Order Name: Shankar Saran Vs. Chairman Apollo Hospitals
Case No.: R.P. No. 1663/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, recently made an important ruling about unfair trade practices. To prove such a practice, false and misleading statements or representations must be shown.
Facts of the Case
The complainant traveled to Hyderabad for personal reasons and developed high blood pressure. He visited Apollo Hospital for a checkup. Despite being from Vishakhapatnam and not wanting to register, he was forced to pay Rs. 200 for registration and Rs. 500 for consultation, only to find out his blood pressure was normal. He filed a complaint with the District Forum, claiming that the mandatory registration fee was an unfair trade practice meant to extract money from patients. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied, the complainant appealed to the State Commission of Telangana, which also dismissed the complaint. He then filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Hospital’s Defense
The hospital argued that the complaint was not valid because there was no claim of service deficiency. The registration process is intended to capture necessary demographic information and is done only once, providing a unique number for future visits. The registration fee is justified, and in emergencies, registration is not required unless the patient seeks further treatment. Since the complainant visited in a non-emergency situation and wanted an examination, registration was required. The hospital denied that the registration fee constituted an unfair trade practice and called the allegations false and baseless.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission noted that the complainant’s appeal was dismissed because he did not show up. After reviewing the District Forum’s order, the commission found that the Forum had provided a well-reasoned decision addressing both sides’ arguments. The District Forum found no proof that the hospital misled the complainant about service prices or made any false representations. The requirement for registration, as explained by the receptionist, did not constitute an unfair trade practice. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines case was cited, emphasizing that unfair trade practice requires false and misleading statements, which were absent in this case. Therefore, the complainant failed to prove any unfair trade practices by the hospital.
The National Commission agreed with the District Forum’s findings, upheld the orders of both the State Commission and District Forum, and dismissed the revision petition due to lack of merit.
Takeaway
This judgment highlights the importance of understanding what constitutes an unfair trade practice. Simply charging for a service does not qualify as unfair unless false or misleading information is involved. If you feel wronged by a service, ensure that you have clear evidence of misleading statements or false representations to support your case.
