not approached this forum with clean hand and honest motive. They owed the OPs Rs.137640/- as the remaining hospitalization expenses which was availed by the complainants at their hospital. The total consideration of the agreement was Rs.327640/- out of which the complainant had paid Rs.1,90,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.137640/- is still due to pay complainant. The OPs out of humanity allowed the complainants to pay the amount in installments by 6 post dated cheques of Rs.22890/- each to be realized monthly though hospital policy/rules do not permit this but had been given to the complainants. It was clearly informed to the complainants vide patient information sheet before OPs accepted to take the treatment. There is no cause of action against the OP No.2 &3 as they were treating doctors and they are neither guilty of any medical negligence nor the present case is filed for the same. The treating doctors never gave the estimate of expenses bill. It is submitted that the cheques given by the complainant were dishonoured with remarks “stopped payment”. Hence, the complainants are guilty of serious misconduct and ulterior motives. It is submitted that the tests conducted were not out of consideration to make money but to find out exact ailment which the complainant No.2 was suffering from. Had the OPs not conducted the tests they would not have been able to treat and manage the disease properly and hence it is wrong that the complainant had not provided with the test reports. The act of getting discharge without making the payment of outstanding bills is against the provisions of section 52 and section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The OP No.2 is a renowned doctor and cannot give the estimate as he was not aware of the expenses of the charges of the hospitalization. The complainants expressed that they will deposit the money once the complainant No.2 was admitted. The OP No.2 performed the surgery on the complainant No.2 on 16.09.08. The urgency of the treatment/surgery can be gauged from the fact that on the very next day the Ivor Lewis surgery was performed which was done successfully. The complainants deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- on 21.09.08 and requested more time for making payment. On 23.09.08 the complainants deposited Rs.30,000/-. It is submitted that humanistic approach of the OPs had been misused by the complainants for not making the outstanding dues. The complainants have filed this complaint after receiving a notice of dishonour of cheques from the OP No.1. Dr. K. K. Pandey had pursued the case and final discount of Rs.70,000/- was given but the complainant No.1 was not satisfied and wanted further reduction. The complainant No.1 paid Rs.1 lac in cash and requested for installments which was accepted by the OPs as a special case keeping in view the financial condition of the complainants. When the first cheque was deposited by the OP No.1 the same was dishonored; accordingly a complaint U/s 138 NI Act was initiated in the competent court of law. OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainants have filed a rejoinder and have reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit as CW1 and affidavit of Shri Parvinder Singh Bhatia (son-in-law) as CW2. Complainant No.1 has also filed additional affidavit in evidence.
Right of OPs to file evidence was closed vide order dated 24.02.10 passed by our predecessors.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.
We have heard the complainant No.1 and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the complainant No.2 was admitted in the OP No.1 hospital on 15.09.08 for Ivor Lewis Surgery (Oesophage gaotectomy). The OPs gave a bill for an amount of Rs.387488.81. We mark the document as Annexure-A for the purpose of identification. The OPs have admitted that the complainants had paid Rs.1,90,000/- on various dates and issued post dated cheques to the OPs for an amount of Rs.22,890/- each to be realized monthly. When the OP No.1 deposited one cheque the complainant stopped the payment and the cheque was dishonoured. The OPs in their written statement have admitted that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been initiated against the complainants in the competent court of law. The complainants have not filed any papers wherein the OPs had assured that the total cost of the treatment (surgery) would be Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, we are not inclined to admit the said averment made on behalf of the complainants. The complainants had paid Rs.190000/- and the balance amount is still due to the complainants. As per the statement of the OPs the case is still pending before the appropriate court U/s 138 NI Act and hence the matter is sub-judice. No deficiency in service has been proved on behalf of the OPs.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 13.09.17.
