Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/16/2017

1. Rati Ranjan Chakra - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Dr. Giris Chandra Rout - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Pradhan & Associates

23 Jun 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

                                                                           C.C. CASE NO .16 OF 2017

1. Rati Ranjan Chakra, Aged about 34 years,

S/o –Sridhar Chakra,

2. Madhusmita Chakra, aged about 11 months,

D/o: Rati Ranjan Chakra, Being minor is represented by her father guardian,

Rati Ranjan Chakra, Petitioner No-1

Both are of Village: Banua, P.O: Gobardhan,

P.S: Sadar,Dist: Keonjhar …………………………………………………….................................................Complainants

 

Vrs

 

1. Dr Girish Chandra Rout,

Gynacie Specialist of D.H.H. Keonjhar,

2. Chief District Medical Officer, Keonjhar

District Headquarters Hospital, Keonjhar

3. State Of Odisha, Represented by the collector, keonjhar

All are at/P.O: Keonjharharh, P.S- town,

District : Keonjhar  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………O.p Partied.

 

PRESENT:

Shri Purushottam Samantara, President

Smt. B. Giri, Member (W)

Advocate for Complainant- B.B Pradhan & Associates

Advocate for OPs – Sri Srutikanta Sahu (GP)

 

Date of filling-27.03.2017                                                                                         Date of order-23.06.2017                                                                                  

1. Sri Purusottam Samantara,-The complainant has made his spouse admitted at D.H Hospital on dt 04.04.2016 at about 11.30AM, on getting labour pain.

2. It is alleged the spouse give birth to a female child by caesarian operation which bleeds excessively and due to such excess bleeding declared dead on 6.30p.m,

3. Further averred the incidence of death occurred is due to gross medical negligence of the attended medical doctor and victim of inhumane & callous post- operative check up and absence of reasonable degree of efficiency in ensuring caesarian operation. Thus instituted   the case in sought of reliefs against committed deficiency of service, praying for Rs 15, 000, 00/-compensation & with cost.

4. Made reliance on birth certificate, death certificate and U.D cases No -68 /16 documents in photo copies and affidavit.

5. In pursuant of notice, the O.P 1 and 2 appeared and filed the version in admission that the deceased Sangitarani Mohanty was admitted to DHQ hospital keonjhar on 04.04.16 at 10 am vide O.P.D Regd No-85. bed No -12 of O.G ward vide I.P.B  Regd No- 670 and examined by G.C Rout  J.D-II , OG Specialist of DHH keonjhar being  referred from Padampur CHC with diagnosis of primi gravida prom with sepsis.

6. Further averred, the deceased    gave birth to a female child at 1.38pm, dt 04.04.2016 by lower segment caesarian section operation. The specialist doctor attends the patient till her death with all attended supervision.

7. The O.Ps also contended, it is clearly revealed from the bed head ticket; there was no post partum haemorrhage (PPH) till 6.30 pm. The patient died due to pulmonary Embolism as mentioned in bed head ticket. The cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest and post partum hemorrhage. The average blood loss during caesarian section is about 1000ml (1ltr), rather post mortem report speaks, and the loss is medium so the death could not be due to PHH, rather due to pulmonary embolism as stated.

8. It is submitted, The question of negligence cannot be imputed against the doctor as advanced, the case is not maintainable as the doctor has charged the duty in giving medical service to the patient free of charge, the allegation in not coming  under the purview & jurisdiction of this forum, further the petitioner on same allegation has institute a case U/s 30 of protection of human rights Act 1993 being the case No – CMC (HR) 527/2016 so simultaneously two concurrent proceeding is not maintainable and needs to be rejected in limine  relied on CMC case petition, bed head ticket notice to show cause in photo copies.

9. Heard the counsels at both end and perused the materials on record.

10. Perusal of record reveals, the complainant has made a prior application U/s 30 of the protection of human rights Act 1993 and the case no –CMC (HR) 527/2016 which is pending before the district judge, keonjhar and on same cause of action and jurisdiction has filed the consumer case, in suppression of the fact as because it is a settled principle proceedings  & under the consumer protection Act and in a civil court cannot run together as the issued involved in both the case is similar & in this context we prefer to made reliance that” where the appellants had chosen and elected remedy by restoring to the civil court , once the choice between the alternative remedies had been made, the appellant cannot seek either parallel remedies or retract  that said choice in order to put the respondent to what was virtually a matter of double jeopardy”-U Rajendran Vs Tamilnadu  Mercantile bank ltd-1993 (1) CLT 272 (NC).

(ii) Where the national commission has virtually castigated such tactics as an abuse of process. Therefore, the order of the district forum dismissing the complaint of the appellant on the ground of non- maintainability was affirmed –Mam Raj Vs M.D Eicher Tractor Ltd.

11. Further it is not in the record, the petitioner has paid a pie towards any consideration. In absence of any consideration the complainant is not a consumer there by same being barred of provision of term 2(d) and on this score is also not maintainable.

 We made reliance on another authority: - Afsana Bano Vs Dr Mangu Verma & others, in which it is held – The treatment in government hospital is being done free of cost –it will not fall under the C.P Act 1986 (Para 7 and 6)-2014(3) CLT.

 

12. Further we also made reliance in the case of major Singh Vs state of Punjab -2014 (4)   CPR 697 (NC) in which it is hold- A person who avails facility of medical treatment in Govt hospital is not a consumer and no complaint is maintainable under C.P Act.

13. We also gone through authority made reliance by the petitioner and O.Ps. The petitioner authority hints at vicarious liability and remain silence on entitlement to be a consumer hence differs entirely, similarly the subject matter under authorities that relied by O.Ps differ on the issues that is not relevant to the present context.

14. In view of the above said discussion and the findings given above we hereby decide the case as follows. Keeping all the facts and circumstances of this case, with these observations, we dismissed the case thereby the matter stands disposed off.

 

Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced, 23^rd June 2017.         

 

                                                                                                                                                            

     I agree             

                                    

    (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                            (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

    Member (W)                                                                                                              President                    

DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                   DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                   

           

 

                                                                    Dictated & Corrected by

 

 

(Shri Purushottam Samantara)

  (President)

      DCDRF, Keonjhar