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

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TG2007PTC052534

Company & Directors' Information:- D D HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2009PTC073765

Company & Directors' Information:- U C C CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC024474

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND E HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KL2003PTC016562

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. M. CARE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC056151

Company & Directors' Information:- R R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100HR2011PTC042705

Company & Directors' Information:- K P S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TZ1994PTC004918

Company & Directors' Information:- B R S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN1988PTC016237

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA MICRO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059405

Company & Directors' Information:- V H M HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2009PTC073497

Company & Directors' Information:- D B R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TG2003PTC041648

Company & Directors' Information:- N K MICRO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC062260

Company & Directors' Information:- MICRO HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110OR2010PTC012095

Company & Directors' Information:- S M R HOSPITALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U85110DL2005PTC143152

Company & Directors' Information:- M S R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110AP1994PTC017731

Company & Directors' Information:- M M HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U85110UP1993PTC015371

Company & Directors' Information:- E CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300TN2005PTC058342

Company & Directors' Information:- K C HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110PB2012PTC035880

Company & Directors' Information:- B M HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2005PTC058062

Company & Directors' Information:- N N HILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55209RJ2021PTC073252

Company & Directors' Information:- NEHA CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC097763

Company & Directors' Information:- NEHA CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52311PN1996PTC097763

Company & Directors' Information:- CARE HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110MH1999PTC119263

Company & Directors' Information:- S A HOSPITALS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110MH2002PLC136697

Company & Directors' Information:- M. B. HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100HR2010PTC041489

Company & Directors' Information:- M G M I HOSPITALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85195KA2010PTC052058

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND D HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2002PTC117618

Company & Directors' Information:- JUBILEE HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U33112TG1997PTC028505

Company & Directors' Information:- M CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL2002PTC114030

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND F CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33309KA2020PTC140201

Company & Directors' Information:- NEHA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110MP2000PTC014417

Company & Directors' Information:- M. R. HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110UP1995PTC018165

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HOSPITALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U85110HP1992PTC012651

Company & Directors' Information:- V K R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110TG2011PTC075009

Company & Directors' Information:- V P HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2011PTC220548

Company & Directors' Information:- G S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100AP2014PTC094902

Company & Directors' Information:- I HILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999KL2020PTC063411

    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/-.