State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M. Venkatachalam vs Kovai Medical Centre & Hospitals ... on 28 March, 2014
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Hon'ble Justice Thiru R. Regupathi PRESIDENT Thiru J. Jayaram, JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A. No. 904 / 2010 (Against Order in C.C.136/2008, dated 02-07-2010 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore) Dated this the 28th day of MARCH, 2014 M. Venkatachalam, Present Address: ] Senior Citizen, No.64/12, Nagu Flats, ] No.11, Kannaki Street, Geetha Nagar 2nd Street,] Fort, Behind Sakthi Mahal, ] Erode 1. Perundurai Road, ] Appellant / Erode 638 011 ] Complainant Vs
1. Kovai Medical Centre & Hospitals Ltd, ] Represented by its Chairman: ] Nalla G. Palanisamy, ] Avinashi Road, ] Coimbatore 641 014 ] ]
2. Dr. John AC Thana Kumar, ] Consultant & Laparoscopic Surgeon, ] C/o KMCH Ltd, ] Avinashi Road, ] Coimbatore 641 014 ] ] Present Address: ] No.17/8, PNJ Clinic, ] Krishna Nagar, ] Sowripalayam, ] Coimbatore 28 ] ]
3. Dr. Nehru Babu, ] Consultant, ] Urologist, ] C/o KMCH Ltd, ] Avinashi Road, ] Coimbatore 641 014 ] ] Present Address: ] Nandha Hospital, ] Bharathiyar Road, ] Gandhipuram, ] Coimbatore ]
4. TTK Health Care Services Pvt. Ltd, ] Represented by Medical Officer, ] No.148, Sri Saibaba Towers, ] Raju Naidu Road, ] Respondents / Opposite Tatabad, ] Parties.
Coimbatore 12 ] This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 17.02.2014 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant:
Mr. M. Venkatachalam Counsel for Respondents/Opposite Parties 1&3: Mr. Iyer & Thomas Counsel for 2nd Respondent/Opposite Party: Ms. V. Annalakshmi Counsel for 4th Respondent/Opposite Party: Mr. S.K. Krishnamurthy J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant on the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.136/2008, dated 02-07-2010, claiming enhanced compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he was suffering from Bilateral Inguinal Hernia, and he approached the 1st opposite party hospital through the 2nd opposite party who is a Consultant Laparoscopic Surgeon, and the 3rd opposite party is a Consultant Urologist and Transplant Surgeon. He was examined by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and various tests were conducted, and it was planned to do two surgeries viz. Hernia and TURP (Trans Urethral Resection of Prostate); but at his instance, he underwent Hernia surgery alone conducted by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, and TURP surgery was deferred.
3. The 4th opposite party is the Insurer with whom the complainant had insured under mediclaim policy. The 4th opposite party remained absent and was set exparte by the District Forum.
4. The opposite parties 1 to 3 contended that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part.
5. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is no medical negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3, but there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 4 on the ground that the 1st opposite party collected charges for two surgeries (Rs.73,680/-) whereas only one surgery was performed; and the 4th opposite party readily made payment of charges for two surgeries, to the 1st opposite party and holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 4, passed an order to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and other sufferings caused to him due to their deficiency in service and to pay costs of Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the complainant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the District Forum.
6. As observed by the District Forum Bilateral Inguinal Hernia repair surgery alone was done, and so the 1st opposite party hospital ought to have raised bill only for one surgery performed on the complainant viz. Bilateral Inguinal Hernia; but they charged Rs.73,680/- which is meant for the two surgeries (Hernia & TURP) since they had already collected the charges for the two surgeries Rs.73,680/- and this amounts to unfair trade practice.
7. The 4th opposite party / Insurer paid the above said amount for the two surgeries, but actually only one surgery was done, resulting in loss to the complainant by reducing the future insurance coverage to the extent of Rs.26,320/-. Further the 4th opposite party did not contest the case, but paid the amount for the two surgeries.
8. The District Forum has further held that performing only one surgery and collecting fees for two surgeries through the Insurer / 4th opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 4, and that the opposite parties 1 and 4 are liable to pay compensation.
9. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.10 Lac towards compensation for mental agony and pain and sufferings caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and a further sum of Rs.10 Lac towards compensation for inflicting severe pulsating pain in the hernia surgery area due to the deficiency in surgery on the part of the opposite parties.
10. The District Forum has awarded Rs.50,000/-to the complainant towards total compensation, and ordered to pay costs of Rs.3,000/-.
11. The appellant / complainant has cited certain totally irrelevant matters as grounds for claiming more compensation. Having regard to all the relevant factors in awarding the compensation, we feel that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is quite reasonable, and we find no materials warranting enhancement of compensation, since there are no justifiable grounds for awarding more compensation.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in the appeal.
(J. JAYARAM) (R. REGUPATHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT