Misleading Statements Or Representations Must Be Shown To Prove Unfair Trade Practices: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that to establish a case of unfair trade practice, it is necessary to demonstrate that false and misleading statements or representations were made. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant traveled to Hyderabad for personal reasons and, after developing high blood pressure, visited...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that to establish a case of unfair trade practice, it is necessary to demonstrate that false and misleading statements or representations were made.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant traveled to Hyderabad for personal reasons and, after developing high blood pressure, visited Apollo Hospital/hospital for a checkup. Despite not wanting to register as he was from Vishakhapatnam, he was compelled to pay Rs.200 for registration and Rs.500 for consultation, only to find his BP was normal. He filed a complaint with the District Forum, alleging that the mandatory registration fee is an unfair trade practice designed to extract money from patients, which dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant appealed to the State Commission of Telangana, which dismissed the complaint. Consequently, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Hospital
The hospital argued that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no claim of service deficiency. The registration process is 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. The complainant visited in a non-emergency condition and wanted an examination; hence, registration was insisted upon. The hospital denied that the registration fee constituted an unfair trade practice and stated that the allegations were false and baseless.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the complainant's appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution owing to his absence. Upon reviewing the District Forum's order, the commission noted that the Forum provided a well-reasoned decision addressing the contentions from both sides. The District Forum found no evidence that the hospital misled the complainant regarding service prices or made any false representations. The requirement for registration, as explained by the receptionist, did not constitute 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 not present in this case. Consequently, 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.
Case Title: Shankar Saran Vs. Chairman Apollo Hospitals
Case Number: R.P. No. 1663/2022