1.                     In nutshell, the case of the complainants is that the Complainant No.1(Sourav Jain) is the son of Complainant No.2(Rajendra Prasad Jain).  Sourav suffered headache ailment on 17.7.15 and treatment started at Jeypore.  As there was no improvement, the Complainants went to Apex Hospital; Visakhapatnam on 23.7.2015 and Sourav received treatment there till 28.7.2015 and discharged in improved condition.  It is submitted that for higher investigation and treatment of his son, Rajendra contacted CMC, Vellore and sought online appointment on 24.5.2016 by paying Rs.650/- through his Credit Card.  The OP.1 supplied date of appointment as 09.8.16 vide patient No.499269G and name of the consultant as Dr. Vikram Mathews (Haematologist).  It is further submitted that the complainants reported to MRO of the CMC on 08.09.16 who in the appointment slip mentioned the name of the consultant as Dr. Audrin Lenin (OP.3) instead of Dr. Vikram Mathews (OP.2) and sent the complainants to Room No.7 to meet OP No.3. The MRO also directed their Path Lab through online to draw blood sample of the patient for test.  When the complainants asked the MRO to arrange meeting with Dr. Mathews as per appointment slip issued earlier, the MRO replied that Dr. Mathews is busy and cannot see the patient.  It is also further submitted that the complainants deposited Rs.4315/- for blood test on 08.08.16 i.e. one day before meeting the doctor but the Ops did not supply the blood test report stating that the said report is their property.  After meeting Dr. Audrin when the complainants enquired about Dr. Mathews from whom they had taken appointment, Dr. Lenin misbehaved them and without any treatment, issued a multiple slip directing the complainants to meet Dr. Mathews on 11.10.2016 and the patient was advised to go for a blood test costing Rs.11, 920/- before meeting the doctor.  The complainants submitted that they returned with empty hands from the Ops by incurring a sum of Rs.22, 572/-.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, they have filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.22, 572/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of appointment and to pay Rs.60, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainants.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainants but admitted that the complainants approached the hospital on 09.08.16 and they were advised to meet the junior doctor to record personal history of health condition of the patient.  It is contended that only after the proposed tests, the patient would be allowed to see the senior consultant who with least time on the basis of test results can come to a correct conclusion about future treatment.  It is further contended that in the line of above procedure the complainant was screened by Dr. Audrin who prescribed certain tests to be conducted and advised the patient to come on 11.10.16 to meet the senior consultant but the patient did not turn up.  Thus denying any fault on their part the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

3.                     The complainants as well as Ops have filed certain documents in support of their cases. Heard from the complainants and A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant No.2 on 24.5.2016 has deposited Rs.650/- through online to the CMC, Vellore seeking appointment of doctor and the Ops vide patient No.499269G fixed the date of appointment on 09.08.16 with Dr. Vikram Mathews (Haematologist).  It is seen that prior to the date of appointment, the complainants have approached the MRO and as per their advice, a blood test of the patient was done by the CMC on 08.08.2016 for Rs.4315/- vide Receipt No,8040240931, the copy of which is available on record.  The case of the complainants is that when they reported to MRO on 09.8.16, the MRO in the appointment slip mentioned the name of the Consultant as Dr. Audrin who is a junior doctor instead of Dr. Mathews to whom they had to meet.  On enquiry, the MRO stated that Dr. Mathews is busy and cannot see patient.  When they met Dr. Audrin and enquired about Dr. Mathews, the said doctor without any advice and prescribing any medicine issued a multiple slip mentioning the date as 11.10.16 to meet Dr. Mathews and recommended for another blood test.  According to the complainants, Dr. Audrin misbehaved them.

5.                     It is seen from the appointment slip that the MRO has given date of appointment on 09.8.16 to meet Dr. Mathews.  The said MRO recommended for blood test to which the complainants done on 08.08.16.  Further the MRO wrote the name of doctor as Audrin on the appointment slip and directed the complainant to meet the doctor at Room No.7.  The Ops stated in their counter that in an effort to help more patients seeking expert opinion from their senior consultants, it is their practice to have the patient seen by a junior doctor at the initial visit.

6.                     It is seen that Dr. Audrin issued a slip to the relevant tests.  Perused the prescription in which only Rs.11, 970/- has been mentioned.  The amount so mentioned indicates that this is a package for various tests of blood as no particular test item has been mentioned there.  It is also seen that the junior doctor has given 2 months time to the patient to meet Dr. Mathews.  Further the junior doctor might have gone through the blood test report made by them on 08.08.16 but unfortunately has not prescribed a single medicine.  The counter is totally silent about the blood report dt.08.08.16.  The said report has not been supplied to the patient in spite of requests as alleged.

7.                     It is seen from the multiple slip which bears no number and date that the junior doctor has given more than two months time to the patient to meet Dr. Mathews.  The doctor has seen the patient as well as blood report but neither prescribed a single medicine nor gave any advice to the patient.  We do not understand as to how a patient will believe a doctor and wait for more than two months to meet the senior consultant in the above circumstances.  From the personal history of the patient, the doctor might have known that the patient has come up all the way from Jeypore, Odisha by incurring huge amount with a hope that he will get some relief after consulting the doctor of his choice but Dr. Audrin without considering the plight of the patient has given more than two months time to meet Dr. Mathews.  Further blood test was to be done at CMC Path Lab and this was a matter of one day to test the blood and procure report.  Hence the doctor could have arranged the meeting of the patient with senior consultant within a day or two treating the distance covered by the patient and its sufferings.  Moreover, if the senior consultant would not see a patient of first visit, the same fact would have been mentioned in the appointment slip for the knowledge of the patient but the CMC did not do so.  After approaching the CMC authorities, the complainants could only know about the fact.  There is no such evidence is adduced by the Ops that there is usually a waiting list of 2 to 3 months to get an appointment of Sr. Consultant in this department as they averred.  So in our opinion, this is a sheer harassment to a patient by the CMC.   Further about the activities of the MRO and junior doctor, it can be said that the CMC has committed professional negligence towards its patient known as Sourav.

8.                     It is further stated by the complainants that the CMC did not provide the blood test report dt.08.08.16 in spite of request and kept them in dark.  We do not understand about the hidden agenda of the CMC for non supply of test report.  The services for which the CMC has been paid must be provided to the complainants without any plea.  This inaction of the Ops in our view amounts to deficiency in service.

9.                     Basing upon the evidence available and materials on record we come to the conclusion that the utter hope and belief of the complainants to meet Dr. Mathews could not be materialized and they were kept in dark by the CMC authorities all along for which the complainants returned with empty hands in spite of incurring huge amount.  This inaction of the Ops amounts to their professional negligence and deficiency in service although they have been duly paid.  Due to such negligence the complainants must have suffered some mental agony and physical harassment.  Hence they are entitled to get return of their money with suitable compensation.  It is seen that the complainants have given a detailed list of expenditure in their complaint petition amounting to Rs.22, 572/- and also prayed for Rs.60, 000/- towards compensation and costs.  The train and air ticket filed in this case shows that a third person has accompanied the complainants in the journey.  We are not inclined to levy the journey, lodging, boarding costs on the Ops of this third party.  Considering the pecuniary loss, mental agony and physical harassment of the complainants, we feel a sum of Rs.25, 000/- on all counts including compensation and cost in favour of the complainants will meet the ends of justice.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.25, 000/- to the complainants towards the loss suffered by them within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order.

(to dict.)