HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

       This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30-10-2017 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-III in CC/117/2016. In the said judgment Ld. DCDRF allowed the complaint case on contest, directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 42,000/- (Rupees forty two thousand) to the complainant within two months from the date of the order, to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) as compensation and litigation cost with default clause.

       Being aggrieved by such direction the OP/M/s. B.P.Poddar Hospital & Medical Research Ltd. preferred this appeal.

       Briefly stated, the case of the complaint was that the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) claimed that he being a consumer availed the service from 01-02-2016 to 05-02-2016 from the OP being, a private hospital, for consideration. The complainant further stated that on his enquiry he was given  instruction from “the patient service counter” of the OP that there was package treatment of maternity cases at rataes from Rs. 26,500 to Rs. 46,500/- inclusive all charges of OT, room rent, anesthesia, cost of medicine, use of OT, excluding the surgeons fees, cost of investigation and medicine used after delivery. The maximum package limit was applicable to complicated cases whereas the minimum limit of Rs. 26,500/- which  was meant for normal delivery cases. The complainant with understanding of the aforesaid hospital ‘package rate’ got his wife Lisa Sen Eshore admitted to the OP’s hospital on 01-02-2016 at about 12:15 P.M. as she was an expectant mother under the care of Dr. J. K. Basu and the wife of the complainant gave normal birth to a baby on the same date and was discharged from the hospital in the morning of 05-02-2016. At the time of making payment of the bill on 05-02-2016, the complainant found that the bill was not prepared in accordance with the ‘hospital package rate’ which was communicated to him before the admission of his wife at the hospital. The complainant took up the matter with patient service desk when he was informed for the first time that cashless facility given by the Insurance Company and the package treatment facility of the hospital cannot be availed of at the same time. The complainant was advised to select one facility only and gave the option in writing, addressing to the Hospital Authority, if option is exercised for availing the ‘hospital packaged treatment’ and giving up the cashless facility provided by the Health Insurance company. The complainant made his option clear by a letter to the authority of the hospital requesting him for cancelling the cashless facility given under the medical insurance scheme and demanding revision of the bill in accordance with the “package rate”. Therefore the complainant was given  instruction  that his request would be allowed by the Deputy Medical Superintendent of the hospital for which the complainant was asked to wait for an hour within which preparation of revised bill, as per packaged rate, was likely to be completed. When the complainant enquired of the progress of the revised bill after an hour, he was told that the packaged facility could not be allowed and the complainant had to pay the bill at higher rate of charges already prepared. As the persons in insurance desk and patient service desk could not give satisfied reply, the complainant had to pay the entire bill of Rs. 1,07,887/- (Rupees one lakh seven thousand eight hundred eighty seven). When the complainant demanded written reply from the hospital, no proper reply was given showing reason for rejection of the complainant’s claim. The complainant claimed that his patient was admitted to the hospital but without disclosing all the conditions for availing “packaged treatment” stating the condition of eligibility of the complainant under the mediclaim. The complainant claimed that the OP/Hospital by giving an understanding about the “package rate” prior to admission and charging at a higher rate subsequently at the time of discharge of the patient from the hospital, cheated the complainant by resorting to an ‘unfair trade practice’ and that prompted the complainant to take recourse of the DCDRF claiming refund of the amount which was illegally charged in excess of the package rate, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) towards compensation, Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) for causing mental agony by cheating and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards litigation cost along with consequential reliefs.

       The OP filed a written version to contest the complaint case and contended that the complaint case was not maintainable. Denying and disputing the allegation, as contained in the body of the petition of complaint the OP admitted that the wife of the complainant was admitted on 01-02-2016 under Dr. J. K. Basu for delivery and she was discharged on 05-02-2016 and the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,07,887/- (Rupees one lakh seven thousand eight hundred eighty seven). Denying and disputing the material allegations with regard to ‘deficiency of service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ as well as cheating, the OP claimed that the complainant sought for an imaginary quantum of compensation and ultimately dismissal of the complaint case was prayed for.

       The factual aspects of the matter with regard to treatment of the wife of the complainant at the OP/Hospital on and from 01-02-2016 to 05-02-2016 was categorically admitted by the OP. Ld. Counsel for the OP at the very outset of his argument drew our attention to the pages 74 to 77 of the file and pointed that the cashless facility for the treatment of the patient was opted for by the complainant himself. He pointed out with reference to entry in the column no. “ 8 Admission Consent Form” (at page 74 of the file) where it has been noted that “for all surgical operations/packages full advance deposit is mandatory”. This clause does not distinguish the cashless facility or the package facility rather it is clear that in all surgical operations/packages full advance deposit were mandatory. The complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) drew our attention to the application dated 05-02-2016 (page 22 of the file) and prayed for paying the medical bill under Hospital Package System. Such prayer was considered by the Authority whose endorsement in the document (page 23 of the file) speaks a volume which clearly pointed out that “the patient did not avail cashless facility please cancel authorization”. Such an endorsement in the document conclusively established that the complainant was pressurized to adopt the cashless facility and further he was compelled to pay more amount than the actual amount what was due from him at the time of discharge of the patient. Ld. Counsel for the appellant in course of hearing submitted with reference to the documents (pages 75 to 79 of the file) that the complainant/respondent put his signatures on the documents but from a perusal of the said document it appears to us that the complainant’s signatures were obtained against ‘tick marks’ put in the form which presupposes that such signatures were obtained by the Hospital Authority without properly explaining the same or without making him understand the consequence of the condition rather there are reasons to believe that his signatures were obtained in such a situation when he was in a perplexed condition of mind due to the sufferings of his wife and at the time when he was getting his wife admitted in the hospital for delivery. In such a condition, the Hospital Authority was in a position to dominate the will of the patient party. When the endorsement of the authority in the document (page 23 of the file) reveals that the patient did not avail “cashless facility” as indicated earlier, the Hospital Authority is estopped from denying the same for realization of more money from the complainant. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and on the strength of the reasons, as explained hereinabove, we are of the opinion that Ld. DCDRF did not commit any mistake in directing the appellant/OP to refund the extra amount to the tune of Rs. 42,000/- (Rupees forty two thousand) which was taken by the Hospital Authority in excess. However further taking into consideration the materials on record, we reduce the amount of compensation from  Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), to be paid by the OP/appellant to the complainant/respondent but such amount shall be paid to the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. The appeal is thus allowed in part and disposed of. Parties do bear their respective costs of Appeal.