STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Raj Shekhar Attri, President; Mrs. Padma Pandey and Rajesh K. Arya, Members
Grewal Eye Hospital Private Limited, through its Director (Dr.S.P.S. Grewal) & Ors. —Respondents
versus
Sandeep Khunger and Anr. —Complainants
Appeal No. 219 of 2010
Decided on 11.2.2020
Counsel for the Appellant:Sh.Amrinder Singh and Ms.Priyanka Singla, Advocates
For the Respondent No. 1 and 2 Sh.Vishal Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 3:Advocate in person.
For respondent No.4: Sh. Sandeep Khunger.
IMPORTANT POINT
Policy holder may choose the best of the medical treatment.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15 and 17 – Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 91 – Appeal – Health insurance policy – Unfair trade practice by hospital – Insured advised by Hospital to undergo Robolazr Cataract Surgery with IOL Implant Left Eye, costing Rs.1.49 lacs – Agreed rate of cataract surgery between hospital and insurance company was Rs.48,000 – Hospital or a medical doctor cannot impose cost of the machinery or its maintenance charges, upon the patients – Claim in respect of remaining amount of Rs.1,01,000/- has been repudiated by insurance company – Robolazr Cataract Surgery is one of the best technologies for the removal of cataract – Policy holder may choose the best of the medical treatment – It cannot be inferred that the liability of the insurance company restricted to the extent of Rs.48,000 – Held that, Insurance company is liable to make payment of the entire amount, which is reasonable in terms of the policy. [Paras 3, 6, 10, 10.1]
Result: Appeal allowed partly
ORDER
Raj Shekhar Attri, President—The Grewal Hospital (opposite party no.3 before the District Forum) has come up in this appeal by assailing order dated 29.08.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh, vide which the consumer complaint filed by complainants no.1 and 2 (complainants herein) was allowed in the following manner:-
In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and we fasten the liability on the OPs in the following manner : -
OP-3 to pay the amount of Rs.1,01,000/-to complainant No.2 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 22.11.2017 till realization.
OP-3 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to complainant No.2 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
OPs 1 & 2 to pay Rs.15,000/- to complainant No.2 as costs of litigation.
17. In view of the above directions passed by us, in so far as the loss caused to complainant No.2 is concerned, it has been restored. But, we feel it is an exceptional/appropriate case where some exemplary cost needs to be imposed upon OP-3 who indulged in conscious wrong, unfair trade practice and outrageous conduct by breaching their own package agreed with OPs 1 & 2. Exemplary cost also needs to be imposed on OP-3 to set an example for his reformation as well as other private hospitals so that they may not indulge in such like practice and deter from conscious wrong doing for personal gains and engaging in similar type of conduct.
18. OP-3 had admitted, agreed amount was Rs.48,000/- and charged amount was Rs.1,49,000/- and even OPs 1 & 2, a party to the agreement, in their joint reply had also highlighted amount was overcharged. Therefore, they had the opportunity and were aware of the facts of such like imposition of exemplary cost.
19. Taking into account that it is appropriate case and having regard to the pros and cons, we proceed to impose exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on OP-3 and this cost amount be deposited by it with Consumer Legal Aid Fund account head being maintained in the name of Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh which may be utilized under the orders of the competent authority for the purpose of providing legal aid to the economically poor persons and weaker sections of society as well as making the consumer awareness by holding appropriate programmes.
20. This order be complied with by the OPs severally within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.16(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.16(iii) & 19 above.
21. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. A certified copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh for filing an execution application for recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as and when the order becomes final as the amount is to be deposited in legal aid fund for help of poor consumers. The file be consigned”.
2. The following facts are not in dispute in this case:-
On 26.12.2011 health insurance policy was obtained by the complainants from the Insurance Company, which policy was valid till 25.12.2012.
i. The said policy was renewed from time to time and also renewed from 20.01.2017 to 19.01.2018.
ii. On 02.10.2017, Smt.Shabnam Khunger had gone to Grewal Hospital for medical checkup of her eyes. She was advised surgery of cataract and told two kinds of surgeries i.e. Phaco/Robolazr Cataract Surgery, vide letter dated 02.10.2017, relevant contents whereof read as under:-
“Mrs.Shabnam Khunger 47F
2201 Sector 38c
Chandigarh
Diagnosis: Cataract Ou
Rx
Advised Robolazr Cataract Surgery with IOL implant Left Eye
Please get the reports of th