B.B.Mahesha,

S/o. Late Balakrishna Shetty,

Aged 35 years,

R/A. D.No.15/75,

Shivajoythipanna Street,

Beloor, Hassan District. …….. COMPLAINANT



(Advocate: Sri.N. Sukumar).



VERSUS



The Administrator,

Kasturba Medical College Hospital,

Near Ambedker Circle,

Jyothi, Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY



1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.

Complainant is the son of one deceased Balakrishna Shetty who availed medical service from the Opposite Party. It is submitted that his father was admitted to K.M.C. hospital as an inpatient on 7.6.2007 in general ward and treated by the doctors of the Opposite Party hospital and on 23.6.2007 the father of the Complainant was shifted to Intensive Care Unit and thereafter he died on 29.6.2007.

The main allegation of the Complainant is that, at the time of discharge from the hospital the Opposite Party demanded Rs.40,000/- as treatment charges and the same has been paid by cash and also asked the Complainant to give a blank cheque stating that the final bill yet to be drawn. It is submitted that without any alternative the Complainant’s brother-in-law one Sri.B.P. Nagaraj issued a blank cheque and written the date as 16.7.2007.

The Complainant submits that in total he has paid a sum of Rs.59,695/- including the amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is alleged that for Rs.19,695/- the Opposite Party has issued details but with regard to Rs.40,000/- and also for blank cheque obtained by the Opposite Party not explained/given detail. It is submitted that the Complainant issued a letter dated 13.7.2007 to provide the details regarding the treatment but the Opposite Party failed to do the same.

The another allegation of the Complainant is that on 1.6.2007 the Opposite Party has issued Manipal Arogya card to Balakrishna Shetty, inspite of that the Opposite Party has charged Rs.64,685/- without giving any benefit of Arogya card. Feeling aggrieved by the same the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,95,000/- being compensation towards the ill-treatment, mental agony etc. etc. and also prayed for cost of the proceedings.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version submitted that the above complaint is counterblast to the complaint filed by the Opposite Party against the Complainant before the JMFC, Mangalore for Rs.10,706/-.

It is admitted that Balakrishna Shetty was admitted at Opposite Party hospital with a pain in the right lower limb on 7.6.2007 and thereafter he has been diagnosed as cancer. Inspite of the best efforts the Opposite Party could not save the Balakrishna Shetty and on 29.6.2007 the father of the Complainant was expired.

It is submitted that the total bill amount came to a sum of Rs.64,706.36 out of which Rs.10,706/- was the balance and the Complainant issued a cheque and the same was dishonoured and thereafter the Opposite Party issued a legal notice and the cheque holder B.P. Nagaraj failed to comply the amount and filed a criminal case and contended that the Complainant not settled the hospital bill amount.

As far as Arogya card is concerned, the Opposite Party submitted that the validity period of the said card was from 1.7.2007 to 30.6.2008 hence the Complainant’s father was not eligible for any reimbursement and submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?



(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?


(iii) What order?



4. In support of the complaint, Mr.B.P.Nagaraj (CW1), General Power of Attorney Holder of the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C73 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Dr.Krishna Prasad (RW1), working as Associate Professor, Department of Medicine in Opposite Party hospital and one Smt.Anuradha V.Nayak (RW2), working as Team Member in the Opposite Party hospital filed counter affidavits and answered the interrogatories served on them. Ex R1 to R11 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure. The Complainant has produced notes of arguments.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Negative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons



5. Point No. (i) to (iii):

It is admitted that one Balakrishna Shetty who is the father of the Complainant was admitted to the Opposite Party hospital with a complaint of pain in the right lower limb on 7.6.2007. On examination it was found to be a cancer. On 23.6.2007 the patient developed sudden onset of chest pain and breathlessness at about 10.40 a.m. and the patient was shifted to ICU but despite of best efforts the patient died on 29.6.2007 due to respiratory failure.

Now the dispute is only with regard to the hospital bills issued by the Opposite Party and also the benefit available under Arogya Card issued by the Opposite Party hospital.

The main allegation of the Complainant is that, he had paid a total sum of Rs.59,695/- on 30.6.2007 apart from the above the Opposite Party has also taken a blank cheque from his brother-in-law Sri.B.P. Nagaraj on the pretext that final bill is yet to be drawn. It is alleged that for Rs.19,695/- the Opposite Party has given detail but with regard to Rs.40,000/- which is given by the Complainant in cash and also for blank cheque the Opposite Party has not provided any detail about the treatment charges and contended that the bill is not genuine bill. And further contended that on 1.6.2007 the Opposite Party had issued a Manipal Arogya card under which the Opposite Party promised that he will provide free and discount on treatment and medicine but the Opposite Party had charged the treatment at Rs.64,685/- without giving benefit of Arogya Card facility.

On the contrary, the Opposite Party hospital specifically contended that the total bill amount came to a sum of Rs.64,706.36 out of which Rs.10,706/- was the balance and the Complainant issued a cheque of one Mr.B.P.Nagaraj towards the balance amount and the said cheque was dishonoured and the amount is still due and criminal case also filed.

Now the point for consideration is that, whether the Complainant has paid the bill amount and the Opposite Party falsely claimed the bill amount as alleged by the Complainant? In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that the Complainant’s father admitted to the hospital on 7.6.2007 and died on 29.6.2007.

We find that the Ex R10 i.e., the detail bill of deceased Balakrishna Shetty produced by the Opposite Party shows that the Complainant’s father was admitted on 7.6.2007 in general ward and on 23.6.2007 he has taken to the ICU at 10.40 a.m. for emergency treatment he was there till 29.6.2007 and on the same day he expired and the total bill came out Rs.64,706.36. We have gone through the entire detailed bills produced by the Complainant as well as the Opposite Party, wherein it is admitted by both the parties that on 23.6.2007 the Complainant’s father admitted to the ICU at 10.40 a.m. then he was there till 29.6.2007 that means total seven days Balakrishna Shetty was in ICU but in the present case the Opposite Party hospital claimed eight days ICU charges.

And further we have perused the bill with regard to the general ward, the Complainant’s father was in general ward right from 7.6.2007 to 23.6.2007 upto 10.40 a.m. that comes to 16 days. But while charging the general ward rate the Opposite Party officials charged only for 15 days. Except the above, there is no other discrepancies found in the bill. Further it could be seen that at the time of final bill one Sri.B.P. Nagaraj who is the relative of the Complainant/ Balakrishna Shetty issued a cheque for Rs.10,706/- to the Opposite Party towards the discharge of the final bill.

No doubt, now the Complainant came up with a contention stating that the Opposite Party obtained a blank cheque which cannot be believed because the Ex C69 i.e., the letter written by the cheque holder Sri.B.P. Nagaraj never stated that he had issued a blank cheque or the Opposite Party had taken a blank cheque in spite of making full payment or without any final bill drawn by the Opposite Party hospital. Hence it cannot be believed that the Complainant is not aware of the details of the final bill amount. It is presumed that without knowing the final bill amount one cannot issue a cheque to the Opposite Party hospital.

However, on overall considering the case on hand Rs.900/- charged excess by the Opposite Party hospital but it appears that due to some clerical mistake instead of charging one day general ward they have considered ICU charges. However, the amount of Rs.10,700/ is already due towards the final bill amount and hence the question of ordering to refund the above amount does not arise in the present case.

The another allegation of the Complainant is that, the Opposite Party hospital not granted the benefit of the Manipal Arogya Card issued by them. As far as the benefit of the Manipal Arogya Card is concerned, the coverage of the Manipal Arogya Card starts from 1.7.2007 to 30.6.2008 but the Complainant’s father availed the facility between 7.6.2007 to 29.6.2007 which is not covered under the Manipal Arogya Card hence the question of availing the benefit does not arise in the present case.

On overall looking into the case on hand, it appears that the Complainant failed to pay the hospital bill and there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.



6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.