Assured Single Room Facility Not Available, Bengaluru Commission Orders Motherhood Hospital To Pay Compensation And Litigation Cost
The III-Additional Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (“Member”) held Motherhood Hospital, Bengaluru liable for providing a twin room service despite the assurance of a single room to the complainant as part of their birthing package. The District...
The III-Additional Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (“Member”) held Motherhood Hospital, Bengaluru liable for providing a twin room service despite the assurance of a single room to the complainant as part of their birthing package. The District Commission opined that there is more privacy in a single room and hence, on failing to provide it, the hospital must compensate the complainants.
Brief Facts:
Sri Vaseemuddin. A (“Complainant”) admitted his pregnant wife to Motherhood Hospital, Bengaluru (“Hospital”). The couple booked a birthing package having a ‘single’ room for 3 days for Rs. 82,971/-. As earlier assured in the package, tubectomy was not performed on the wife. Furthermore, the hospital did not provide a twin room to the wife, due to the non-availability of single rooms. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the III-Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”).
The hospital contended that after birth, the baby had distress and that is why the tubectomy was not performed by the treating doctors. Furthermore, the package originally amounted to Rs. 85,000 but the complainant only paid Rs. 82,971/-. During the entire stay, the complainant and his wife did not raise any grievance relating to the twin room and that is why, the concern related to the unavailability of single rooms was an afterthought.
Observations by the Commission:
About the non-performance of tubectomy as assured in the birthing package, the District Commission found merit in the hospital’s contention that the doctors rightfully opined that the performance of tubectomy was unsafe for the wife, in light of her medical history. The District Commission further held that even though the bill was reduced from Rs. 85,000/- to Rs. 82,971/-, it was still excessive even though a tubectomy was not performed. On the unavailability of single rooms, the District Commission held that it jeopardized the privacy of the complainant and the wife. Hence, service was deficient on the part of the hospital as it failed to provide a single room to the complainant and his wife despite assuring it in the birthing package.
The complaint was allowed in part. Consequently, the hospital was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.
Case: Sri Vaseemuddin. A vs M/s Motherhood Hospital and others
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 1050/2020
Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Jameer Pasha
Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri K.V. Girish