Orissa

Cuttak

CC/184/2021

Anil Kumar Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sriram Medicare - Opp.Party(s)

A K Bose & associated

22 May 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.184/2021

 

Anil Kumar Panda

S/O:Late Harish Chandra Panda,

At-G/148,Sector-7,CDA,

P.S:Markat Nagar,Cuttack,

Odisha-753014.                                                                 ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

Sriram Medicare Centre,

Near Jagannath Chhatravas,

Rehman Chhak,Jobra,Cuttack-753003.                .… Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     05.11.2021

Date of Order:    22.05.2023

 

For the complainants:          Mr. A.K.Bose,Advocate.

For the O.P.                  :          Dr. Ms. Besura Das,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

                                                            

             The case of the complainant in short is that he was admitted at Sriram Hospital (O.P) for his treatment at 12.37 p.m on 12.5.2021.  As per the report of S.C.B.Medical College & Hospital,Cuttack,  he was not affected by Covid-19 before admission in the hospital of O.P.  However, on 13.5.2021, it was detected that he was affected by Covid-19 positive.   The complainant had paid bill of Rs.1,02,740/- as per the demand made by O.P on different dates for his treatment. It is the further case of the complainant is that in the hospital, he remained for two days but the O.P had raised the bill for three days starting from 12.5.21 to 14.5.21.  The O.P had claimed Rs.30,000/- as ICU charges @ Rs.10,000/- per day,Rs.24,000/- towards Covid management charges @ Rs.8000/- per day, Rs.6000/- towards oxygen charges @ Rs.2000/- per day.  It is alleged by the complainant that although the O.P had charged for ICU, again had charged for oxygen and covid management by violating the Govt. guidelines.It is stated by the complainant that during hospitalisation no doctor had visited for physical examination and consultation but he was charged Rs.7500/- in total for the said purpose. So also it is stated by the complainant that although the medicine was not administered to him as well as pathological tests were not done but the O.P had charged Rs.20,000/- to that effect, which is illegal.  The final bill reveals that Rs.5000/- was given as discount to him but no such amount was refunded to him.  After recovery from the illness, the complainant detected such high billing of the O.P, which is also contrary to Govt. guidelines for treating the Covid-19 patients.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the O.P on 2.9.21 demanding refund of Rs.62,650/- towards the excess bill amount received by the O.P as well as Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation to him.  It is stated by the complainant that after receiving the legal notice, the O.P replied, which is not satisfactory and also that reply did not meet the points raised by him.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.P to pay Rs.87,650/- alongwith 12% interest per annum from the date of due till its realisation and any other order which deems just and proper alongwith cost.

             The complainant has filed copies of some documents in order to prove his case.

2.         The O.P has filed his written version controverting the allegation made by the complainant.  It is stated by the O.P that the complainant was admitted in the Nursing home in serious condition on 12.5.21 at about 12.30 P.M.  Hence, he was immediately admitted in the ICU and necessary medical treatment was extended to him depending on his health condition.  It is stated by the O.P that the complainant was extended treatment of multiple specialist/doctors in ICU.  When the complainant’s health condition improved, the complainant’s family members decided to discharge the complainant for shifting him to a Govt. Covid Care Centre, which was run free of cost.  In order to save the cost, the complainant was shifted on 15.5.21 at around 7.35 p.m.  The complainant’s family member had also given an undertaking to that effect at the time of discharge of the complainant.  The tariff and charges of the Hospital was clearly informed to the complainant when he was admitted in the hospital.  It is further stated by the O.P that there was no negligence on their part in treating the complainant.  The complainant was discharged at his own consent.  It is also stated by the O.P that discount of a sum of Rs.5000/- has already been given to the complainant and it is false to say that a sum of Rs.5000/- has not been received by him towards the discount.  Hence, the O.P has prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

             The O.P has also filed some documents in order to support his stand.

3.         This Commission vide its order dt.16.8.2022 had dismissed the case.  The complainant challenging the order had preferred F.A. No.232/2022 before the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission,Cuttack.  The Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission vide its order dt.13.10.2022 remanded the case to this Commission for denovo hearing.  Accordingly, the case is taken up.

4.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?

iii.        Whether the O.P had adopted unfair trade practice ?

iv.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issue no.ii& iii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii& iii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration here.

It is an admitted fact that the complainant was admitted in the Hospital of O.P on 12.5.2021 at about 12.30 p.m.  for his treatment.  It reveals from the documents (report dt.12.5.21 of S.C.B.Medical College & Hospital) filed by the O.P that the complainant was not detected covid positive on 12.5.21.  However, the documents filed by both sides reveals that the complainant was found Covid-19 positive on 13.5.2021.  As such he was treated as Covid-19 patient from 13.5.21.  The O.P has not disputed to the allegation of the complainant to the effect that he was charged with the extra cost for his treatment as a Covid-19 patient,violating the Govt. guidelines to that effect.  Both the parties have not filed the Govt. guidelines of the charges to be imposed by the treating hospital to the Covid-19 patients.  However, the complainant has filed Newspaper clipping of the daily, “The New Indian Express” dt.15.8.2020.  That clipping advertisement was made basing upon the Govt. guidelines which is not disputed by the O.P.  The said clipping reveals that the hospital can raise the bill for the Covid-19 patients in ICU without ventilator support as Rs.14,000/- to Rs.17,000/-, which includes Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/- for isolation bed and Rs.12,000/- towards the consumable comprising of medicines, PPE, investigation alongwith food, laundry and sanitizer. It reveals from the documents filed by either of the side that the complainant was not detected Covid-19 positive on 12.5.21, when he was admitted in the hospital of O.P.  Hence, charging for the covid-19 treatment for the said date is unwarranted.  The complainant was detected Covid-19 positive only on 13.5.21.  Hence, the O.P was required to raise the bill for two days i.e. 13.5.21 and 14.5.21 for treating the complainant as Covid patient.  The O.P had charged Rs.8000/- per day for Covid management charges.  It is not clear on what basis/head, they had charged such huge amount, as they had charged Rs.10,000/- towards the ICU charges, Rs.2000/- towards oxygen charges.  Be that as it may, the State Govt. had given guidelines for charging fees to the covid patients.  On 12.5.2021, the complainant was not affected by Covid-19.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.8,000/-, for the said date, which was realised from him towards the Covid management charges.  As regards to the billing amount for dt.13.5.2021 and dt.14.5.2021 is concerned, it was to be calculated as per the guidelines of the State Govt.and the O.P was entitled to get Rs.17,000/- if the highest side charge is taken into consideration, which include isolation bed charges, medicines, PPE, investigation alongwith food, laundry and sanitizer.  Hence, the bill raised by the O.P was a defective one.  The complainant was liable to pay Rs.34,000/- for two days @ Rs.17,000/- per day alongwith Radiology charges of Rs.4,900/-, if conducted on 12.5.21, consultation charges for two days.  The bill furnished by the O.P is not clear and specific as there is no mention about which medicines were administered and which pathological tests were conducted on which date.  So also, the O.P cannot charge such amount for the treatment of the complainant on dt.12.5.21 and dt.13.5.21 as it is contrary to Govt. guideline.  The allegation of the complainant to the effect that he had not received the discount amount of Rs.5000/- has no basis.  So also the allegation of the complainant to the effect that he was treated for two days only is contrary to the stipulated guidelines of the O.P. Hence, that plea cannot be accepted.  He was treated for three days by the O.P and was discharged on 14.5.21, but not on 15.5.21, as alleged by the O.P.  As the O.P had recovered the higher amount from the complainant at the time of pandemic Covid-19 situation, the complainant must have sustained mental and physical harassment and by doing so, the O.P had committed deficiency in service as well as had adopted unfair trade practice. 

Issues no.i & iv.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable and he is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him but of course to some extent.  The O.P is required to refund Rs.8000/- charged towards the Covid management charges to the complainant as he had charged such amount without any basis on the bill dt.12.5.21.  The O.P is also required to refund the billing amount charged towards the medicine administered and pathology test conducted on dt.13.5.21 and 14.5.21.  Hence, the O.P is required to prepare a revised bill and refund the excess amount to the complainant.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.P.  The O.P is thus directed to refund the excess amount as per the Revised Bill as stipulated above alongwith 12% interest from 14.5.21 till the same is quantified.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards  compensation for his mental agony as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation cost.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                                            

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                             Member

                                                                                                                          Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President