Delhi

StateCommission

CC/765/2016

MS. RINKI SINGHANIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FORTIS HEALTHCARE LTD. & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

KARAN NAGRATH

23 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

                                        (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                Date of Arguments: 23.09.16

Date of Decision:    30.09.16

 

Complaint No. 765/2016

 

In the matter of:

            Ms. Rinki Singhania

            W/o Mr. Alok Singhania

            R/o 104, New Rajdhani Enclave

            Delhi-110092.                                                           ........Complainant

 

                                      Versus

 

1. Fortis Healthcare Ltd.

Through its Managing/Wholetime Director/Director

Having its Regd. Office at

Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre

Okhla, New Delhi-110025.

 

2. Fortis Femme

Through its Principal Officer/Medical Superintendent

S-549, Greater Kailash-II

New Delhi-110048.

 

3. Dr. Tripat Chaudhary

Director, Obstretics & Gynaecology

Fortis La Femme

S-549, Greater Kailash-II

New Delhi-11048.                                              .....Respondents

 

 

CORAM

                                                                                               

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

 

•  

 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

JUDGEMENT

       The complaint filed at the stage of admission is liable to be rejected in limini for the simple reason that complainant availed services of OP for delivery conducted at OP 2 hospital on 13.03.16. She was admitted on the same date and gave birth to a child by normal delivery.  She paid Rs. 4,29,714/-  She was discharged on 16.03.16 and discharge summary stated that placenta has been completely removed.  She visited OP 3 on 21.03.16, 26.03.16 and 29.03.16 for follow up.  She lamented ‘ unendurable pain’ on each visit.  She took second opinion from Dr. Uma Sarin on 29.03.16 who revealed that even the stitches have not been completely closed.  She got ultrasound done on 03.04.16 and 05.04.16. The ultrasound conducted on 18.04.16 revealed that there was placental tissue in uterine cavity. The same was potential life threatening situation.  Hence this complaint for compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith reimbursement of Rs. 4,60,000/-

2.     The quantum of compensation claimed by the complainant is highly exaggerated.  It is settled law that consumer foras can check the exaggerated claim at the stage of admission itself otherwise the same may disturb the jurisdictional break-up set up by legislature. In this regard reliance can be placed on decision of National Commission in CC 135/11 titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. Goyal Eye decided on 30.03.12.

3.     Complainant file an additional affidavit to justify amount of compensation claimed but the same is equally vague and without any basis.

4.     It was held by National Commission in Surender Kumar Tyagi vs.Jagat Nursing Home IV (2010) CPJ 199 that compensation should be commensurate with loss and injuries suffered by complainant. The consumer foras are not meant to enrich the consumer at the hands of service providers by allowing unfair, unjust and excessive compensation.

 The complaint is rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

                                                                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

                                                                                                MEMBER(JUDICIAL)