E-Paper
Chandigarh hospital to pay for failing to provide promised newborn photoshoot
Not providing a female patient a promised photoshoot of her newborn child in a decorated hospital room despite charging for it has cost a Chandigarh-based hospital dear
Prefer HTon Google
Not providing a female patient a promised photoshoot of her newborn child in a decorated hospital room despite charging for it has cost a Sector 34-based hospital dear.
Holding Healing Multi-Specialty Hospital and Institute of Paramedical Sciences, Sector 34, guilty of deficiency in services, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed it pay the complainant ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹5,000 as cost of litigation.
Parveen, a resident of Phase 2, Ram Darbar, had opted for a premium hospital package worth ₹40,000 by paying ₹4,000 in advance in May 2021 before her delivery.
As per her complaint, the premium package included her newborn’s photoshoot in a decorated hospital room, along with a gift hamper and an album. At time of discharge on May 2, she was handed a bill worth ₹42,730, but the hospital failed to arrange the promised photoshoot.
She said she contacted the hospital several times, personally and via phone calls, but they dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other.
As no one appeared on behalf of the hospital, it was proceeded against ex parte.
The commission observed that the non-appearance of the hospital showed that they had nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
“We are of the considered opinion that the complainant bought the premium maternity package because of the emotional attachment to the special occasion of birth of her first baby. But the act of hospital of not providing proper services, not paying attention to the repeated requests of the complainant during her stay in the hospital, not responding to the duly served legal notice and most importantly not appearing during the proceedings of the present case proves deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice,” said the commission, while allowing the complaint.
