J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
1. Mrs. Punita Jain, the complainant, filed the present complaint before the District Forum, through Shri Tara Chand Jain, her grandfather, aged about 84 years, on 12.03.2009. She had pain in her breast and she was admitted in the Paras Hospital, OP No.1, at Gurgaon, on 25.08.2008. Her ECG was conducted. The Hospital informed her that approximate expenses for three days’ for treatment of the patient, would be Rs.35,500/-. She deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/-. She was kept in ICU, Dormitory and subsequently in Non-ICU Dormitory, till her discharge, on 28.08.2008.
2. The grievance of the complainant is that she was never given the details of her treatment. However, it was a cardiology treatment and a highly escalated bill in the sum of Rs.1,61,475/-, which the complainant had to pay under coercion to the Hospital, on 28.08.2008. The complainant filed the above said complaint before the District Forum alleging that the hospital adopted unfair trade practice. She asked for compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of litigation in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. It is also alleged that Vipul MedCorp Private Limited, OP2, failed to provide the necessary information despite various letters written to it by the complainant and deprived the complainant from taking advantage of cashless facility, who was insured vide letter dated 28.08.2008.
3. The Opposite Parties contested this case. A perusal of record clearly goes to show that filing of this complaint is the abuse of process of law. The record reveals that the bills were settled and paid by Mr.Gulshan Jain, the father of the complainant. The order of the District Forum dated 13.09.2010, copy of which is placed on record, clearly goes to show that Sh.Gulshan Jain, father of Mrs. Punita Jain had earlier filed a complaint (No.203/2009, 12.03.2009) on the same facts and circumstances. The District Forum, vide order dated 13.09.2010, accepted the complaint, partly. Para 4 of the said order runs as follows :-
'According to package of the opposite party No.2, the daughter of the complainant had to remain in the hospital for 3 days including one day in ICU and two days in room. However, according to the bill, the daughter of the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 25.08.2008 and was discharged on 28.08.2008. Thus, she remained there for four days. Thus the complainant was entitled to four days (1 day in ICU and 3 days in a room). The complainant was also entitled to Rs.5,000/- under clause A of 1.0 of the insurance policy. He was also entitled to Rs.25,000/- regarding fee of surgeon and anesthetist, etc. He was also entitled to Rs.50,000/- under clause C. In all, the complainant was entitled to Rs.80,000/-. In our opinion, there was deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1. We, therefore, allow this complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.80,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its actual realization. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for the harassment caused by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. The present order is ordered to be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of this copy of order. File be consigned to the records after making due compliance'.
4. Now, the present/second complaint (No.630/2010, dated 03.08.2010) has been filed, which is barred by principles of res judicata. The first complaint was filed by her father and the second complaint was filed by Sh.Tara Chand Jain, her grand-father. It is also surprising to note that in the complaint, filed by Sh.Gulshan Jain, the National Insurance Co. was arrayed as OP1, but in the second complaint, filed by Punita Jain, through Sh.Tara Chand Jain, the name of National Insurance Co. Ltd. is conspicuously missing. Consequently, the revision petition is not maintainable.
5. In JaswantSingh & Anr., Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, (1985) 3 SCC 648, it was held :-
'In order to decide the question whether a subsequent proceeding is barred by res judicata, it is necessary to examine the question with reference to the, (i) Forum or the competence of the Court, (ii) parties and their representatives, (iii) matters in issue, (iv) matters which ought to have been made ground for defence or attack in the former suit and (v) the final decision.
In order that a defence of res judicata may succeed it is necessary to show that not only the cause of action was the same but also that the plaintiff had an opportunity of getting the relief which he is now seeking in the former proceedings. The test is whether the claim in the subsequent suit or proceedings is in fact founded upon the same cause of action which was the foundation of the former suit or proceedings'.
In view of this authority, the present case is barred by res judicata.
6. It has also come to our notice that the petitioner Mrs. Punita Jain, has used defamatory language against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum/State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The relevant extract from the judgment of the State Commission is reproduced, hereunder:-
'Earlier also First Appeal No.719 of 2011 titled as ‘Gulshan Jain Vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd., and another decided on 05.07.2011 Tara Chand Jain while representing the other litigant had used defamatory language against the District Consumer Forum/State Consumer Commission and was advised not to indulge in such activities using foul language. Shri Tara Chand Jain filed revision petition bearing No.3010 of 2011 against the said order dated 05.07.2011 which was dismissed by Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 01.12.2011. Yet, in the present appeal, instead of having improvement in his attitude, Tara Chand Jain has addressed the State Commission as ‘hostile Haryana State Commission'. In para No.39 of the grounds of appeal at page 45, the appellant has mentioned as under :-
(39) That this appeal is being submitted before the hostile Haryana State Commission'.
7. We have also perused the copy of the appeal filed before the State Commission, which is full of defamatory language. Kee
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the revision petition subject to punitive costs of Rs.15,000/- for wasting the precious time of the consumer fora and using foul language against the fora. Mrs. Punita Jain is directed to deposit the said amount with the Consumer Welfare Fund, by drawing a demand draft in favour of ‘PAO-Ministry of Consumer Affairs’, within 90 days, after the receipt of this order. In default, the Registrar of this Commission shall recover the said amount under Section 25 of the C.P. Act, 1986, in Consumer Complaint No.630/2010, District Forum, Gurgaon. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Gurgaon, as well as to the parties.