A diagnostic centre who was providing emergency services to hospital under government scheme claimed Rs. 1crore pending amount from the respondent hospital, the major hiccup was there was no agreement between the parties. Due to continuous efforts AICL member recovered the outstanding amount together with the interest.
Party Name: : Diagnostic Centre vs Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital
Court Name: Sole Arbitrator, Delhi
Date: 2023-10-08
Description:
Facts in Nutshell:
The claimant (AICL member) is empanelled with Respondent hospital and with approval of Govt of Delhi under JSSK- Janani Shishu Suraksha Karyakram, whereby claimant is providing diagnostic facilities and services to the poor patients and in emergency cases round the clock.
The claimant alleged that they have not received the payment of Rs.1,11,82,560.62/- (Rs. 76,62,877/- + .35, 19,683.62) which are unpaid and outstanding despite numerous follow ups.
Claimant lodged a complaint under MSME Act before Competent Authority (MSFC), North West Kanjawala, Delhi, at time of hearing respondent stated that the outstanding payment was not released due to non-availability of funds. The MSFC referred the matter to sole arbitrator.
The respondent showed many transactions where amount was paid to claimant between periods of 2020. – 2022, but the claimant counsel pleaded that that is another amount and respondent is confusing the issue to escape the liability. The respondent argued on maintainability of claim for want of any agreement
Outcome:
The sole arbitrator stated that it is apparent that there was no specific denial in the Respondent pleadings about the unpaid bills which were still lying pending with Respondent’s hospital. It is deposed that after reconciliation of the accounts, above amount is still unpaid while the bills are still lying unpaid with Respondent.
The statement of respondents are contrary, respondent stated that nothing is due, then in another statement states that the payment is not made as the alleged bills submitted to hospital are not accompanied by valid evidence and absence of agreement. In addition before MSFC, North-West Delhi, the statement was also made that the payment was not made due to non-availability of funds.
It was further added that upon non-maintainability of the claim for want of agreement – The same has no force as the said issue has been dealt in the Judgment dated 31.10.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 12884/2020, SLP(C) No. 31227/2018, SLP(C) No. 7375/2020, SLP(C) No. 2135/2021 and SLP(C) No. 6166/2021 of the composite order passed in batch of matters – wherein it was held that “despite an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, if MSMED Act 2006 is applicable to them, the Facilitation council has the power, jurisdiction and authority under section 18(3) to either take up the matter for arbitration itself, or refer the matter for arbitration to any institution or centre providing alternative dispute resolution services, once the conciliation proceedings before the Facilitation Council fails.” Thus, it is evident from the Judgment that, MSFC, rightly refer the above said matter to DAC. Tis Hazari, Delhi.” Thus the arbitral award is passed in favour of claimant and respondent is order to pay Rs. 71, 92,983/- original claim amount together with interest @ 9% thereon.
