Multi Speciality Hospital,

A.P.K. Complex,                                          :         Opposite Party

P.O. Chokli

PIN : 670672

(Rep. by Adv. K. Vijayan)

O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `5,000 as compensation and cost.

          The case of the complainant is that he has availed ambulance service from the opposite party on 19.08.10 to admit his brother and thereafter on 28.10.10 to carrying the dead body of his brother to his residence at Kaviyoor and received `600 and `185 respectively for the vehicle bearing reg. No.KL-58/7255.  The ambulance was used only for the purpose of carrying the sick person and after the demise to carrying the dead body and no other facilities were availed by him.  But the opposite party has illegally extracted money for unlawful enrichment.  This illegal act of opposite parties caused untold agonies and grievance.  So he is entitled to get the above said amount.  So the complainant has caused to issue lawyer notice, but opposite party issued a reply stating frivolous allegation.  The opposite party will not pay the amount to the complainant without the interference of the Forum.  Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version denying the allegations in the complaint.  The opposite party had collected only minimum amount from the complainant as ambulance charge and it is `250 and an extra `100 when dead body is carried.  On 19.08.10, an amount of `250 was collected as ambulance charge for bringing the brother of the complainant to hospital and an amount of `250 and `100 being charged for disinfecting and cleaning the vehicle after carrying a dead body.  It is not excess.  `100 collected when a dead body is carried is always given to the driver who cleans and disinfects the vehicle as allowance, apart from the salary.  The amount collected by opposite party is less than the amount fixed for the same service by the other private hospitals and service providers at Thalassery.  The complaint is a false and vexatious one and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.         Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3.         Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 and B1.

          The complainant contended that the opposite party had extracted excess amount from the complainant as fare of  ambulance charge in two occasions.  In order to prove his case he has produced receipts dated 19.08.2010, 20.08.2010, copy of lawyer notice, reply notice, cash receipt dated 28.07.10, pharmacy bills etc.  In order to disprove the case opposite party also examined and produced intimation of death to Chokli Gramapanchayath.  Opposite party admits that they have received `600 being ambulance charge for two occasions ie to bring the patient to the hospital on 19.08.10 and thereafter to take the dead body to the residence on 21.08.10.  According to the opposite party the charge for ambulance is `250 and `100 being charged for disinfecting inside the ambulance when a dead body is carried and hence complainant has to pay `600 and opposite party has received only that much amount.  Eventhough the complainant contended that opposite party has charged excess amount he has not produced any documents to show that what is the actual charge the opposite party is entitled. Moreover he has not stated in anywhere what is the amount opposite party received in excess.  The opposite party has produced Ext.A5 cash receipt dated 28.07.2010 to show that one ambulance vehicle has charged only `175.   But this document was objected by the opposite party and the complainant has not taken any steps to prove this document.  So from the available evidence on record it is seen that the complainant has failed to establish his case.  So we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result complaint dismissed.  No cost.

          Dated this the 31^st day of July, 2012.

                       Sd/-                     Sd/-

                       President               Member          

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Receipt dated dated 19.08.2010.

A2.  Receipt dated 28.08.2010.

A3.  Lawyer notice dated 14.10.2010.

A4.  Reply notice dated 01.1.2010.

A5.  Cash receipt by Indira Gandhi Hospital.

A6.  Pharmacy bills (35 in number).

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.  Death report to Chokli Gramapanchayath.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant.

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1. Captain Kunhikannan

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT