State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Vasant Soma Tambe vs Mathadi Hospital Trust & Ors on 12 January, 2022
A/17/560
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
APPEAL NO. A/17/560
(Arisen out of order dated 02/02/2017 passed in Complaint No.283 of 2014 by
Additional District Commission, Thane, Navi Mumbai)
Mr. Vasant Soma Tambe,
R/at. L.I.G.I., Sector 3,
Room No. H-16, Kalamboli Colony, ....... Appellant.
Panvel, Dist. Raigad.
Versus
1. Mathadi Hospital Trust,
Through Dr. H.A Patil,
Chief Medical Officer,
Mathadi Hospital Trust,
Plot No.22, Sector 3,
Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai.
2. Mumbai Lokhand and Polad Kamgar Mandal,
Kalamboli, Sharmjivi Bhavan,
Plot No.247, B.B.Road, .......Respondents.
Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai 410 218.
BEFORE:
Dr.S.K. Kakade - In-charge President
Mr.A. Z. Khwaja - Judicial Member
For the appellant(s) : Advocate Digambar Thakare.
For the Respondent(s) : Advocate B.S. Mahamulkar.
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Dr.S.K. Kakade - In-charge President:
1
A/17/560 (1) Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by Thane Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now Commission) CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai in consumer complaint no.283/2014 dated 2nd February 2017 dismissing the complaint of the Complainant Mr. Vasant Soma Tambe from Panvel, Dist. Raigad, the original complainant has filed this appeal before this Commission.
(2) The brief facts for deciding this appeal are as follows:-
The complainant-appellant Mr. Vasant Soma Tambe is Mathadi Worker, who is working with Mumbai Lokhand and Polad Kamgar Mandal and is registered with the said Mandal with registration no. 4537. The respondent No.1 is Mathadi Hospital Trust situated at Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai, while the respondent No.2 is original opposite party no.2- Mumbai Lokhand and Polad Kamgar Mandal situated at Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai. Being Mathadi worker, the appellant is covered under mediclaim scheme provided by the respondents-opposite parties and for this purpose the appellant contributed Rs.3,000/- per year. This medical cover is available to the Mathadi worker as well as his family members. As per the allegations of the complainant-appellant, his wife was suffering from heart disease, who was not provided medical treatment by the opposite party no.1- Hospital. As a result of which she died on 19th November 2010 in KEM Hospital Mumbai alleging that there was deficiency in service given by the opposite party no.1- Mathadi Hospital in Navi Mumbai.
(3) The opposite parties defended this complaint by filing written statement and evidence before the Ld. Forum. The appellant- original complainant filed complaint against both the respondents in this appeal. The said complaint no.283/2014 was finally heard by Ld. Thane Additional 2 A/17/560 Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and passed order on 2nd February 2017.
The Forum came to the conclusion that there was no medical negligence and hence consumer complaint was dismissed.
(4) Aggrieved by the dismissal of complaint by the Ld. Thane Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, the original complainant has approached this Commission in appeal against the order passed. Ld. Advocate for appellant invited our attention to the fact that appellant is the registered worker of Mathadi organisation as per page 59 of appeal compilation, which is his identity card. It was the contention of Ld. Advocate for appellant that the respondent no.1- Mathadi Hospital Trust stopped providing free medical care to Mr. Vasant Soma Tambe for no reason. In result, the wife of complainant-appellant who was suffering from heart decease, died on 19th November 2010. Since the medical care was not available to the wife, she succumbed to the disease. Ld. Advocate invited our attention to page no.47 in which the RTI information is available about the fees of Mathadi worker is considered as a share for which free medical service is available to Mathadi worker. Though, the complainant- appellant wrote a letter to the opposite parties on 24th April 2006, there was no response from the opposite parties. Rather the opposite parties filed reports of misbehaviour by the appellant on record. Ld. Advocate for appellant also invited our attention to copies of case papers filed on record from page C-122 to C-129. He further contended that Ld. District Forum erred in considering the evidence filed by complainant in the form of letters, medical record and also the report of investigation given by the expert doctors from Pune that the wife of appellant was suffering from severe heart disease page no.C-108-109 echo cardiography performed on Mrs. Gandhari Tambe dated 1st May 2005. The report says the patient has tight mitral stenosis. In view of the documents submitted by complainants Ld. District Consumer Disputes 3 A/17/560 Redressal Forum should have allowed the complaint but failed to consider these documents. Hence, Ld. Advocate prayed for setting aside the order of Ld. District Forum and allowing the appeal of the original complainant.
(5) Ld. Advocate representing both the respondents submitted that respondent no.2 is statutory body which is Mathadi board and received contribution of Rs.50/- per month from every Mathadi worker. While providing medical facility to the family members of Mathadi workers certain rules needs to be followed in which the photographs of all family members need to be submitted. Ld. Advocate invited our attention to page no.124, 125 which are the medical reports from 8th August 2005 to 15th June 2006. The treatments were provided to the family members of Mr. Vasant Tambe and were never denied. Further, the wife of appellant was also examined and received treatment in the Mathadi Hospital. The appellant did not bring any evidence of refusal of the treatment. Though the information officer was fined Rs.10,000/- for delay in providing information, it was not due to deficiency in service. As per his submission, the appellant always created problems while receiving treatment, used to drink alcohol before coming to the hospital. This observation has been recorded by the medical officers of Mathadi Hospital Trust on few occasions. Also there is no document to show that Mr.Vasant Tambe was refused treatment any time. In view of this Ld. Advocate prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
(6) We have gone through the order passed by the Ld. Additional Thane District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum dated 2nd February 2017 in which Ld. District Forum has reached to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Ld. District Forum has considered all the documents placed before the Forum. In spite of diagnosing severe heart disease in 2005 till the death of wife of 4 A/17/560 appellant i.e. in 2010, the appellant has not brought any evidence whether she was genuinely treated. No expert opinion of the doctors who investigated wife, regarding treatment required in the form of operation if any is brought on record. We agree to the observations and findings recorded by Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Additional Thane and find that the order passed by the Forum is just and legal. We don't find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order. Hence, we pass the following order-
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
ii) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 12th January, 2022.
[Dr.S.K. Kakade] In-charge President [A.Z. Khwaja] Judicial Member 5 A/17/560 ..
hvm 6