R.M.JOSHI vs P.B.TAHILRAMANI

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Thane dated 28.5.92 passed in Complaint Case No. 12/91. A complaint was filed by appellant R.M. Joshi alleging deficiency in the service of the respondent Dr. Tahilramani. The appellant alleged two deficiencies. The first deficiency was of excess billing and the second deficiency alleged, was about the treatment given by Dr. Tahilramani to complainant''s wife. According to complainant/appellant, his family was covered under health insurance scheme of New India Assurance Company and, therefore, the bills of his treatment were reimbursed by the Insurance Company if the medical treatment was received from a qualified medical practitioner. It is alleged by the complainant that his wife was treated by Dr. Tahilramani and a bill was charged of Rs. 245/- for the treatment given to his wife. The complainant has filed receipt dated 30.7.89 in support of his allegations. It was alleged in the complaint that some of the charges in the bill were not reimbursed by the Insurance Company as they were not admissible under the Rules. The complainant, therefore, claimed in his complaint the refund of the amount is shown in bill dated 30.7.89 and other charges and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation. The complainant totally claimed for Rs. 22265/-. The District Forum rejected the complaint of complainant on the grounds that charging of excessive bill is not the deficiency in the service of Dr. Tahilramani. The District Forum also rejected the claim of the complainant that complainant''s wife did not suffer any injury in the treatment as a result of negligence in the service of Dr. Tahilramani.

WE have heard complainant in person and Dr. Tahilramani by Shri N. V. Hoskeri, Advocate. WE have also perused the relevant record. WE have perused the bill dated 30.7.89 issued by Dr. Tahilramani as having received Rs. 2145/- towards various charges from the complainant. The details of the bill are given beneath the bill. Claim Nos. 2 and 3 in the details show for bed charges and for nursing charges, Rs. 1575/- has been recovered from the complainant at the rate of Rs. 75/- per day for a period of 21 days. On the reverse of the bill it is written in hand-writing of Dr. Tahilramani that complainant''s wife was given I.V. Intravenous for three days. It is common knowledge that in order to administer I.V. Intra venous fluids, patient has to be kept on a bed. The bill in question clearly show that Dr. Tahilramani recovered Rs. 1575/- from the complainant showing that his wife was hospitalised for 21 days. During the course of arguments, the complainant R.M. Joshi stated that Dr. Tahilramani do not have any hospital facilities including the beds for the patients. According to Shri R.M. Joshi, Dr. Tahilramani has only one small room having a table and there is no bed in that room. When we questioned Dr. Tahilramani in presence of the party he admitted that he has only one room with a table in the consulting room. According to Dr. Tahilramani I.V. fluid was administered to the patient, i.e. complainant''s wife on that table only. If this is true then the recovery of Rs. 1575 for bed charges and nursing charges at the Rate of Rs. 75/- per day for 21 days is absolutely false. There is no evidence from either side as regards the fact as to whether Dr. Tahilramani has bed facilities in his clinic. On the contrary, Dr. Tahilramani admitted before us that his clinic is not equipped with bed facility. It is, therefore, necessary to find out the factual position as regards the facilities of beds in the hospital of Dr. Tahilramani This fact can only be established by oral and documentary evidence and if necessary by inspection of the Clinic of Dr. Tahilramani by appointing a Commission. At the moment in view of the admission given by Dr. Tahilramani, the recovery of Rs. 1575/ but a grave deficiency in the service. If any consumer is required to pay charges for not rendering any specific service, then certainly the act of recovery of a bill on that account would certainly constitute a deficiency in the service of medical practitioner. The definition of ''service'' u/Sec. 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very wide and it includes service of any description. In our view, the recovery of fees for a treatment which is not rendered to a consumer will definitely amount to deficiency in the service of a Doctor. In view of this situation, the impugned order passed by the District Forum treating the complainant''s allegation limited to excessive billing cannot be accepted. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be upheld. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the complainant''s complaint is remitted back to the District Forum, Thane for decision according to law.

We direct the District Forum to receive the evidence from both the sides if tendered as regards the fact whether Dr. Tahilramani''s clinic was having bed facility when complainant''s wife was treated. The District Forum may u/Sec. 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 issue the Commission for finding out the bed facility in Dr. Tahilramani''s Clinic. The respondent shall pay to the complainant Rs. 200/- as cost of this appeal. Appeal allowed with costs.