<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 430/2002<br /> Dated : 30.10.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> S. Kunjukrishnan, Kuzhujyothi, S.V.Puram, Sivagiri, Varkala.<br /> <br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> S.P. Fort Hospital, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> (By adv. K. Muralidharan Nair)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 06.04.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 19.09.2008, the Forum on 30.10.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER<br /> <br /> The complainant who is a freedom fighter pension holder has filed this complaint against the opposite party alleging that exorbitant amount has been collected by the opposite party for the treatment of the complainant and his wife in the opposite party's hospital and hence the complainant prays for redressal of his grievances.<br /> <br /> The opposite party has filed their detailed version and contended that since this complaint relates to pricing of services it is not maintainable and hence insisted for hearing the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue. <br /> <br /> The pleadings in the case are that the wife of the complainant who had fractured the left hand due to a fall was admitted in the opposite party's hospital, and a surgery for joining the bones were done for which a bill for Rs. 37493/- was issued. Moreover, the complainant was also admitted in the ICU of opposite party's hospital as he had chest pain while he was with his wife in the hospital. The complainant was admitted in ICU on 19.08.2002 at 9 p.m and was brought to his wife's room from the ICU on 20.08.2002 at 10 a.m. Though the medicines and equipments required for both of them were purchased by the complainant from outside, in addition to that they were given a bill for Rs. 41393/-(Rs. 3176/- for the complainant's wife and Rs. 1826/- for the complainant). This hospital charge according to the complainant is not at all justifiable and has filed this complaint for redressal of his grievance.<br /> <br /> The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that, the complainant is neither a consumer nor is the complaint a consumer dispute as the complaint relates to pricing of services and the whole issue of whether the rates were higher or not does not arise at all as such the dispute falls outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The learned counsel for the opposite party produced a ruling of the Hon'ble National Commission, Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Sheshrao, reported in 1(1998) CPJ 94(NC), wherein it has been held that the reasonableness of the cost or price charged for rendering a service is not a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act. In Dr. K.B. Kapoor Vs. Phool Dev Parshad, reported in III(1996) CPJ 477, produced by the opposite party, the Haryana State Commission has observed that “We hold that it is for the Doctor-a Medical Practitioner to fix his fee for various services and the patient has no legal right to determine as to whether the fee charged is reasonable or exorbitant, as the amount of fee charged by a Medical Practitioner depends on number of factors, i.e; his technical qualification, experience in the profession and the nature and quality of services rendered by him. So there cannot be a hard and fast yard-stick, as it differs from a Doctor to Doctor”. <br /> <br /> <br /> We have gone through the pleadings in the complaint. There is no allegation with regard to the quality of the service rendered or lack of proper service. The dispute is with regard to exorbitant amount charged for the service availed from the opposite party's hospital. As it is a known fact to all that, the fee charged by hospitals differ and vary depending on the standard of each hospital. The complainant has opted the opposite party's hospital on his own and he has no case that there was compulsion of any sort for seeking service from the opposite party itself. The complainant had the option of availing service of other Govt. hospitals etc. This complaint is a clear case of question of pricing and the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This being the settled position, we hereby hold that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy if any before appropriate court of law. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th October 2008.<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 430/2002<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 Series<br /> (a to t) - Original of bills issued by the opposite party. <br /> P2 - Photocopy of credit Bill No. 2025 dated 26.08.2002.<br /> P3(1) - Photocopy of certificate dated 19.09.2002.<br /> P3(2) - Photocopy of credit Bill No. 2011 dated 24.08.2002.<br /> P4 - Photocopy of treatment card of OP NO. 02 18284.<br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br />