IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Transcription

1 IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: First Appeal No.13/2018 (Arising out of the order dated passed in Complaint Case No.244/2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North), Delhi) Shri Anand Verdhan Maiterya, S/o Shri Sabal Mitra, Chamber No.752, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Appellant Versus St. Stephen Hospital, Through its Director, St. Stephen Hospital Marg, Tis Hazari, Delhi Respondent CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Ms. Salma Noor, Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Justice Veena Birbal, President 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi in CC No.242/2016. Page 1 of 5

2 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum stating therein that on he had visited with his wife at St. Stephen Hospital for consulting a Gynaecologist. It was alleged that after examination, 02 tests i.e. Foetal Echo and sugar were prescribed. For the said tests appellant/complainant had deposited Rs.1470/- with respondent/op. However, only one test was conducted at the lab of the respondent/op and ultrasound department refused to do the other test i.e. Foetal Echo on the ground of non-availability of the facility. Thereupon, the appellant/complainant contacted the doctor who had recommended for the said test. However, the said doctor wrote on the backside of the bill for refund of the amount of Rs.1120/-. Appellant/complainant had alleged that despite repeated visits and legal notice dated , the aforesaid amount was not refunded. Thereupon, he filed the aforesaid complaint before District Forum claiming refund of Rs.1120/- alongwith Rs.1500/- towards legal notice sent and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental torture and agony. 3. On receipt of notice of the complaint, respondent/op had filed written statement and on the first date of hearing i.e offered a sum of Rs.2240/- i.e. double of the amount claimed by the appellant/complainant towards full and final settlement, which was Page 2 of 5

3 not accepted by the appellant/complainant. In the reply, respondent/op had denied the allegations of refusal to refund the amount of Rs.1120/- as was alleged. 4. Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing the parties, Ld. District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.2240/- to the appellant/complainant and keeping in view the background of the case noted in the impugned order that order for compensation and litigation costs is not being made as the consumer fora are not made for enrichment of consumers. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed before this Commission by the appellant/complainant. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant has contended that the appellant/complainant had to make several efforts to get refund of amount of Rs.1120/-, even legal notice was sent in this regard, which was not responded by the respondent/op. It is contended that the officials of respondent/op also told him that there was no refund policy. It is contended that had the respondent/op any intention to refund the amount, it would have sent the same to the appellant/complainant on receipt of the legal notice sent by the appellant/complainant. It is contended that the appellant/complainant has incurred much more expenses and has also spent expenses for filing the complaint as such District Forum ought to have awarded compensation and litigation costs. Page 3 of 5

4 7. We have heard ld. counsel for the appellant and gone through the material on record. 8. Perusal of records shows that on the very first date of hearing, the respondent/op on its appearance before the Ld. District Forum had offered a sum of Rs.2240/- i.e. double of the amount claimed by the appellant/complainant towards full and final settlement and it was the appellant/complainant who had declined the same. The allegation of refusal of respondent/op to refund the amount by the official of the respondent/op has not been substantiated in any manner. Even the names of the officials who have allegedly refused to refund the amount, have not been stated. It is the appellant who has continued litigation with respondent/op Ld. District Forum has specifically given reasoning for not awarding compensation and litigation costs to the appellant/complainant, which is as under: The OP has on the first date of hearing offered to refund Rs.2240/-. A copy of demand draft dated for a sum of Rs.2240/- drawn in favour of the complainant has also been filed as proof of bonafide on the part of the OP. it will also be relevant to note here that the complaint was filed on In view of the above discussion and especially the fact that the OP from the very first date of appearance was willing to pay double the claimed amount but the complainant prolonged the litigation. In our view the ends of justice would be met if, we award a sum of Rs.2240/- to the complainant. We are consciously making no order as to compensation and litigation cost as the Consumer Page 4 of 5

5 Forums are not meant to enrich the greedy consumers. 9. In view of the above discussions, we find no reason to disagree with the Ld. District Forum. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned order, the appeal stands dismissed in limine. 10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. Record of District Forum be also sent back forthwith. File be consigned to Record Room. (Justice Veena Birbal) President Tri (Salma Noor) Member Page 5 of 5