Ex-P A R T E   O R D E R

PER SHRI. S.S.PATIL - HON’BLE  MEMBER :

1)        This is the complaint regarding levying more medical charges when the wife of the Complainant was admitted in the Opposite Party Hospital. 

The facts of this complaint as stated by the Complainant are that the Complainant admitted his wife in Opposite Party hospital on 09/02/2010 for abdominal surgery and she was discharged on 20/02/2010.  The Opposite Party charged Rs.1,23,486/- for the hospitalization vide two bills.  The Complainant annexed the xerox copies of the said bills.

2)                 As per these bills the Opposite Party collected surcharge @ 7.5% amounting to Rs.7,790/- (Rs.7,495 + Rs.295/-) and 22.5% affiliation charge of Rs.3,937/-.

3)        The Complainant had a correspondence with the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party explained to the Complainant that surcharges of 7.5% was charged to take care of inflation and fluctuation.  The affiliation charge of Dr. Trivedi @ 22.5% of his fees of Rs.17,500/- that was initially included in the bill but was deleted later.  It is Opposite Party’s contention that it was done at the request of the Complainant.  But is misleading.  It was done by the Opposite Party on its own violation.  The Complainant has annexed the letter of Opposite Party in this respect.

4)        It is the contention of the Complainant that the levy of surcharge is cheating and unfair trade practice.  The explanation of the Opposite Party that is to cover the inflation is not tenable.  It is also submitted by the Complainant that the Insurance Companies do not allow surcharges.  It is also explained by the Complainant that surcharge takes effect right from the day it revises charges every time as per schedule of charges furnished by Opposite Party when the so called inflation has been neutralized by revising the schedule.

5)        The Complainant has further submitted that the Opposite Party cannot collect affiliation charges payable by professionals.  As per hospital rules, no professional can charge less than fees fixed by Opposite Party but can charge more with the approval of Opposite Party & the patient.  Such being the case, a consultant waiving the fees does not arise and goes against the policy of Opposite Party. The Complainant has stated that, from the above explanation/contention it is clear that the Opposite Party charged for two professionals initially and then waived ones, subsequently as a novel method for collecting extra money in the name of affiliation charge.  Therefore, the surgery justified only one surgeon who charged Rs.35,000/- when the affiliation charge itself is collected in dubious manner. Collecting surcharge on it is further dubious.

6)        The Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to refund the surcharge and affiliation charges collected by the Opposite Party with interest @ 18% p.a. and it amounts to Rs.14,717.39, with overdue interest, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses.

7)        The complaint was admitted and a notice of the complaint was duly served on the Opposite Party.  Inspite of service of notice, Opposite Party did not remain present before this Forum.  Hence, an ex-parte order is passed against the Opposite Party vide Roznama dtd.19/10/2011. Later on the Opposite Party filed R/P before the Hon’ble State Commission (Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State) to set aside the ex-parte order passed by this Forum. However, the Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the R/P filed by the Opposite Party vide order dtd.17/10/2012.  Therefore, this matter was proceeded ex-parte and the Complainant filed his affidavit dtd.20/01/2012.  Stating that the Hospital bills are sent to the TPA and the TPA has replied that the bills cannot be returned.  The TPA furnished true copies of the said bills.  The Complainant thereafter filed 2nd affidavit dtd.17/01/2013, stating that he has submitted original documents issued by TPA.  Actually, the TPA had sent true copies of the original Hospital bills and not original documents.

8)        On 10/06/2011, the Ld.Advocate Shri. Vipul Shukla, for Opposite Party appeared before this Forum and filed written argument alongwith some documents.  However, as an ex-parte order has been passed against the Opposite Party, the written argument of the Opposite Party and documents submitted by the Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party are not considered.  In the affidavit of the Complainant, he has prayed to dispose of the complaint granting reliefs as prayed in the complaint.  Accordingly, for deciding this complaint, we perused the papers submitted by the Complainant and our findings are as follows –

            The wife of the Complainant was admitted in the Opposite Party Hospital on 09/02/2010 for abdominal surgery. The Opposite Party has issued two bills of Rs.1,23,486/- on 20/02/2010. Accordingly, the Complainant paid all the bills immediately without any protest.  However, from the correspondence attached by the Complainant i.e. letter of Opposite Party dtd.08/03/2010, it is seen that the Complainant has raised some queries in respect of the hospitalization of his wife.  It is pertinent that the Complainant has not annexed his fax letters dtd.24th and 25th  2010 to which the Opposite Party has given the reply dtd.08/03/2010.

9)        The only dispute raised in this compliant is regarding the payment of surcharge of Rs.7,495 + Rs.295/- = Rs.7790/- and affiliation fee of Rs.3,937/-.  The Complainant has annexed the letter of the Opposite Party dtd.08/03/201 himself.  This is a letter of the Opposite Party in reply to the fax letters of the Complainant dtd.24th & 25th 2010 which were not annexed to this complaint.  From this letter it is seen that the Opposite Party has replied to the queries raised by the Complainant.  In this letter, the Opposite Party has clarified that the Complainant had signed the admission form and as per this admission form, the Complainant was explained all the charges for the class in which his wife was seeking admission.  It is also clarified by the Opposite Party that every patient is issued with a yellow sheet which gives details of the admission rules and the charges were levied as per the Hospital rules.

10)      The Complainant has not produced the admission form or the copy of the form or the rules contained in the said form.  Even he has not produced the yellow sheet provided to his wife giving detail of the rules.  The Opposite Party has vehemently stated in this letter that the hospital charges were levied as per these rules of the hospital.  It has been further clarified in para 5 of this letter that, “as per the hospital Rules it has been mentioned that surcharge @ 7.5% will be levied on the total bill amount in Deluxe, A & B Class excluding medicines and materials.  These charges are fixed by the hospital management to cover the fluctuation and inflation.  The hospital do not revise its charges frequently.”

11)      In para 6 of the letter, the Opposite Party has clarified the affiliation fees.  It is stated that, “as per the hospital policy 22.5% was charged as affiliation fees.  It is collected from the doctors fees.  In this case Dr. Dilip Trivedi was Assistant Surgeon.  Hospital had billed Rs.17,500/- as 50% charges of the main Surgeon.  On the request of the Complainant Dr. Dilip Trivedi waived off his charges.  Therefore, 22.5% of Rs.17,500/- i.e. Rs.3,937/- were charged by the Opposite Party hospital as affiliation fees from Dr. Dilip Trivedi’s fees.”

12)      The Opposite Party Hospital has enclosed the copy of the admission form information leaflet about the charges alongwith this letter dtd.08/03/2010.  However, the Complainant has not produced these documents alongwith the complaint which indicates that the Complainant has suppressed the material document stating the schedule of charges from this Forum.

13)      The Opposite Party in its letter dtd.08/03/2010 vide para 7 has communicated to the Complainant that “Rs.1,500/- was erroneously charged for Dr. Manoj Mashru.  The same will be refunded with surcharge amount to you.”  The Complainant has not alleged in respect of this amount in the complaint. From this it is seen that the Opposite Party has rectified its mistake where it has charged excessively and explained the other charges where they were levied as per their rules and regulations.  This shows the bonafide of the Opposite Party.

 14)   From the said letter it is also clear that the Opposite Party Hospital has raised its bill as per their rules and regulations mentioned in the admission form which has been singed by the Complainant.  As such, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party as it raised the hospitalization bill as per rules mentioned in admission form signed by the Complainant consenting the rules and regulations framed by the Opposite Party Hospital before hospitalization of his wife. Further what is objectionable is that the Complainant has suppressed these documents from the Forum only to gain suitable reliefs in his favour.  This Forum does not have the jurisdiction to change the rules and regulations of the Hospital, nor it has the power to minimize their changes as it is beyond the scope of Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In view of these observations we do not find any merit in this complaint.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Hence, we pass the following order -

O R D E R

            1.    Complaint No.261/2011 is hereby dismissed for want of merit.

2.         There is no order as to cost.

3.    Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.