LAWS(NCD)-2013-11-24

PUNITA JAIN Vs. PARAS HOSPITALS

Decided On November 01, 2013
Punita Jain Appellant
V/S
Paras Hospitals Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Punita Jain, the complainant, filed the present complaint before the District Forum, through Shri Tara Chand Jain, her grandfather, aged about 84 years, on 12.03.2009. She had pain in her breast and she was admitted in the Paras Hospital, OP No.1, at Gurgaon, on 25.08.2008. Her ECG was conducted. The Hospital informed her that approximate expenses for three days' for treatment of the patient, would be Rs.35,500/-. She deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/-. She was kept in ICU, Dormitory and subsequently in Non-ICU Dormitory, till her discharge, on 28.08.2008.

(2.) The grievance of the complainant is that she was never given the details of her treatment. However, it was a cardiology treatment and a highly escalated bill in the sum of Rs.1,61,475/-, which the complainant had to pay under coercion to the Hospital, on 28.08.2008. The complainant filed the above said complaint before the District Forum alleging that the hospital adopted unfair trade practice. She asked for compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of litigation in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. It is also alleged that Vipul MedCorp Private Limited, OP2, failed to provide the necessary information despite various letters written to it by the complainant and deprived the complainant from taking advantage of cashless facility, who was insured vide letter dated 28.08.2008.

(3.) The Opposite Parties contested this case. A perusal of record clearly goes to show that filing of this complaint is the abuse of process of law. The record reveals that the bills were settled and paid by Mr.Gulshan Jain, the father of the complainant. The order of the District Forum dated 13.09.2010, copy of which is placed on record, clearly goes to show that Sh.Gulshan Jain, father of Mrs. Punita Jain had earlier filed a complaint (No.203/2009, 12.03.2009) on the same facts and circumstances. The District Forum, vide order dated 13.09.2010, accepted the complaint, partly. Para 4 of the said order runs as follows :-