- Home
- Medical news & Guidelines
- Anesthesiology
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Dentistry
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- ENT
- Gastroenterology
- Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Obstretics-Gynaecology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopaedics
- Pediatrics-Neonatology
- Psychiatry
- Pulmonology
- Radiology
- Surgery
- Urology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Diet
- Nursing
- Paramedical
- Physiotherapy
- Health news
- Fact Check
- Bone Health Fact Check
- Brain Health Fact Check
- Cancer Related Fact Check
- Child Care Fact Check
- Dental and oral health fact check
- Diabetes and metabolic health fact check
- Diet and Nutrition Fact Check
- Eye and ENT Care Fact Check
- Fitness fact check
- Gut health fact check
- Heart health fact check
- Kidney health fact check
- Medical education fact check
- Men's health fact check
- Respiratory fact check
- Skin and hair care fact check
- Vaccine and Immunization fact check
- Women's health fact check
- AYUSH
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
- Industry
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
Noting deficiency in service the court ordered the following
Attached is the order
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
- Complaint is partly allowed.
- 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.
- The opponent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony.
- The opponent is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of litigation.
- The above order shall be complied with within a period of two month from today
Attached is the order
Meghna A Singhania is the founder and Editor-in-Chief at Medical Dialogues. An Economics graduate from Delhi University and a post graduate from London School of Economics and Political Science, her key research interest lies in health economics, and policy making in health and medical sector in the country. She is a member of the Association of Healthcare Journalists. She can be contacted at meghna@medicaldialogues.in. Contact no. 011-43720751
Next Story