MUKAT HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE Vs. DIBYENDU GHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 270 of 2013 Mukat Hospital and Heart Institute Vs. Mr. Dibyendu Ghara by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is a Government employee and was authorized to take treatment under CGHS rules from private hospital. OP/Petitioner was empanelled under the said rules for treatment. Complainant's wife Mrs. Anamika Ghara felt abdomen pain on 25.12.2011 and was admitted in OP's hospital on 26.12.2011 and after treatment was discharged on 29.12.2011. Single operation was carried out and OP asked complainant to pay Rs.69,000/- towards approximate expenses without providing copy of bill. Ordnance Cable Factory sent draft of Rs.69,000/- to OP. OP issued final bill in January 2012 and had shown more than one operation to cover up amount of Rs.69,000/-. It was further submitted that if one or more minor procedures form part of a major treatment procedure then the package charges would be permissible for major procedure and only 50% of charges for minor procedure as per rules. After sending final bill to Principal Controller of Accounts, he directed that an amount of Rs. 33,630/- be recovered from complainant on account of excess bill from the package amount. Complainant asked OP to refund the amount. As amount was not refunded, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant's wife was admitted in a private single room for she was not entitled as a result thereof actual charges were reduced by 15% as per entitlement of the ward of the patient. It was further submitted that bill was raised in accordance with the approved package rates and OP is not liable to refund any alleged excess payment and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.28,107/- with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.