State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs 1. Shri Sitaram S/O Sukhdev Agrawal on 4 April, 2014
Daily Order
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal
No. A/08/646
(Arisen out of
Order Dated null in Case No. Miscellaneous Application No. of District
None)
1. SANJAY SIDHAKAR JOSHI
R/O.
KHAPERDAY BAGICHA,
AMRAVATI
Vs.
1. Dr.Hemant Murkey,
R/o Bajaj Nagar, Walcut Compound,
Amravati.
2. Dr.Navin
Choudhary,
Navandar Complex, Auto Galli No.1,
Ambapeth, Amravati.
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B.A.Shaikh PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal MEMBER
PRESENT:
In person
......for the Appellant
Adv.Pradeep Mahale for Resp.1
Adv.Yeole for Resp.2
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Passed on 01/04/2014) PER SHRI.B.A.SHAIKH, HON'BLE PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 11/07/2008 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No.188/2007 by the District Forum,Amravati by which the complaint has been dismissed.
2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he is serving in police department and he resides at Amravati. The Opposite Party (for short OP) No.1 is a medical practitioner and he runs hospital in the name as "Murke Hospital" at Amravati. The OP No.2 is also a medical practitioner and he also runs hospital at Amravati. The complainant has two issues and Sarthak is one of his minor son. Police department entered into an agreement with OP No.1 to provide medical services to the police employees and their dependents under a scheme called as "Maharashtra Police Kutumba Arogya Yojna" hereinafter called as "Family Health Care Plan". The OP No.1 is liable to provide free medical services to police employees and their dependents under that scheme and to submit bills of treatment to Director General of Police, Mumbai, as per rules. The complainant's minor son Sarthak was suffering from urinary disease. Therefore, he took his son to OP No.1 on 20/12/2006. The OP No.1 advised that the surgical operation (circumcision) on the front skin of his private part of his son is to be done. Therefore, OP No.1 asked the complainant to get tested the blood and urine of his son from private laboratory. As per the advise of OP No.1, the complainant took his son to Dr.Thakre, who did the said test and the complainant paid him charges for the said test. Thereafter, OP No.1 sent complainant's son to Dr.Navin Choudhari though complainant and had asked him to perform the said surgery in that hospital. The complainant, unwillingly took his son to OP No.2, Dr.Navin Choudhari where the said surgical operation was done on 26/12/2006. The complainant paid Rs.3000/- to OP No.2 for that surgery. The complainant, then took his son on 26/12/2006 to OP No.1 for admission in his hospital. The OP No.1 demanded deposit of Rs.1000/-. The complainant had no money. Therefore, he took back his son to his house. Thus, the OP No.1 failed to provide free service under the family care plan to the complainant's son, and, therefore, complainant suffered monitory loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Therefore, he claimed total compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- from OP No.1. He also claimed interest over that amount @12% p.a.
3. The OP No.1 & 2 resisted that complaint by filing separate written version.
4. The OP No.1, submitted, in brief, that on 20/12/2006, the complainant had brought his son Sarthak for first time to him and he had shown earlier test reports and diagnosis report to him (OP No.1) and at that time, complainant had asked as to whether Dr.Navin Choudhari (OP No.2) would come to the hospital of Dr.Murke so as to save the expenses required for surgery by availing family health care plan. However, Dr.Navin Choudhari (OP No.2) was unable to come to hospital of Dr.Murkey (OP No.1). Hence the complainant obtained a letter of reference from junior assistant doctor of Murke Hospital and took away his son immediately Dr.Navin Choudhari. Dr.Navin Choudhari did surgical operation on 26/12/2006 in his hospital and discharged the complainant's son on the same day. There was no serious ailment and there was also no emergency to eligible the complainant to avail benefits under family health care plan. The complainant filed the false complaint so as to get unlawful benefits. It is therefore submitted by OP No.1 that complaint may be dismissed.
5. The OP No.2 submitted, in brief that he is unnecessarily joined in the complaint as opposite party as no negligence on his part is alleged. It is his case that on 20/12/2006, the complainant had brought his son to him and, at that time, he had advised for certain tests. Therefore, the complainant did those tests through Dr.Dinesh Thakre. The complainant had earlier taken his son to Dr.Nitin Seth of Amravati for examination and diagnosis. The complainant had shown the papers of Dr.Nitin Seth to him (OP No.2). On 26/12/2006, the complainant again brought his son to OP No.2 for diagnosis and treatment. It was found that the complainant's son was suffering from a disease namely "Phimosis" and that for treatment of the said disease minor surgery namely circumcision was to be done. Therefore, on 26/12/2006, the OP No.2 did the said minor surgery on the penis of the complainant's son Sarthak. Therefore it is submitted by OP No.2 that complaint may be dismissed.
6. The District Forum below heard both the parties and also considered evidence brought on record and it came to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to take the benefits under Government scheme namely family health care plan. The District Forum below also found that the reference letter was obtained by the complainant from assistant doctor of OP No.1 without consulting the OP No.1. The Forum below also found that the prescription list was issued by Dr.Navin Choudhari and the assistant doctor of OP No.1 simply copied it under her proper handwriting as per request of the complainant. The Forum below also found that the complainant has not proved the allegations made in the complaint, but on the contrary the complainant tried to take the benefit of Government scheme by adopting illegal means and filed the false complaint. Therefore, the Forum below dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay Rs.500/- to each of the OP Nos.1 & 2.
6. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the Original complainant has preferred this appeal.
7. The complainant is hereinafter referred to as appellant and original OP Nos.1 & 2 are hereinafter referred to as respondents No.1 & 2 for the sake of convenience. Both the parties filed their respective written notes of arguments. We have heard the appellant in person and learned advocates of respondent Nos.1 & 2. We have also perused the documents produced by both the parties in this appeal.
8. The appellant during the course of his arguments, has reiterated his case and took us through the documents filed by him. He tried to show on the basis of documents filed by him in appeal that he is entitled to take the benefits under the aforesaid family health care plan and that the respondent No.1 herein has deprived him from taking said benefits and that the Forum below erred in dismissing the complaint, though there was sufficient evidence before the Forum below to grant relief sought in the complaint. He, therefore, requested that the appeal may be allowed and the relief sought may be granted by setting aside the impugned order.
9. On the other hand, the learned advocate of respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and submitted that the various documents which were not filed before the Forum by the appellant herein, can not be filed in the appeal and can not be relied upon by the appellant. He further submitted that the complainant's son was not suffering from any of the ailments as referred to in the circular issued for availment of benefit under family care plan. He further submitted that the appellant has paid nothing to the respondent No.1, and, therefore, appellant can not be a consumer of respondent No.1. He has invited our attention to the documents filed on record, of which copies were also produced before the Forum below and submitted that there is no merits in appeal and hence appeal may be dismissed.
10. The learned advocate of the respondent No.2 also supported the impugned order and submitted that the appellant did not allege any deficiency in service provided by respondent No.2 to the appellants and that the respondent No.2 was unnecessarily joined to the complaint, and, therefore, the Forum below has rightly awarded cost of Rs.500/- to the respondent No.2. He, therefore submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
11. Admittedly, the appellant's son was suffering from disease namely Phimosis with retention of urine. The appellant produced on record list of the diseases which are covered under the aforesaid family care plan. The appellant pointed out the disease at Sr.No.15 of the said list. It shows a disease namely Genito Urinery Emergency. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that only minor surgery called as circumcision was to be done and it was a well planned surgery and, therefore, as such, there was no emergency. We agree with his said submission. As per complaint, the said disease was diagnosed on 20/12/2006 and the circumcision was done on 26/12/2006 by Dr.Navin Choudhari (respondent No.2). Had it been the case of emergency, no such period from 20/12/2006 till 26/12/2006 would have been taken for doing the said surgery. Thus, it was a planned surgery and not included in the aforesaid list. Therefore, we hold that the Forum below has rightly held that the complainant is not entitled to seek benefit under said family health care plan in respect of the said disease.
12. Moreover, we also find from the documents produced on record that the respondent No.1, Dr.Murke himself did not refer complainant's son to Dr.Navin Choudhari (respondent No.2) for treatment. The copy of the reference letter dated 20/12/2006 relied upon by the appellant about making of said reference to Dr.Navin Choudhari shows that it is not signed by respondent No.1 Dr.Murke. It is not explained by the appellant as to why the said letter of reference is not given by Dr.Murke under his own signature. The respondent No.1 filed affidavit of his assistant doctor namely Sonali Rajesh Barde. As per her affidavit, in consequence of as per request of the complainant Sanjay Joshi, she wrote the said reference letter without consulting Dr.Hemant Murke. She also stated in her affidavit that as per further request of Sanjay Joshi (appellant) she wrote on that letter as "family health care plan" and, that subsequently she learnt that Sanjay Joshi misused that reference letter. We find that her said affidavit is to be relied upon since the respondent No.2 Navin Choudhari did not come with a case that the appellant handed over any such reference letter of the hospital of Dr.Murke to him. He came with a case that the appellant had shown him papers of Dr.Nitin Seth only. The copy of reference letter of Dr.Nitin Seth Dated 7/12/2006 is produced by the respondent No.2 which shows that he referred complainant's son Sarthak Joshi to Dr.Navin Choudhari (respondent No.2) on 7/12/2006 for his opinion and treatment in respect of disease namely phymosis. The said letter of reference is, thus, sufficient to come to the conclusion that appellant came with a false case that the respondent No.1 had referred his son to Dr.Navin Choudhari (respondent No.2).
13. Therefore, we find that as there is no cogent evidence to prove that respondent No.1 refused to treat appellant's son in his hospital, it can not be said that the respondent No.1 rendered deficient service to the appellant.
14. The appellant has also relied upon the prescription list dated 26/12/2006 which is on the letter head of the hospital of Dr.Murke. Admittedly, said list does not bear signature of either the respondent No.1 or his any of assistant doctor. The respondent No.1 has produced affidavit of his assistant namely Dr.Madhuri Vishnu Dhemre. She stated in her affidavit that the appellant had brought one prescription list of Dr.Navin Choudhari to her and said that the shop keeper is unable to read the prescriptions written on that list and requested her to write down in her handwriting the said prescription and, on his request, she simply wrote the prescription on humanitarian grounds and handed over the same to the appellant. She also stated in her affidavit that the appellant misused that list and filed false case. Her said affidavit can be relied upon when the prescription list was simply copied down by her and it does not bear her signature.
15. The appellant filed several documents in this appeal, which were not filed before the Forum below. They include documents which were obtained by him under the provisions of Right To Information Act. Moreover, some are in respect of the enquiry made by police inspector on the complaint made by appellant to Police Commissioner, Amravati. Moreover, some are relating to papers of enquiry relating to the complaint made by respondent No.1 against appellant. We find that all those documents which are produced for the first time in this appeal by the appellant can not be considered. Moreover, they do not throw any light on the main dispute involved in the present case which is discussed above. Therefore, they are of no use to establish the case of the appellant.
16. We thus hold that there is no cogent evidence to prove that the respondent No.1 had compelled the appellant to take his son to respondent No.2 for his treatment. Moreover, we also find that the respondent No.2 was unnecessarily impleaded in the complaint by the appellant. The Forum below, thus, rightly considered the evidence brought on record and it came to correct conclusion and finding. There is no merits in this appeal and hence it deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER i.
The appeal is dismissed.
ii.
No orders as to cost in appeal.
iii.
Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of costs.
[HON'ABLE MR.
B.A.Shaikh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MRS.
Jayshree Yengal] MEMBER