Delhi District Court
Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd vs Kala Ram Ors on 27 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 666/2020
CNR No. DLSW010026602015
IN THE MATTER OF:
BHAGAT HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE
AT:RZ/F-1/1, MAHAVIR ENCLAVE NEAR
PALAM DWARKA FLYOVER,
NEW DELHI-110045
........Plaintiff
Versus
1. SHRI KALA RAM
S/O LATE SHANKER LAL
2. SHRI SATINDER KUMAR
S/O KALA RAM
WORKING AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
R/O WZ-103, LAJWANTI GARDEN,
NEW DELHI
[BOTH R/O WZ-103, LAJWANTI GARDEN
NEW DELHI]
3. NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP.LTD.
(A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, NSIC BHAVAN
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110020
.......Defendants
CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 1/19
Date of institution 12.08.2013
Date of reserving judgment 25.04.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment 27.05.2024
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for recovery of ₹5,98,912 with pendente lite & future interest. The suit was initially filed under Order XXXVII CPC, however, vide order dated 24.12.2018, an unconditional leave to defend was granted to the defendants. The brief facts of the suit are:− PLAINT
1. It is stated that the plaintiff is a centre for comprehensive healthcare, providing medical facilities to patients under the name and style of Bhagat Hospitals Private Limited. It is stated that defendant no.3 is a corporation that is empanelled with the plaintiff through an agreement. It is stated that as per the agreement, the plaintiff provides medical treatment to the employees of defendant no.3 as well as their first blood relatives and defendant no.3 reimburses the plaintiff for the treatment charges.
2. It is stated that on 29.08.2011 at 5:55 AM defendant no.1 and 2 came to the emergency ward of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 had complaints of severe chest pain for the last three days and a history of bronchial asthma for the last five years. It is stated that the consultant doctor examined defendant no.1 and he was provisionally diagnosed with acute ASMI with lateral wall extension. It is stated that on the basis of the provisional diagnosis, the consultant doctor suggested defendant no.1 to get admitted CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 2/19 for further investigations.
3. It is stated that the plaintiff requested defendant nos. 1 and 2 to deposit the consent form along with an initial deposit of ₹50,000 as an advance but defendant no.2 informed that he was the beneficiary of a cashless treatment, being the employee of defendant no.3. It is stated that the plaintiff agreed to provide treatment to defendant no.1, but with the clarification that if defendant no.3 would not pay the amount of treatment before discharge, defendant nos.1 and 2 would be solely responsible for the entire payment. It is stated that defendant nos.1 and 2 agreed and gave an undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff.
4. It is stated that on subsequent investigations, defendant no.1 was diagnosed with acute anteroseptal MI (Triple Vessel Disease) and was recommended implanting of four stunts in his blocked arteries. It is stated that the plaintiff informed the defendants about the diagnosis and suggested to defendant no.3 to give advance approval of ₹4 to 5 lakhs for the treatment. It is stated that the plaintiff also requested defendant no.2 to pursue the matter expeditiously with the department.
5. It is stated that despite follow-ups, defendant no.3 did not give the approval for the estimated expenses and resultantly, the plaintiff requested defendant no.2 to deposit of ₹1.5 lakhs. It is stated that defendant no.2 submitted to the plaintiff that he would follow up with the matter and assured that the entire payment of the treatment would be released to the plaintiff before the discharge of CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 3/19 defendant no.1. It is stated that under such assurance, defendant no.1 was given treatment proper treatment and he remained in the hospital till 05.09.2011.
6. It is stated that despite the efforts of the plaintiff, none of the defendants released the bill amount of ₹4,60,702 for the treatment given to defendant no.1. It is stated that as per the procedure, the plaintiff sent a discharge card to defendant no.3 along with the bill for the payment of the treatment, but no payment was done by defendant no.3.
7. It is stated that considering the response of defendant no.3, the plaintiff directed defendant no.2 to pay the total bill, in pursuance of the undertaking given by him, however, he expressed his inability to pay the said amount on account of financial crisis and requested for a month's time to pursue the matter with defendant no.3. It is stated that on humanitarian grounds, the plaintiff agreed to the same and allowed defendant no.2 to get defendant no.1 discharged from the hospital without paying the bill.
8. It is stated that thereafter, despite repeated requests, the defendants have not taken any concrete steps for the payment of the bill and having no other option, the plaintiff issued a legal notice of demand dated 16.12.2012 to the defendants, but to avail.
9. Hence, the present suit has been filed for recovery of ₹4,60,702 and interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 29.08.2011, that is, ₹1,30,210 (total ₹5,98,212) with pendente lite and future interest.
CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 4/19WRITTEN STATEMENTS
10. Defendant no.1 and 2 filed a common written statement stating that defendant no.2 is in the employment of defendant no.3 and defendant no.1 is the father of defendant no.2. It is stated that defendant no.2 had never undertaken to make payment for the treatment before the formal discharge of defendant no.3. It is stated that as per the rules of defendant no.3 company, defendant no.2 is entitled to a cashless medical facility for himself and his dependents on CGHS rates.
11. It is stated that the plaintiff hospital was given confirmation for medical treatment by Shri Satwinder Singh, the General Manager of defendant no.3 vide his letter dated 29.08.2011, in terms of the estimate given by the hospital on 29.08.2011.
12. It is stated that the plaintiff had raised an amount of ₹4,60,702 vide bill dated 05.09.2011 and had insisted that defendant nos. 1 and 2 should make the complete payment. It is stated that when defendant no.3 received the bill from the plaintiff, some queries arose as to how the plaintiff could implant four stents in the patient/defendant no.1 and raise a bill of ₹4,60,702 after giving an estimate of ₹25,300. It is stated that no approval or consent of defendant no.3 had been taken for the same and the discharge sheet does not mention the date of the procedure when the stents were implanted. It is stated that the two invoices were generated for four stents. The invoice dated 01.09.2011 is for one drug-eluting stent used on 31.08.2011, and another invoice dated 02.09.2011 for three CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 5/19 drug-eluting stents used on 02.09.2011. It is stated that normally stents are implanted on the same day when the invoice is generated.
13. It is further stated that as per the CGHS guidelines, a maximum of three coronary stents are permitted on the advice of a specialist, out of which, not more than two shall be drug-eluting stunts. It is stated that no certificate of any consultant has been attached as to why four stents have been implanted in defendant no.1.
14. It is stated that the nominated officers of defendant no.3 had visited the hospital to discuss the exorbitant bill of ₹4,60,702. It is also stated that the plaintiff hospital through its Director, Dr. C.M. Bhagat had issued a letter 22.09.2012, agreeing to settle the bill for ₹2.5 lakhs, which has been concealed by the plaintiff. It is stated that only defendant no.3 is liable to make a payment of ₹2.5 lakhs as agreed between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 in the letter dated 22.09.2012.
15. Defendant no.3 filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff hospital had made an application for empanelment with defendant no.3 for providing medical facilities to its employees and the plaintiff had agreed that they accept CGHS rates applicable to defendant no.3 organisation.
16. It is stated that as per CGHS rules, a maximum of three coronary stents shall be permitted on the advice of a government specialist of which not more than two shall be of drug-eluting stents and further, drug-eluting stents shall CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 6/19 be permitted only for patients where re-stenosis would involve a high risk to the patient. It is stated that thus, the plaintiff was bound to take the advice of the government specialist, which was not done.
17. It is stated that on 29.08.2011, the plaintiff had diagnosed defendant no.1 with asthma and gave an estimate of ₹25,300 for the treatment. It is stated that accordingly, a letter of confirmation was issued to the plaintiff on the same day. It is stated that, however, when the patient was discharged on 05.09.2011, the plaintiff raised a bill of ₹4,60,702, which was not accompanied by any confirmation that CGHS rules have been complied with by the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff did not take any sanction from defendant no.3 regarding the bill to the tune of ₹4,60,702. It is stated that there is no proof or evidence that the plaintiff has in fact, installed four stents. It is stated that the entire claim of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
REPLICATION
18. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant nos. 1 and 2 reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the averments made in the written statement. It is stated that in order to cut short the long procedure of approval of the bill, the plaintiff had considered the settlement, but the same was only under consideration and had not concluded and therefore, the offer of ₹2.5 lakhs is of no consequence.
CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 7/19ISSUES
19. Vide order dated 07.12.2019, following five issues were framed in this suit:
"(i) Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts and documents, particularly, letter dated 22.09.2012 from this court? ...OPDs
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has violated the CGHS Rules, Scheme and Rates by installing more than 3 (three) coronary stents in defendant No. 1?
...OPD1&2
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a money decree for an amount of ₹5,98,212 (Rupees Five lakhs Ninety Eight thousand two hundred and twelve only) against the defendants? ...OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of ₹5,98,212 (Rupees Five lakhs Ninety Eight thousand two hundred and twelve only)? ...OPP
(v) Relief."
EVIDENCE
20. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined its Director- Dr Chander Mohan Bhagat as PW1. He tendered his affidavit Ex PW-1/1 in evidence, which reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. He relied on the following documents:
S. No. Document Marked as
1. Board resolution (objected to as mode of proof) Ex PW1/A
2. Copy of letter dated 19.05.2011 regarding Mark A
CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 8/19
empanelment of the plaintiff
3. The undertaking with consent form Ex PW1/C
(also Ex P2)
4. The case history and bills of treatment Ex PW1/D
(colly)
21. On behalf of defendant no.1 and 2, defendant no.2 entered the witness box as D2W1. He tendered his affidavit Ex D2W1/A in evidence which is on the lines of his written statement. He relied on the following documents:
S. No. Document Marked as
1. Copy of letter dated 19.05.2011 regarding Ex D2/1
empanelment of the plaintiff
2. Copy of letter dated 16.06.2011 regarding the Ex DW2/2 empanelment of the plaintiff (also Ex D2/2)
3. Copy of letter dated 29.08.2011 from defendant Ex DW2/3 no.3 to the plaintiff (also Ex D2/8)
4. Copy of letter dated 22.09.2012 from the plaintiff Ex DW2/4
22. Defendant no.3 examined its authorised representative Shri Sanjay Sharif as D3W1. He relied on his affidavit Ex D3W1/A, which is on the lines of its written statement and relied on the following documents:
S. No. Document Marked as
1. Copy of authorisation letter Ex D3W/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of application dated 05.06.2010 Mark A (also Ex regarding empanelment of the plaintiff D2/5)
3. Copy of letter dated 27.01.2011regarding Mark B (also Ex empanelment of the plaintiff PW1/B and Ex D2/6)
4. Copy of relevant CGHS Rules (objected to) Ex D3W/4 (OSR)
5. Emergency certificate issued by the plaintiff Mark C (also Ex P1) CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 9/19
6. Copy of estimate dated 29.08.2011 Mark D (also Ex D2/7)
7. Copy of confirmation letter dated Ex D3W/7 (OSR) 29.08.2011 (also Ex D2/8) He also admitted Inter Office Memorandum Ex D3W1/PX-1 during his cross-examination. FINDINGS
23. I have heard Sh. Karunesh Tondon & Sh. Abhishek Singh, Ld Counsels for the plaintiff, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld Counsel for defendant nos. 1 & 2 and Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld Counsel for defendant no.3.
24. Issue-wise findings are as under:
"Issue no. (i) Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts and documents, particularly, letter dated 22.09.2012 from this court? ...OPDs"
25. The onus of proving this issue was on the defendants.
26. The defendants have contended that the plaintiff concealed the letter dated 22.09.2012 Ex D2/4 whereby PW1, on behalf of the plaintiff, had agreed to settle the bill for ₹2.5 lakhs.
27. When PW1 was questioned about this document, he stated that it was of no consequence as it was an offer under consideration but was not acted upon by defendant no.3.
28. Concealment of such facts or documents, which have the potential to alter the decision or change the perspective of the decision, if brought on record, is an CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 10/19 abuse of the process of law. This is sufficient to deny any relief to the plaintiff. Reliance is placed on the case of Charanjit Thukral & Ors. vs. Deepak Thukral & Ors., 2010:DHC:3737 wherein it was held:
"18. It is settled principle of law that a person who approaches the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which has bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case.... Conduct of the plaintiff is very material in bringing the case and disclosing the facts before the Court. Plaintiff is required to make fullest possible disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge to the Court and if he does not make that fullest possible disclosure, he cannot obtain any advantage from the proceedings and is liable to be deprived of any advantage he might have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him by concealment of material facts."
29. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others, AIR 1994 SC853, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Courts of Law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and that one who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. In the said decision, it was held that it could be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and that he could be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. It was further held thus:
"A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party".CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 11/19
30. The present suit is one for a recovery of money against the bill dated 05.09.2011 Ex D2/9. In the letter Ex D2/4, the plaintiff had agreed to settle the bill for ₹2.5 lakhs and therefore, it appears to be a document which had the potential of impacting the decision on the matters in issue in this case.
31. During the final arguments also, learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that defendant no.3 was ready to settle the bill for ₹2.5 lakhs, as reflected in Ex D3W/PX-1 and therefore, the plaintiff is, at least, entitled to ₹2.5 lakhs, however, on merits it would be entitled to the entire sum claimed by it.
32. The plaintiff could have well argued that this letter was not acted upon by defendant no.3, and therefore, the offer of settling the bill for ₹2.5 lakhs had not fructified, however, it was not open for him to withhold the facts relating to such offer or this document from the court.
33. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiff has concealed material facts and document from the Court which disentitles it from any relief from the Court. This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
"Issue no. (ii) Whether the plaintiff has violated the CGHS Rules, Scheme and Rates by installing more than 3 (three) coronary stents in defendant No. 1? ...OPD1&2"
34. The onus of proving this issue was on defendant no. 1 and 2. In fact, this objection was also raised by defendant no.3 in its written statement.
CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 12/1935. At the outset, it may be noted that there is no dispute that as per the contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.3, medical facilities had to be provided by the plaintiff to the beneficiaries of defendant no.3 as per the CGHS rules and rates. However, the complete set of applicable rules and norms have not been filed by the parties. A part of the relevant rules was filed by defendant no. 3 as Ex D3W/4 (OSR). Its tendering was objected to by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff but the ground of objection is not mentioned. Be that as it may, PW1 admitted that he was aware of the rule that a maximum of three stents may be implanted in a patient on the advice of a government specialist. Admittedly, no such permission was taken from any government specialist in this case.
36. Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the matter was of extreme urgency and it was not possible to obtain any such permission. It is argued that when the patient is on the operation table, the doctor keeps in mind only the best interests of the patient and he cannot be expected to halt the procedure to consult a government specialist.
37. Per contra, Ld Counsels for the defendants have argued, and in my opinion right so, that this was not such a case. The patient had been admitted on 29.08.2011. The first angioplasty was conducted on 31.08.2011 and the second on 02.09.2011. Therefore, the plaintiff has sufficient time to obtain permission from a government specialist before the first angioplasty as well as after it, before implanting the third and the fourth stents on CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 13/19 02.09.2011. This was not a case where the decision was made when the patient was on the operation table.
38. Further, it is also not disputed that as per the CGHS, a maximum of two drug-eluting stents are permissible, and that too for patients for whom re-stenosis would involve a high risk to life (three categories of patients). The plaintiff is claiming reimbursement for four drug-eluting stents and no explanation is offered if defendant no.1 fell in any of the three categories mentioned in the scheme.
39. PW1 is the only witness examined by the plaintiff and admittedly, he was not a part of the team that operated defendant no.1. PW1 stated that he was an anaesthesiologist. Thus, PW1 is not competent to explain what was the emergency due to which permission could not be taken from a government specialist or why it was necessary to implant four drug-eluting stents in defendant no.1.
40. To the contrary, PW1 has admitted during his cross- examination that only the first two stents were implanted on account of an emergency. He deposed that the last two were implanted after informing defendant no.3 through the son of the patient (defendant no.2) but he admitted that the plaintiff had not received any communication from defendant no.3 regarding the same and also admitted that the treatment was not as per the CGHS rules. Therefore, it is unfathomable as to how the plaintiff is claiming that the bill Ex D2/9 is sustainable.
CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 14/1941. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff provided an estimate of Rs. 25,300 on 29.08.2011, as evidenced by Ex D2/7, and the same was approved by defendant No. 3 on the same day, as evidenced by Ex D2/8. Defendant No.1 was admitted to the hospital on 29.08.2011. However, when the doctors at the plaintiff's hospital decided to conduct not one but two angioplasties on defendant No.1 on 31.08.2011 and 02.09.2011, no fresh intimation was given to defendant No. 3. It is understandable that when a hospital provides an estimate on the first day of a patient's admission, it is only an estimate. However, there is a significant difference between the initial estimate of Rs. 25,300 and the final bill of Rs. 4,60,702. There is no reason why the hospital did not inform defendant no.3 about the revised estimate.
42. It is the case of the plaintiff that it had informed the defendants about the diagnosis and suggested to defendant no.3 to give advance approval of ₹4 to 5 lakhs for the treatment, however not a single document has been placed on record to show that the final diagnosis or revised estimate was ever communicated to defendant no.3.
43. It is the case of the plaintiff when despite follow- ups, defendant no.3 did not approve for the estimated expenses, the plaintiff requested defendant no.2 to deposit of ₹1.5 lakhs and later took his assurance that the entire payment of the treatment would be released to the plaintiff before the discharge of defendant no.1. However, when the plaintiff knew that it was going beyond the scope of CGHS in implanting four stents without the permission of a CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 15/19 government specialist and using four drug-eluting stents, it ought to have undertaken a written consent from defendant no.2 that he would bear the difference in cost between the CGHS treatment and actual treatment. No such consent was taken.
44. Ld Counsel for defendant no.3 has rightly argued that the privity of contract is between the plaintiff and defendant no.3, and thus, the consent of defendant no.2 is immaterial if the bill is to be reimbursed by defendant no.3.
45. Interestingly, the bill relied upon by the plaintiff contains no details of the four stents that have been used. It is essential for hospitals to quote the batch number when a stent of any type is implanted in a beneficiary of CGHS. A copy of relevant invoices pertaining to the procurement of stents by the hospital, the outer pouch of the stent packet along with sticker/barcode on which the details of the stent are printed are to be enclosed with the medical bill for claiming reimbursement from the government/department. In the present case, none of such details has been provided. PW1 was specifically questioned during his cross- examination and he stated that the batch number, serial number, etc have all been provided to defendant no.3 but no proof of the same was furnished.
46. For these grounds, the claim for reimbursement of four drug-eluting stents is not sustainable.
47. Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that it is nobody's case that four stents were not placed or that the CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 16/19 price of such stents was not correctly quoted. However, this argument is factually incorrect. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 have mentioned in their written statement that the bill raised by the plaintiff was exorbitant and they had expressed doubt over the two invoices of the drug-eluting stents. Similarly, defendant no.3 had mentioned in its written statement that there was no proof or evidence that the plaintiff had installed four stents.
48. In these circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff has violated the Central Government Health Scheme in raising the bill dated 05.09.2011. This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
"Issue no. (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a money decree for an amount of ₹5,98,212 (Rupees Five lakhs Ninety Eight thousand two hundred and twelve only) against the defendants? ...OPP"
49. The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff.
50. At the outset, it is to be noted that in their written statements, the defendants had challenged the authority of the person who had signed the plaint. Thereafter, during the examination of PW1, the defendants had objected to the authority letter Ex PW1/A on mode of proof. Despite being aware of the defendant's objection, the plaintiff did not substantiate the document Ex PW1/A by filing the board resolution on the basis of which it had been issued. Therefore, the objection of the defendants is sustained.
51. Further, during the cross-examination of PW1, he was confronted with the fact that the authority letter was in CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 17/19 favour of one Shamim Kalal whereas the plaint had been signed by Mohd. Shammi. To this, PW1 simply stated that they were the same person but the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to prove the same.
52. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to show that the plaint had been signed by an authorised representative and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground too.
53. Ld Counsel has argued that the plaintiff is at least entitled to ₹2.5 lakhs since this amount was accepted by defendant no.3 in Ex D3W/PX-1.
54. However, Ld Counsel for defendant no.3 has argued that this was an internal office memorandum within the department and the plaintiff should explain how this document is in its possession. It is further argued that such office memorandum was never communicated to the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot claim anything on its basis.
55. I have considered this argument.
56. On one hand, the plaintiff claims that by this document, defendant no.3 has accepted its offer of ₹2.5 lakhs, and on the other hand, PW1 who is the author of the offer letter Ex D2/4 has testified that the bill was never finally settled for ₹2.5 lakhs. The plaintiff cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
57. Further, as observed earlier, the plaintiff has violated the CGHS norms in raising the bill in question. The plaintiff has not justified the different components of the CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 18/19 bill Ex D2/9 in light of the CGHS rates, which were applicable at that time. Therefore, it is not possible to give any finding as to whether any part of the bill Ex D2/9 was valid or not.
58. Moreover, in view of the findings on issue no. (i), the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of any money.
59. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
"Issue no. (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of ₹5,98,212 (Rupees Five lakhs Ninety Eight thousand two hundred and twelve only)? ...OPP"
60. Since the plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of money, this issue does not survive. Issue no.(iv) is accordingly answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
"Issue no. (v) Relief"
61. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
62. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
63. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2024.05.27 SOLANKI 17:02:09 +0530 Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki) on 27th May, 2024 District Judge-02 South-West District Dwarka Courts: New Delhi CS ADJ No.666/20 Bhagat Hospital Pvt Ltd. vs Kala Ram and Ors Page 19/19