w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Micro Care Hospitals, Jubilee Hills Branch v/s Neha Rajgarhia

    FA No. 12 of 2016 Against CC No. 345 of 2012

    Decided On, 14 October 2016

    At, Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad


    For the Appellant: M/s. M.K.Jaleel, K.Venkateswarlu, Md.Quizer, Advocates. For the Respondent: M/s. B.Simhachalam, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Oral Order: (Patil Vithal Rao, Member)

1. The order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad [for brevity, the District Forum] in C.C.No.345/2012 is under challenge in the present appeal.

2. The respondent herein had filed the complaint attributing medical negligence on the part of the appellants herein in treating her to reduce the weight by way of Cryotherapy. The said complaint was partly allowed by the impugned order directing the appellants herein to refund a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- i.e., half of the amount paid by the respondent to undergo the treatment and a compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/-

3. The appellants, in the present appeal, have challenged the order of the District Forum on the grounds, interalia, that the respondent did not specifically state in her complaint about her actual weight at the time of her admission in the hospital and also her weight two months thereafter but simply alleged that she was exposed to 150 to 180 degrees of temperature falsely. Infact, she didn’t follow the medical advice in maintaining balanced diet and also failed to attend complete duration in taking the treatment. As per record she lost 4 Kgs., of weight over a period of one month but the District Forum did not consider all these facts including the brochure of the appellant No.1’s hospital and passed the impugned order exparte. Their further case is that, the respondent filed the complaint at the behest of business rivals of the appellants with false and baseless allegations. For all these reasons they prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

4. Perused the written arguments of the Respondent and heard both the learned counsel.5. Now the point for consideration is that:-

Whether the appeal is fit to be allowed as prayed for ?

6. Point:- On seeing the advertisement of the appellants, vide the brochure, Ex.A6, the respondent got admitted in the appellant No.1’s hospital on 15.10.2014 to reduce her body weight. As per the outpatient card, Ex.A4 the appellant was 79.200 grams on the date of her admission and she was aged 34 years with height of 5.3 inches. During the course of treatment by way of Cryotheraphy, as per the complainant her body was exposed to a temperature of 150 to 180 centigrade resulting in her sickness and that the appellants failed to take proper care but behaved rudely during the sittings / sessions. In this circumstance the onus shifts on the appellants to disprove the case of the respondent but to discharge the same they didn’t adduce neither any documentary evidence nor expert evidence. Infact, dispite service of notices from the District Forum and also legal notice from the respondent before filing the case, they remained exparte. The cash receipts under Ex.A1 to A5 show that the respondent paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- and underwent treatment for about 2 months and thereafter, not satisfied with the same, withdrew herself. The District Forum has observed in the impugned order that the appellants did not explain the actual line of treatment and its consequences with risk factors to the respondent before commencing the treatment so also even the respondent did not bother to know about the said procedure. Therefore, the Forum found negligence on the part of both the parties and in the circumstances awarded refund of only half of the amount i.e., Rs.1,12,500/-. It is pertinent to note that the respondent did not challenge said order by way of an appeal.

7. We have carefully perused the entire evidence placed on record and the impugned order. The District Forum has considered all the facts and appreciated the evidence on recor

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d in a proper way and, in our view, came to a just conclusion in directing refund of the amount, noted above, apart from compensation and costs for the mental agony and trauma underwent by the respondent. Therefore, we hold that, the same needs no interference in the present appeal. 8. The point is thus answered against the appellants.9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.