Forums not meant to enrich greedy consumers: Court dismisses appeal against St Stephens hospital

The hospital filed written statement and on the first date of hearing, offered a sum of Rs.2240/- i.e. double of the amount claimed by the appellant/complainant towards full and final settlement, which was not accepted by the appellant/complainant. In the reply, the hospital denied the allegations of refusal to refund the amount of Rs.1120/- as was alleged.

It is reported that the case had first gone to a district forum and After hearing the parties, the 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.

Aggrieved with the district forum order , the complainant filed an appeal with the state forum.

The 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 hospital. It is contended that the officials of hospital also told him that there was no refund policy. It was contended that had the hospital 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 was further added that the appellant/complainant incurred much more expenses and also spent expenses for filing the complaint as such District Forum ought to have awarded compensation and litigation costs.

After going through the submissions, the court reiterated that the hospital 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 the hospital to refund the amount by the official of the hospital 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:

Finding no reason to disagree with the Ld. District Forum, the court observed that there is no illegality in the impugned order, the appeal stands dismissed in limine.