DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2023.
Filed on: 15/11/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N
C.C. NO. 424/2021
COMPLAINANT
Ibrahim.A.B., S/o. Bava, Aayath House, Kodikuthimala, Asokapuram, Aluva 683101
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Charakas Anwar Memorial Hospital, Opp. Private Bus Stand, Aluva 683101.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant tested positive for COVID-19 and was admitted to opposite party’s hospital on 05-05-2021. He was discharged on 08-05-2021 at 6 pm. The hospital charged the complainant Rs. 25,809 for the last one and a half days of hospital expenses. The complainant comes from a very poor family and had no other option but to go to this hospital due to the unavailability of beds in government hospitals. The complainant alleges that he did not receive adequate care or medicine, and the hospital conditions were unsanitary with poor-quality food. The situation also caused mental stress. The complaint requests the recovery of Rs. 20,000 unfairly charged by the hospital and suggests deducting Rs. 600 as natural expenses for one and a half days from the hospital's bill to the complainant.
2) Notice
The commission sent the notice to the opposite party, and despite accepting the notice, the opposite party has not filed a version, consequently, they are set ex-parte.
3) Evidence
The complainant had produced 1 document before the commission.
Photo copy of the bill issued by the opposite party
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, the complainant tested positive for COVID-19 and was admitted to CHARAKA'S ANWAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL on 05-05-2021. Upon discharge on 08-05-2021, the hospital billed Rs. 25,809 for one and a half days of treatment. Due to the unavailability of beds in government hospitals, the complainant, facing financial constraints, had no choice but to select this hospital, where he alleges receiving inadequate care, unsanitary conditions, and substandard food, resulting in negative effects on his mental well-being. The complaint seeks a reimbursement of Rs. 20,000 as unjust charges and proposes deducting Rs. 600 for one and a half days from the total bill.
The complainant has not presented any evidence, written or oral, to substantiate the claim that the opposite party overcharged for medical expenses. Additionally, the complainant failed to submit any supporting affidavit as evidence. As a result, there is no documentation or testimony to validate the complaint's allegations against the opposite party.
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4 , this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent...” 20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. 5, held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under: - “28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”
The legal maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep.) is highly significant in consumer cases. It stresses the importance of being proactive and diligent in protecting one's rights and interests in legal matters. By actively safeguarding their rights, individuals are more likely to receive legal support compared to those who neglect their responsibilities. In consumer cases, this maxim emphasizes the need for consumers to be vigilant and attentive when facing potential legal issues, ensuring they protect their rights as buyers. However, it is essential to mention that in this specific case, the complainant did not submit an affidavit of evidence after filing the complaint.
After careful consideration, the above issues have been found to be unfavourable to the complainant. The case presented by the complainant are considered to be without merit. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st of July, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 424/2021
Order Date: 31/07/2023
