C R JOSE Vs. MOTHER HOSPITAL P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with the relief granted by the CDRF, Thrissur in O. P. No.292/1998 (lower Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings to the appellants within one month from the date of passing of that order) this appeal has been preferred by the complainants/appellants.

(2.) Complainants approached the Forum below (2nd complainant is the wife of the 1st complainant) putting forth a case that the 2nd complainant was admitted to the opposite party hospital for undergoing an operation (Fibroid Uterus Laparoscopic Myomectomy) on 21.1.1998 and after operated upon she was discharged from the hospital on 24.1.1998. On the date of discharge (24.1.998) the opposite party received from the complainants by way of professional charge Rs.10,000/- evidenced by Ext. A3 and on the same day the opposite party also received Rs.15,500/- as professional fee evidenced by Ext. A5. It is also their case that opposite party hospital received from them Anaesthetist's fee of Rs.1440/- evidenced by Ext. A4 and also received from them Rs.1200/- as anaesthesia charge. According to the complainants by way of professional fee the opposite party collected Rs.15,000/- which they are not liable to pay and their case is that they are liable to pay professional fee of only Rs.10,000/-. Their case is also that Rs.1440/- received from them by the opposite party by way of Anaesthetist's fee is also not realisable from them on the ground that anaesthesia charge of Rs.1200/- has been collected from them evidenced by Ext. A4.

(3.) The contention of the opposite party raised in the written version filed by it resisting the claim is that Ex. A5 receipt is only a provisional receipt and the amount of Rs.1200/- covered by Ext. A4 was received from the complainants by the opposite party as anaesthesia charge i. e. , the charge for medicines and the instruments used by the Anaesthetist for administering anaesthesia. Rs.1440/- is the fee paid to anaesthetist. Opposite party contended that Rs.33,240/- was collected from the complainants by way of charges for conducting operation including professional fee on the 2nd complainant and there was deficiency in service on its part as alleged in the complaint.