Final Order / Judgement
(Dated : 19 Apr. 2023)
PER SHRI.A.Z.KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Appellant Dr.Rajendra Chandak has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 6/9/2018 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal in Consumer Complaint No.CC/288/14 whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/complainant came to be partly allowed and the Appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental and physical torture and cost of proceeding of Rs.3000/-. (Appellants and Respondents shall hereinafter be referred to by their nomenclature in the original complaint)
2. Short facts leading to the filing of appeal may be narrated as under..
Complainant is the wife of deceased Mr.Suresh Rathod. Complainant has stated that her deceased husband had drawn a LIC Policy bearing No. 823676185 for a sum of Rs.55,000/-. Complainant has alleged that her husband suddenly suffered from serious illness and so he was earlier admitted in Medical College, but thereafter due to reference about reputation of the Hospital of Opponent No.2, he was admitted in the hospital of Opponent No.2 at Nagpur on 7/11/2012. Complainant has contended that during treatment, the husband of the complainant died on 14/12/2011. Complainant has alleged that after the death of her husband, though the body was handed over to them by the Opponent No.2, the complainant was not supplied all the necessary documents including medical reports and only one death certificate was given. Complainant had demanded all the necessary documents and all the medical reports but the Opponent No.2 Dr.Chandak refused to handover the same and so, the complainant returned back to Yavatmal as she had lost her husband and she was in grief. Complainant, thereafter, continued to pursue the matter for obtaining necessary documents, but whenever she went to the hospital Opponent No.2 Dr.Chandak, the Opponent No.2 demanded monetory consideration for handing over medical papers. However, ultimately the medical papers including medical reports came to be supplied to her. Complainant has contended that non supply of medical papers and medical reports amounts to deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice and so, she has filed the Consumer complaint.
3. After filing of complaint, due notice was issued to Opponent No.1 as well as Opponent No.2 Dr.Chandak. Opponent No.2 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version on record. However, during pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed an application for deletion of name of Opponent No.1 LIC and so the name of Opponent No.1 came to be deleted.
4. Opponent No.1, Dr.Chandak has categorically denied all the allegations levelled by the Complainant. It is admitted by the Opponent No.2 that the husband of the complainant was admitted in his Hospital on 7/12/2011 and the Opponent No.2 had provided treatment to him, but subsequently husband of the complainant succumbed to the injuries. Opponent No.2 has denied that he had not supplied the necessary medical papers as well as medical reports to the complainant. On the contrary, Opponent No.2 has taken a plea that after the death of the husband of the Complainant, the Opponent No.2 had supplied all the medical papers as well as necessary documents to the LIC and th LIC has also settled the claim of the Complainant and awarded an amount of Rs.51,374/- . Opponent No.2 has contended that at the time of death of the husband of the Complainant, an amount of Rs.39,000/- was outstanding and the same was not paid by the complainant even after receiving the body of her husband. Opponent No.2 had not committed any deficiency in service and there was no Unfair Trade Practice. As such the complaint filed by the Complainant was not tenable in law and deserved to be dismissed.
5. Learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal thereafter recorded the evidence led by both the parties and went through the documents and notes of arguments filed by both the parties. After appreciating the evidence, the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal partly allowed the complaint.
6. We have heard Shri.Kshirsagar, learned advocate for the Appellant and Adv. Gedam for the Respondent No.2. We have also carefully gone through the documents filed by the parties on record. It is not in dispute that Mr.Suresh Rathod, the husband of the Complainant was admitted in the hospital of Opponent No.2 Dr.Chandak on Central Avenue Road, Nagpur on 7/12/2011and, thereafter, he died on 14/12/2011. It is not in dispute that entire medical treatment had taken place in the hospital of the Opponent No.2. Complainant has come with a plea that at the time of death only the death certificate was supplied to her, but the medical papers and medical reports were not supplied immediately to her due to which the complainant could not supply the same documents to the LIC and there was huge delay in settling the claim of the complainant. Complainant has also come with a case that delayed supply of medical papers and reports amounts to deficiency in service and also Unfair Trade Practice.
7. If we go through the written version filed by the Opponent No.2 Dr.Chandak, he has contended that all the necessary medical papers as well as medical reports which were necessary for settling the claim were sent to the LIC and so there was no deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice. Opponent No.2 has also filed an application stating that the medical papers were not only received by the complainant, but thereafter they were also submitted to the LIC and on the basis of same, the insurance claim came to be settled by the LIC and an amount of Rs.51,374/- was also paid to the complainant. Shri.Kshirsagar, learned advocate for the Appellant contended that learned District Consumer Commission has not appreciated the fact that all the medical documents were supplied to the complainant and the copies of the same were also filed in the record of the District Consumr Commission.The learned advocate for the Respondent/complainant has not seriously disputed fact that the medical papers were supplied and the calim was also settled. However, it is vehemently submitted by the learned advocate for the Complainant that there was extreme delay in supplying the medical papers without any reason. It is submitted by learned advocate for the Complainant that after the death of the deceased husband on 14.11.2011, it was incumbent duty of the Appellant/ Opponent No.2 to immediately supply the medical papers as well as record of the hospital so that the complainant can make use of it for settling the insurance claim. It is contended on behalf of the Respondent that there was huge delay in supplying the medical papers and reports.
8. Admittedly, the deceased was admitted in the hospital of the Opponent No.2 on 7/12/2011 and he died during the treatment on 14/12/2011. It was the obligation of the Hospital to supply the papers atleast within a period of two to three weeks if not immediately so that the complainant could file necessary claim, but bare perusal of the documents on record shows that there was inordinate delay in supplying the medical papers and even the necessary forms were filled up on 30/11/2015 after huge delay. If we go through the judgement and order dated 6/9/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal, the leaned District Commission has also given finding that there was extreme delay in supplying the necessary medical papers and so has awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Shri.Kshirsagar, learned advocate for the Appellant has failed to point out any document which goes to show that the hospital authorities of Opponent No.2 had taken immediate steps to supply the medical papers to the complainant. Shri.Kshirsagar, learned advocate for the Appellant contended before us that Respondent/complainant did not come to the Hospital for seeking the medical papers. We are unable to accept these submissions in the absence of any documents on record and so, we feel that the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal has rightly awarded the compensation for the mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant and we do not see any reason to interfere with the said findings. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we pass the following order.
ORDER
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Appellant to bear his own cost as well as cost of the Respondent.
