A Delhi court has dismissed a man’s plea against doctors of a renowned private hospital in Delhi for allegedly cheating him by overcharging for a pacemaker implant surgery of his father.
The man moved the court challenging an order by which the doctors were summoned as accused for offence of dishonest misappropriation of property under the IPC. He had instead sought framing of cheating charge against the doctors.
Additional Sessions Judge S K Gupta rejected the plea saying it was a second revision petition as another sessions court had already rejected his plea in 2015.
“The revision against the summoning order was filed. The court has considered the fact whether any graver offence is made out or not. The revision petition was dismissed.
“The said order has attained finality meaning thereby that the respondents (doctors) will be proceeded for offence under section 403 of IPC. The present revision tantamount to the second revision. This court cannot sit over the order passed by then revisional court,” the judge said.
It, however, said proceedings against the hospital under section 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property) of the IPC shall continue.
A trial court had on March 6, 2014 summoned two doctors of the Okhla-based hospital for the offence under section 403 of the IPC.
According to the complaint, the father of complainant and revisionist Saurabh Singh was admitted in the hospital in 2012 and Rs 8.40 lakh was charged for pacemaker implant surgery.
Later, his father was informed by another hospital that the pacemaker was not functioning properly so he was once again admitted to the accused hospital and operated upon.
On August 22, 2012, the old pacemaker was replaced with a new one and he was billed Rs 2.66 lakh, the complaint stated.
The complainant came to know that the cost of the new pacemaker was Rs 80,000 less than the old one, but he was charged more by the hospital.
The hospital, however, had denied the allegation and said the difference of price in the cost of the two pacemakers was sent to them through courier, adding there was no dishonest intention or misrepresentation on the part of the hospital or its doctors.
The counsel for the revisionist had contended that the hospital never told him that the implant was of a different make which showed there was dishonest intention on their part to cheat him.