West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/475/2014

Smt. Barna Saha ( nee Das ) representing minor son Arnab Saha aged about 12 Yrs. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Dr. D.K. Samanta, C/O Modak Medical Hall . - Opp.Party(s)

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24-PARGANAS, ALIPORE, KOLKATA – 700 027

                                                       C.C. Case No.___475_____OF_____2014________

Date of Filing :22.9.2014                                                                               Date of Passing Judgement: _28.4.2015

Present                                :               President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

                                                Member(s)    :   Dr.(Mrs.) Shibani Chakraborty

Complainant                                      :  Smt. Barna Saha (nee Das) representing Minor Son Arnab Saha of Village Toutamnagar South  Jalkhura, (baruapara), P.O Maheshtala, P.S. Maheshtala, Kolkata – 141., Dist. South 24-Parganas.

                                                                                                                -Versus-

O.P/O.P(s)                                          : 1. Dr. D. K. Samanta, C/.o Modak Medical Hall , Paschim Roypur Colony More, Banerjeehat, P.S. Maheshtala, Kolkata – 141.

                                                                2.     Prop. Modak Medical Hall, Paschim Roypur Colony More, Banerjeehat, P.S. Maheshtala, Kolkata – 141.

                                                                                                JUDGEMENT

Dr.(Mrs.) Shibani Chakraborty, Member

                The short case of the complainant is that her ailing minor son of 12 years old was brought to Dr. D.K. Samanta on 28.6.2014 with a history of fever, cough and bodiache . It has alleged that doctor without clinical observation and valuation prescribed medicine with further instruction to continue Paracetamol if fever ,cough, body ache continues for 10 days. It has stated that after taking the said medicine as advised , from the evening of 28.6.2014 and 4.7.2014 it was observed  some eruption of skin on footsore, palm , genital area besides reddish eye ball and swollen lips and such fact was reported to the doctor on 4.7.2014 at p p.m. who advised to take paracetamol only and asked to bring the patient in his Chamber on the next date i.e. on 5.7.2014. It has stated that fever and cough was not controlled . The patient was also brought to the Chamber of the doctor who observed the condition and opined chicken pox and prescribed medicine and after administering the said medicine bleeding was evidence with cough in the night of 6.7.2014 and profused bleeding was coming out in the morning of 7.7.2014 and the said fact was reported to the Doctor in the morning in between 8.30 to 9 a.m and said doctor refused to visit the house of the complainant on the contrary advised to take the patient in his chamber on the next date i.e. on 8.7.2014 .But considering the condition of the patient he was brought to Dr. Sumantra Sarkar who suspected Steven Jhonson Syndrome and referred to any in-patient care and accordingly patient was got admitted in B.P Podder Hospital on 7.7.2014 and discharged on 16.7.2014 ,where treatment of Steven Jhonson Syndrome was done and the patient is under regular observation and care.

                The complainant compelled to file this case claiming medical negligence against the said doctor since without paying heed to the ailment doctor prescribed some medicine which was uncalled for and diagnosis was not correct and based on negligence. Hence, this case.

                The O.P-1 is contesting the case by filing written version and denied all the allegations leveled against him. The first contention of the O.P-1 is that complainant is not a consumer and as such the Ld. Court has no jurisdiction to try the same and also the case is bad for mis-jolinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  It has further stated that complainant had failed to place on record any document that will show that in fact any amount was paid to Nursing Home or to the physician and therefore complainant is not regarded as consumer. It is the further case of the O.p-1 that the complainant has claimed that she purchased medicine as per prescription on 28.6.2014 from the medicine shop of O.P-2 but without any cash memo. It has not stated that she purchased the medicine beyond the limit which was prescribed on 28.6.2014. It has claimed by the O>P-1 that any medicine shop will not sell medicine beyond the prescribed date and further claimed that the complainant had manufactures false story to cover up her negligence because on 5.7.2014 she appeared before the O.P-1 with her ailing son in the chamber when the patient was clinically diagnosed and medicines were prescribed. Thus consuming the medicine as prescribed in more quantity during the said period was not as per prescription dated 28.6.2014. It has further stated that recording of the clinical observation on the prescription dated 28.6.2014 does not attract medical negligence as alleged. It has further claimed that if some clinical findings like blood pressure or pulse rate was not noted that does not mean that other organ of the patient was not checked by the doctor. Thus it has strongly stated that there was no negligence on the part of the O.P-1 doctor and complainant miserably failed to prove that O.P-1 was negligent in treating child and the standard of care on the part of the O.p-1 was not taken . Hence, pays for dismissal of the case.

                O.P-2 is also contesting the case by filing written version and has denied all the allegations leveled against him. It is the positive case of the O.P-2 that he has all along been maintaining the regular habit of issuing cash memo in any kind of medicine sold from his shop since beginning. So, O.p-2 is not bound to suffer any penal consequence due to gross negligence of the complainant who has come up to the Ld. Forum with an absolute vague and vexatious ,false and frivolous claim which should be dismissed with exemplary cost in favour of O.P-2.

                Points for decision in this case is  whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.

 

                                                                                                Decision with reasons

                We have carefully gone through the records and documents filed by both the parties. O.P-1 explained and submitted some medical documents and judgrment. The complainant could not submit any vital documents to prove the negligence of O.P-1 . O.P-1 clinically prescribed some medicines to the patient (minor) to continue and after consuming the medicine the complainant was asked to visit the O.P-1 doctor. But the complainant without visiting the O.P-1 contacted over telephone. There was no evidence whether the complainant consumed the medicine or not and if consumed how many tablets he consumed. Even the complainant has no evidence whether he purchased the medicines or not and if purchased from which medicine shops. No receipts were attached with the complaint.

                On the other hand, the B.P Podder Hospital diagnosed the disease as “Steven Jhonson Syndrome” without any pathological test.  Without any positive test which is required to diagnose the disease like “Steven Jhonson Syndrome” how they come to the conclusion the positiveness of the disease.

                The complainant did not pay any fees to the O.P-1 (the receipt did not submit) and not filed any documents that the medicines were purchased from O.P-2. Apart from that in vies of reported decision of Hon’ble National Commission in 2013(1) CPR Page 345 medical mis-diagnosis does not amount to medical negligence. No evidence is there that reasonable degree of skill and care was not taken by doctor at the time of treating the ailing son of the complainant.

                After discussing the above we did not find any deficiency or negligence on the part of the O.Ps .

                As a result the case of the complainant fails.

                Hence,

                                                                                                                Ordered

That the case being C.C.no. 475 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed without cost.

Let a plain copy of the judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

                                                                                Member                                                                              President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

                                Member

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

Ordered

That the case being C.C.no. 475 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed without cost.

Let a plain copy of the judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

                                                                                Member                                                                              President