Mumbai: Metropolis Healthcare fined Rs 1 lakh for changing locations

Mumbai : Changing locations can indeed prove a costly affair for healthcare providers, it seems.  Recently, The Central Mumbai District consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, is reported to have imposed a fine of approximately Rs 1 lakh on Metropolis healthcare on account of changing its location and hence causing hardship and inconvenience to one of its patients.

The case pertains to one Aziz Ahmed Jadwet, who had paid Rs.41,000/- in April, 2011 and Rs.36,000/- in July, 2011 for orthodontic treatment of his son and daughter. The dental treatment was going on at Madam Kama Road opposite Mantralaya (“Mantralaya Centre”).

In June, 2015 the complainant came to know that, the dental treatment is out sourced to one Siamed/Sidvim life Sciences. The complainant was told also that, the dental department at Mantralaya Centre is going to be closed and the complainant has to attend dental clinic at Goregaon which is about 35 k.m. away from his residence.

Keeping the long distance travel in mind, and the fact that the children were school going, Jadwet pointed out to the hardship and the inconvenience caused by the shifting of locations and approached the court to direct the opponent to provide dental treatment at Mantralaya Centre or near by fully equipped Centre. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-

The hon'ble court noted

There is no dispute that, amount was paid to the opponent for orthodontic treatment. The location was Mantralaya Centre. Admittedly, treatment is not completed. The opponent shifted the location from Mantralaya Centre to Goregaon which is far away from the residence of the complainant. His son and daughter are school going. It is physically not possible for them to attend the clinic at Goregaon. It will cause inconvenience to them. The complainant opted treatment presuming the location at Mantralaya Centre. Now, directing him to attend clinic at Goregaon amounts to deficiency in service.

Noting deficiency in service the court ordered the following

1. Complaint is partly allowed.


2. The opponent is directed to refund Rs.77,000/-. (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Only ) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filling of the complaint i.e. 24 November, 2015 till its realization.


3. The opponent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony.


4. The opponent is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of litigation.


5. The above order shall be complied with within a period of two month from today

Attached is the order