1. The titled complainant Sh. Chanchal Singh has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite party Hospital (through its proprietor Dr. Jagroop Singh) seeking issuance of proper money-receipts in lieu of the fees paid for medical-treatment of his wife Ms. Tasveer Kaur or otherwise return/ refund Rs.87,000/- (with interest @ 18% PA) paid as the medical fees besides Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation, in the interest of justice. The complainant has alleged that the OP Hospital has been guilty of overcharging, non-transparency, unfair-trade practices, deficiency in service and also of unscrupulous exploitation during his wife's hospitalization there, for the medical treatment (Kidney Surgery) etc.

Brief Facts (Complainant's Version) of the Complaint:

2. The complainant's wife suffered lower abdomen pain and he took her to the OP Hospital for consultation/ check-up on 18.05.2020 and where she was diagnosed 'Kidney Stones' and was advised Microscopic Surgery involving an expenses of Rs.45,000/- that were duly paid by the complainant and got his patient-wife Tasveer Kaur admitted there on 19.05.2020. However, after 7 days of admission on 26.05.2020 Tasveer Kaur patient was subjected to traditional surgical-operation (instead of the advised microscopic one) for removal of kidney-stones sans the patient/ complainant consent. The complainant later did learn from the hospital-staff that Microscopic Facility was not available in the Hospital and it has been a simple traditional surgery and upon quizzing the OP Doctor he was told that his wife faced grave-risk and further needed to stay hospitalized for another 10 days and also asked the complainant to deposit Rs.32,000/- that were duly deposited but no proper bills/ receipts were issued by the OP Hospital.
3. The complainant has further alleged that the OP Hospital and its staff were not attending his post-operative patient-wife and so he got her discharged on 09.06.2020 and also paid another Rs.10,000/- demanded of him in the name of post-operative care and removal of stitches etc., but neither any bills nor any receipts were issued to him in lieu of the aggregate deposited fees of Rs.87,000/-. The matter was duly reported to the Senior Medical Officer, Gurdaspur but no follow-up action did ever succeed his complaint and the OP Hospital till the time of filing the present complaint has not issued any bills/ receipts that the complainant needs to claim reimbursement from PSPCL office being its retiree. As necessitated, the legal-notice (sans results) was also got served upon the OP hospital and finally the present complaint, seeking the above prayed reliefs, has been filed along with the mandatory affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and the herein listed documents, in evidence, for the  successful prosecution of complaint.   

Listed Documents (in evidence) by the complainant:

1. Ex.C1 – Copy of the patient's surgery scar;
2. Ex.C2 – Copy of the patient's photograph;
3. Ex.C3, Ex.C5 & Ex.C6 – Copies Clinical reports 18.05.2020, 03.06.2020 & 08.06.2020;
4. Ex.C4 – Copy of the OP Hospital's prescription for X-ray & USG etc.;
5. Ex.C7 – Copy of the complaint to the SMO, Gurdaspur;
6. Ex.C8 & Ex.C9 – Copy of the PPO by the PSPCL to the complainant;
7. Ex.C10 & Ex.C11 – Copies of Legal-Notice & Postal-Receipt;
8. Ex.C12 – Copy of Reply to the Legal-notice;
9. Rejoinder to the written statement.

4. The titled opposite party Hospital (the OP Hospital), in response to the commission’s summons appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply stating therein preliminary as well as the other (on merits) objections as:
5. The complainant has been preliminary alleged to have not come to the commission with clean hands as the present complaint has been filed just to harass the OP Hospital/ Doctor through unwanted litigation by concealing the material facts, therein.
6. The OP Hospital/ Doctor in the paragraph-wise reply on merits have admitted having diagnosed the patient Ms. Tasveer Kaur with kidney-stones on 19.05.2020 but deny having offered her microscopic surgery @ Rs.45,000/- rather she and her complainant husband were told of the non-availability of microscopic surgery at their center. She got herself admitted in the OP Hospital on 21.05.2020 and were subjected to preoperative/ surgery clinical and other tests/ examinations on 22.05.2020 and 23.05.2020 and two units of Blood were also given to the patient but she got herself discharged LAMA (Left Against Medical Advice) on 24.05.2020 refusing to get operated, here. The complainant again got her wife admitted in the OP Hospital on 26.05.2020 (3:00 PM) deposited Rs.17,000/- and told that they had visited SGRD Hospital but were refused microscopic-surgery there & thus they here come back here to get the kidney surgery/ medical treatment for removal of the kidney-stones.
7. Thus the patient was subjected to a satisfactory surgical-operation on 27.05.2020 by Dr.Surgeon Rajbir Singh Bajwa M.S., with full consent of the patient and her complainant husband and also the written consent of their daughter-in-law. However, the patient got herself again discharged LAMA (Left Against Medical Advice) on 29.05.2020 having paid a sum of Rs.10,200/- for medicines against the payable amount of Rs.26,000/- and have thus paid a total amount of Rs.44,200/- against duly issued/ acknowledged Receipts and a sum of Rs.16,000/- has been outstanding/ receivable from the complainant/ patient.
8. Presently, the complainant has been demanding receipts for Rs.87,000/- against the actual hospital-expenses of Rs.60,200/- (Rs.44,200/- paid & Rs.16,000/- still payable) as he wants to get excessive reimbursement from PSPCL, his past employer to which the OP cannot be an accomplice party. The present complaint has thus been filed by the complainant just to harass and pressurize the OP Hospital/ Doctor to assist him in his nefarious design and so the same is prayed to be dismissed with special costs, in the interest of justice.
9. The OP Hospital's written reply is duly supported/ accompanied by the proprietor/ doctor's affidavit Ex.OP1/A and the herein listed documents, in evidence, for a successful prosecution of the defense.

Listed Defense Documents (filed by the OP Hospital):

1. Ex.OP1 & Ex.OP2 – Copies of the patient's clinical results;
2. Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP27 – Copies of the patients' treatment bills and receipts etc.;
3. Ex.OP28 – Copy of the reply to the Legal Notice;
4. Ex.OP29 to Ex.OP31 – Copies of RFT & USG & IVP Reports;
5. Ex.OP32 to Ex.OP37 – Copies of the various clinical & other reports.

10. We have examined the available documents/ evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective litigants. We find that the present dispute has arisen on account of the two major issues I) Patient subjected to the usual surgical operation (open so-called traditional surgery) against the promised/ assured/ believed microscopic surgery   and, II) Non-Issuance of Bills/Receipts for Rs.87,000/- the allegedly deposited expense/fee.
11. We have minutely examined the versions/ documents produced in evidence by the complainant, the OP Hospital/ Doctor and other pathological Labs during the course of the present complaint proceedings and find that the herein complainant has failed to prove both of his allegations by way of producing some cogent evidence on the records of the present proceedings. There's not even an attempt to support his allegation that the OP has offered microscopic surgery @ Rs.45,000/- for his patient-wife and he confirmed of the surgical-operation from the hospital's staff shortly after its execution. It's not understood why the complainant couldn't and didn't confirm the same before the surgery. He has been a retired official of the one State Govt. Undertaking (PSPCL) and possessed sufficient exposure and experience to manage such important decisions on the medical-treatment of his ailing spouse. Further, there's no specific/ categorical logic/ evidence on record of the alleged fees being deposited by the complainant with whom (?), when (?) and why (?) sans bills/ receipts. On the other hand, the OP Hospital/ Doctor have satisfactorily proved their pleadings as duly supported by the so-produced bills and receipts etc, in evidence, on the records that are sufficient to honorably exonerate them of the unproved allegations put forth for different motives. Moreover, we observe that there's been a successful conduct of surgery upon the patient by the one well-qualified/ trained surgeon. The complainant instead of being grateful to his stars for the event-free recovery of his spouse has indulged in vicious litigation. We do feel sad for him.               
12. Finally, in the matter pertaining to the present complaint and in the light of the all above, we address the intentional 'misinformation' by the complainant as unfortunate but somehow are not inclined to penalize him in wider prospective of the situation and thus ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint with however no orders as to its costs.
13. The OP Hospital shall however be at liberty to recover his balance fees etc., from the complainant in accordance with the legal provisions of law and as per the procedure duly legislated/ established in law.
14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
15.  

                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                 President.

ANNOUNCED:                                 (B.S.Matharu)

JAN. 18, 2023.                                          Member.

YP.