DATE OF FILING : 28.09.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 30.11.2016.
DATE OF ORDER : 06.03.2018.
Protap Kumar Nangal @ Langal,
son of late Batakrishna Langal
of village Kumarchak, P.O. Kumarchak,
P.S. Amta, District Howrah,
PIN 711401. ………..………….………………………….……..…… COMPLAINANT.
Upsom Nursing Home & Poly Clinic,
proprietor Mr. Provash Manna,
Uluberia Station Road ( opposite Hospital Gate )
Uluberia, Howrah,
PIN 711316. …..………………………………………………...……OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Abdul Kuddus.
Hon’ble Member : Shri Sajal Kanti Jana.
F I N A L O R D E R
The case of the complainant, in short, is that this complainant was admitted in o.p. nursing home, on 09.12.2015 for his treatment under Dr. G. Mustafa.
Complainant was admitted there for three days for his treatment and he was discharged on 11.12.2015. O.p., nursing home, claimed Rs. 4,800/- for his treatment whimsically and illegally. So this complainant made protest against the said claim as cost for his treatment by the o.p. Subsequently it was settled to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- as cost for treatment of the complainant and this complainant had to pay the said amount of Rs. 4,000/- as cost for his treatment under compulsion. The actual bill should be Rs. 3,600/- for the treatment of the complainant and complainant had to pay the said amount of Rs. 4,000/- to the o.p. nursing home under protest.
Notice was sent by complainant through advocate to the o.ps. for refund of Rs. 400/- to complainant. But no amount was refunded. So the complainant has filed this complaint and prays for making direction upon the o.p./ nursing home to pay back sum of Rs. 400/- which was illegally taken from the complainant. Complainant also has made further prayer for awarding Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and further Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation and other reliefs.
In this case o.p., nursing home, appeared but did not file any written version within the statutory period of 45 days. So this case has been heard ex parte against it / o.p.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
In this case, ld. advocate for the complainant made argument by reiterating the fact as stated in the written version as well as written argument. Heard ld. advocate for the complainant. Perused the materials on record. It appears that complainant was treated by o.p. nursing home as indoor patient. He was admitted there on 09.12.2015 under Dr. J. Mustafa as he was suffering from Typhoid and urine infection. Complainant was discharged from the nursing home on 11.12.2015 but this o.p. whimsically submitted exorbitant bill amounting to Rs. 4,800/- at first and thereafter this complainant made protest and amount of said bill was reduced to Rs. 4,000/- from Rs. 4,800/- and this complainant had to pay the said amount under protest. Actual cost of treatment should be Rs. 3,600/-.
It reveals from the receipt granted by the o.p., nursing home in favour of the complainant for his treatment that doctor’s fee and bed charges has been assessed for four days @ Rs. 900/- per day in total Rs. 3,600/-, ii) Residential Medical Officer ( R.M.O.) charge was assessed @ Rs. 200/- per day for four days i.e., Rs. 800/- in total and service charge @ Rs. 100/- for four days i.e., Rs. 400/- in total Rs. 4,800/-. It also reveals that Rs. 400/- was deducted and the nursing home / o.p. demanded Rs. 4,400/-. Thereafter they also deducted further Rs. 400/- from Rs. 4,400/-. So it proves that complainant had to pay Rs. 4,000/- for his treatment in the o.p. nursing home.
So we hold that complainant has been able to prove that he was admitted in o.p. nursing home for treatment for three days and Rs. 4,000/- has been paid to o.p. nursing home by complainant for his treatment.
We also find from discharge certificate that this complainant was admitted in the o.ps. nursing home since 09.12.2015 and he was discharged from there on 11.12.2015. So it proves that the complainant was admitted in o.p. / nursing home for three days but it reveals from bill that the assessment of doctor fees and bed charges were assessed for four days @ Rs. 900/- per day though the complainant was admitted there for three days then it comes to Rs. 3 X 900/- = Rs. 2,700/- in total. Similarly R.M.O. charges assessed for four days, it should be assessed for three days, i.e., it should be Rs. 3 X 200/- = Rs. 600/- and service should be calculated for three days then it comes to Rs. 3 X Rs. 100/- i.e. 300/-. So total cost / charges for treatment of complainant comes to Rs. 2,700/- plus Rs. 600/-, plus Rs. 300/- i.e., Rs. 3,600/- in total. So we hold that o.p., nursing home claimed excess charges for one day for the treatment of complainant illegally.
So we hold that complainant has been able to prove that o.p. nursing home received one day’s excess charges as cost of treatment for client i.e., Rs. 400/- in excess.
Moreover, it has been observed by the National Commission reported in 2017 ( 4 ) CPR page 590 ( NC ) interalia that non filing of written version amount to admission of allegation leveled in complaint.
In view of the above observation of the Hon’ble National Commission we find that non filing of written version by the o.p. amounts to admission of allegation leveled in the complaint.
Moreover, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the unchallenged contents of the petition of complaint. Accordingly we hold that complainant is entitled to refund Rs. 400/- paid as excess amount.
In view of above facts and circumstances we hold that complainant has been able to prove that the cost for treatment of the complainant according to his date of admission and date of discharge i.e., for three days should be assessed to the tune of Rs. 3,600/- in lieu of Rs. 4000/- for his treatment but this o.p., nursing home claimed Rs. 4,000/-. So we find that claiming of cost for treatment of four days despite admission of the complainant in nursing home for his treatment for three days amounts to unfair and deceptive trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. nursing home. So we hold that complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 400/- from the nursing home, o.p.
In this case complainant further claimed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
Considering the facts that complainant has filed this case for refund of Rs. 400/-. So this keeping in mind that small amount of the main claim of the complainant, we like to award Rs. 200/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as cost of litigation for ends of justice.
In the result, this complaint case succeeds in part.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 321 of 2016 ( HDF 321 of 2016 ) be and the same is hereby allowed ex parte with costs against o.p., nursing home.
The o.p., nursing home, is hereby directed to pay / refund Rs. 400/- to the complainant by 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment failing which it will carry simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of judgment.
Rs. 200/- is also awarded as compensation as well as litigation costs in favour of the complainant.
The o.p. is directed to pay amount awarded amount above by 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment failing the complainant is at liberty to realize the same with due course of law.
Let a plain copy of the judgment be given to the petitioner and o.ps. free of costs, as early as possible.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Abdul Kuddus )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
