MALHOTRA HEART INSTITUTE Vs. C.P. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 5.3.2007, passed by the District Forum, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 47,766 towards medical expenses incurred by respondent No. 1 against the claimed amount of Rs. 60,000 as the appellant has been held guilty for deficiency in service in not submitting the original bill of respondent No. 2, CGHS from whom respondent No. l was entitled for reimbursement.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. l being a Central Government employee was beneficiary of the CGHS. The appellant was on the panel of respondent No. 2 and therefore respondent No. l was entitled for receiving the treatment from the appellant. Admittedly late Sh. B.L. Gupta husband of the respondent No. l was treated at the appellant hospital from 23.12.2001 to 31.12.2001. During the treatment some medicines had been prescribed by the CMO Incharge of the appellant hospital on emergent basis the value of which was Rs. 60,000. Hence the respondent No. l requested the respondent No. 2 to include these bills for reimbursement. The original bills, cash memos and prescriptions were handed over personally by the respondent No. l relative Dr. S.P. Aggarwal to the Administrative Officer of the appellant on 15.1.2002. These papers were misplaced by the Office of the Administrative Officer of the appellant and he asked for some time to find out the same and process them. On 4.12.2002, the Public Relations Officer of appellant informed the respondent No. l that the papers had been located and the appellant had passed/recommended a claim of Rs. 47,766 out of Rs. 60,000 claimed by the respondent No l. He further advised the respondent No. l to write a letter to Dr. S. Bhattacharjee, Joint Director R and H, CGHS, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi with a request to pass the recommended bills. This letter was sent by the respondent No. l on 5.12.2002. However, the respondent No. l did not receive any reply to this letter and nor the reimbursement of the claim. On her personal visit to the office of CGHS she found that no such papers had been received by CGHS from appellant. The appellant and respondent No. 2 also failed to give particulars of despatch of the papers to the CGHS. Hence the respondents had apprehension that the appellant and respondent No. 2 had misplaced the paper and never sent them to CGHS. It has been further stated that she has also not been given by the appellant and respondent No. 2, the final bill which they claimed from CGHS on account of treatment of late Sh. B.L. Gupta. The respondent No. 1 claimed the sum of Rs. 60,000 and compensation, etc.

(3.) IN reply to the allegations the appellant averred that as per para 15 of Office Memo dated 7.9.2001 legal liability coming out of such services shall be dealt by the hospital and it shall be responsible alone.