DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Thursday the 16th day of March 2023
CC No. 149/2014
Complainant
Hussain C,
C.K House,
Ally (P.O), Mukkam,
Kozhikode-673 602.
(By Adv. Sri. Anand Kumar V K)
Opposite Party
The Secretary,
Kozhikode District Co-Operative Hospital,
Eranhipalam,
Kozhikode 673 006.
(By Adv.Smt. Hema Chandran)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 04-02-2014 the complainant was admitted in the Kozhikode District Co-operative Hospital for implant removal surgery on his left leg and undergone surgery and was discharged on 05-02-2014. Though before the surgery, he had sought the service of Dr.C.K.N Panicker, the hospital authorities informed him that his service could not be available as implant removal was a minor surgery and that Dr. Suhanesh Haridas would carry out the implant removal surgery.
3. However, in the discharge bill an amount of Rs.300/- and another Rs.3,000/- was wrongly imposed on the complainant as fee to Dr. C.K.N Panicker. When contacted the Assistant Secretary of the hospital, he refused to refund the amount. Hence the complaint for the refund of the amount Rs.3,300/- along with incidental expenses.
4. The opposite party has entered appearance and filed written version denying all the allegations and claims made in the complaint. It is admitted that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party hospital on 04-02-2014 for implant removal surgery on his left leg and undergone the said surgery and discharged on 05-02-2014. But the averment that prior to the surgery, the complainant had sought the service of Dr.C.K.N Panicker and that he was told that implant removal was a minor surgery and that service of Dr. C.K.N Panicker was not made available to him etc are not correct and hence denied. In fact, the complainant had undergone implant removal surgery in ortho department unit-1 headed by Dr. C.K.N Panicker. All surgeries in the said unit-1 are conducted either directly by Dr. C.K.N Panicker or under his direct supervision, guidance and instruction. Two orthopaedic surgeons are working in ortho unit -1 under the Unit Head Dr.C.K.N Panicker. Dr. Suhanesh is an assistant Orthopaedic surgeon under Dr. C.K.N Panicker. The doctor’s charges for implant removal surgery was Rs.5,000/- during the period. But in the case of the complainant, the hospital charged only nominal doctor’s fee even though both the doctors attended the surgery. Prior to the conduct of the surgery, there was discussion between Dr. Suhanesh and Dr. C.K.N Panicker and both of them were involved in the surgery. While issuing the bill, the routine procedure of naming the Unit Head and the subordinate doctor and splitting up of doctor’s charges for operation in the name of the unit head and his assistant has been followed in the case of the complainant as well. It is not correct that the service of Dr.C.K.N Panicker was not made available to the complainant for the implant removal surgery. The doctor’s charges was informed to the complainant prior to his admission. He volunteered to pay the amount and to the undergo surgery. Dr. C.K.N Panicker’s service was made available at the time of operation. The surgery was conducted and implant removed to the full satisfaction of the complainant and he paid the bill without any objection. He paid the bill voluntarily. The complainant has no case that the charges levied for the surgery is exorbitant. There has been no deficiency of service on the part of the hospital authorities and the doctors. The complainant has no cause of action. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). whether there was any unfair trade practice on the
part of the opposite party, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
6. PW 1 was examined and Exts A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the complainant. RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.
7. Both sides filed brief argument notes.
8. Point No.1 : The complainant has approached this Commission alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The specific allegation is that a sum of Rs.3,300/- was charged in the discharge bill as professional charges of a doctor who did not attend him in connection with the implant removal surgery on his left leg. The complainant has sought for refund of Rs.3,300/- along with incidental expenses from the opposite party.
9. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW 1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the reference card and Ext A2 is the discharge bill issued from the Kozhikode district Co-operative hospital.
10. The opposite party has denied any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service in the treatment rendered or in collecting the professional charges of the doctors. Dr. Suhanesh Haridas, an orthopaedic surgeon attached to the opposite party hospital was examined as RW1 and the Public Relations Officer, who was formerly the internal auditor and record keeper, was examined as RW2. Both of them have deposed supporting and reiterating the contentions in the written version. Ext B1 is the copy of inpatient record relating to the complainant.
11. The arguments of the complainant are that he was never examined or treated by Dr. C.K.N Panicker in connection with the implant removal surgery and hence imposing of extra expenses of Rs.3,300/- in the name of Dr. C.K.N Panicker amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and that Ext B1 is a concocted document created by the opposite party after cross examination of RW1 to suit their case. Per contra, the arguments of the opposite party is that Dr. C.K.N Panicker is the Head of ortho unit 1 where the complainant was treated and the practice followed in the hospital was to write the name of the Department Head at the top while issuing reference card and the said procedure was followed in the case of the complainant as well as can be seen from Ext A1 and that Rs.100/- was the visiting fee of the doctors for visiting the patient and examining him in the ortho unit. The name of the Unit Head will be mentioned in the hospital bill as against visiting fee, even though the examination might have been conducted by any other available doctors of the units. Dr. C.K.N Panicker was personally present in the theatre at the time of surgery and RW1 performed the surgery under his direct supervision, guidance and assistance. There was prior discussion also. The argument is that the surgery charge was apportioned between the department head and RW 1 and as long as the complainant is not disputing the rate of charges fixed by the opposite party for their service, there is no scope for any grievance for the complainant.
12. Admittedly, the complainant was admitted in the opposite party hospital on 04-02-2014 for implant removal surgery on his left leg and the surgery was done and he was discharged on 05-02-2014. Ext A2 bill for Rs.15,358/- was issued to the complainant and it was paid. The complainant is not disputing the rate of charges fixed by the opposite party. But his only grievance is that Dr. C.K.N Panicker was never involved in his treatment and had never seen him in the opposite party hospital at any point of time, whereas Rs.3,300/- was collected from him in the name of Dr. CKN Panicker. Ext A2 shows that O & P charge for Dr. C.K.N Panicker was Rs. 3,000/- and VC-fee –Dr. C.K.N Panicker was Rs.100/-. Admittedly, Dr. C.K.N Panicker is the head of ortho department unit 1 of the opposite party hospital. The complainant underwent the implant surgery in ortho department unit 1. The surgery was done by RW1 Dr. Suhanesh Haridas, an orthopaedic surgeon under Dr. C.K.N Panicker. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at the evidence tendered by RW1. RW1 has asserted and reiterated that all the surgeries in ortho unit 1 are performed either directly by Dr. C.K.N Panicker or under his supervision, guidance and assistance by his subordinate surgeons. RW1 has asserted that Dr. C.K.N Panicker was personally present in the theatre at the time of the surgery and RW1 performed the surgery under his direct supervision, guidance and assistance and that prior to the surgery, there was discussion between them. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve RW 1 in this regard. Even though RW1 was cross examined at length, nothing has been brought out to discredit his version. RW2 has also given evidence in tune with RW1. In Ext B1 also there is reference to Dr. C.K.N Panicker and revels his involvement in the surgery and treatment. In the operation record sheet in Ext B1, the name of Dr. C.K.N Panicker and Dr. suhanesh are mentioned. That being so, the levying of charges for the service of Dr. C.K.N Panicker cannot be termed as an unfair trade practice. The doctor’s charges was Rs. 5,000/- and it was apportioned between RW1 and Dr. C.K.N Panicker at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the complainant is not disputing the charges fixed by the opposite party and this has been reiterated by PW 1 in his affidavit. So there is no scope for any grievance in this regard.
13. The complainant has a case that Ext B1 is a manufactured document after the cross examination of RW 1 to suit their case. But the said allegation is not supported by any evidence. It is a document relating to the treatment of a patient in the hospital and it cannot be thought that it is a fabricated one. Moreover, one cannot say for certain whether a particular doctor attended him in the operation theatre or not. It is common knowledge that a patient who is undergoing surgery may not be able to identify the doctors who all attended him in the theatre.
14. Exts.A1 and A2 mention the name of Dr. C.K.N Panicker as the doctor/consultant. RWs 1 and 2 have given evidence that the usual procedure of the writing the name of the department head was followed in the reference card and the bill. Being the head of the department, there is nothing wrong in mentioning the name of head in the hospital document pertaining to that department. It has come out in evidence that during the relevant period Rs.100/- was the visiting fee of the doctors in that department. But the usual practice was to mention the name of the unit head in the bill as against visiting fee, eventhough the examination might have been conducted by any other available doctors of the unit. The complainant has no case that no doctors of the unit visited him or that the visiting fee was charged twice. As we have already stated, the complainant is not disputing the rate of charges fixed by the opposite party.
15. From the foregoing discussion, what emerges is that there is no proof of any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and consequently, the complaint must fail.
16. Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 16th day of March, 2023.
Date of Filing: 18/03/2014.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Reference card.
Ext. A2 – Discharge bill issued from the Kozhikode district Co-operative hospital.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 – Copy of inpatient record relating to the complainant.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Hussain C (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1- Dr. Suhanesh Haridas.
RW2- A.K Mohanan
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
