Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case filed by Bapi Mondal, S/o. Amay Mondal residing at Mastikari, Dakshin Barasat, South 24 Parganas, Pin 743 372 and Sarama Mondal (Baidya), W/O. Bapi Mondal, against Rabi Rashmi Centre, Dakshin Barasat Sougata Roy Chowdhury, Dr. Samir Bhattacharya, Sahyajit Diagnostic Centre Welkin Medicare Pvt. Ltd. With a prayer for directing OPs 1, 2 and 3 to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony, depression and harassment suffered by the complainants, to pay the litigating cost of Rs.20,000/-.
OP No.1 is Rabi Rashmi Centre. The address is Dakshin Barasat, South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743 372.
OP No.2 is Sougata Roy Chowdhury S/o. Sankar Lal Roychowdhury. He is the proprietor of Rabi Rashmi Medical Centre. The address is Village – Mastikari, P.O. & P.S. – Joynagar, Dist. – south 24 Parganas, Pin – 743 372.
OP No.3 is Dr. Samir Bhattacharyya, DMRD, Radiologist, attached to Rabi Rashmi Centre. The address is same as OP No.1.
Proforma OP No.4 is Satyajit Diagnostic Centre. The address is Joynagar Thana More. The address is 48 N.S. Bose Road, Joynagar, Majilpur, South 24 Parganas.
Proforma OP No.5 is Welkin Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The address is Garia Station Road, Kolkata- 700 084.
The complainants, by filing the case states that complainant Nos.2, Surama Mondal (Baidya) felt pain in the abdomen on 02.05.2019, they met with Dr. M. Halder, who, after examining the patient (Complainant No.2) advised for USG of whole abdomen, some medicines were also prescribed by that time. On 17.05.2019, USG was done at Rabi Rashmi Medical Centre on payment of required charges. From the report of USG, it appeared that left ovary was bulky (7.1 cm X 4.05 cm) and showed a cyst measuring 4.7 cm x 3.6 cm with internal echoes. Impression – “Bulky left ovary shows a complex cyst. After getting the report, the complainants met with M. Halder. He advised for laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy, Biopsy and Blood test – C A 125 on the basis of the report of OP No.1.
Hearing the news of the cyst, the complainant No.2 was shocked and perplexed apprehending fatal disease. The complainants were totally depressed. However, the complainants decided to make another USG from another diagnostic centre to ascertain the genuinity of the test report, prepared by OP No.3. Accordingly, the complainants make another USG from Satyajit Diagnostic Centre on 25.05.2019 and the second report revealed that there was no cyst in the ovaries of the complainant No.2 as it appeared from the USG report of Satyajit Diagnostic Centre on 25.05.2019. The complainant made another USG from Welkin Medicare Pvt. Ltd. On 20.06.2019 and in their report, no ovarian cyst was found. In the meantime, the complainant No.2 also recovered from illness.
Hence the complainant prays for directing the OP No.1, 2 and 3 to pay to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainants for mental agony, depression and harassment suffered by them, to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
In the written version, filed by the OPs 1, 2 and 3, OPs state that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law.
The present complainant is absolutely frivolous. The present complainant is filed by one Sarama Mondal (Baidya). She was being treated by the Diagnostic Centre in the name of Sarama Mondal and the Aadhaar Card which has been disclosed before the Ld. Forum is that of Sarama Vaidya. Three names with different address are coming before the Ld. Commission.
The patient was suffering from a cyst and it was correctly identified by the OPs from the USG plate. The subsequent dissolving of cyst due to various medical reasons is known to medical science. As such the present complaint is bad in the eye of law. The complainant has not filed any ex-part report in this matter. Without any evidence of medical experts of specialized filed it would not be possible to decide the matter.
Often the ovarian cyst causes no symptom. Occasionally they may produce bleeding, abdominal pain etc. Cysts may be a form of ovarian cancer. Most women of reproductive age develop small cysts each month large cysts occur before menopause. The report of OPs 4 and 5 showed that there was no cyst and it is a medical possibility.
The complaint has been filed with the sole objective of financial gain. The said complaint does not disclose any cause of action. The USG film was not examined by the radiologist. The majority of cysts are harmless. Hormonal birth control may be used to prevent further cysts in those who are frequently affected.
The claim of compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- is absurd.
The OPs 1, 2 and 3 state that the present complaint is baseless and devoid of any merit. So they pray for dismissal of complaint with heavy cost.
The case was filed on 08.08.2019. The case was admitted on 26.08.2019. On 24.10.2019, the OPs 1, 2 and 3 file power and W/V. On 15.11.2019, the complainant, by filing a petition prays for treating his complaint petition as evidence –on-affidavit. On 29.11.2019, the OPs file questionnaire. Copy served. On 10.12.2019, the complainant filed a petition with a prayer to send the treatment sheets for medical expert’s opinion. But there was allegation of incorrect entry in USG report, which was prepared by OP No.1. There was no treatment, so no requirement of sending the treatment sheets to medical expert arises. So the prayer of the complainant is rejected. Complainant files reply. On 04.02.2021 Ld. Lawyer of the complainant is present. Argument was heard in part. On 09.03.2021, the complainant files a petition praying for medical expert’s opinion. On 05.04.2021, the complainant files a number of X-ray report. On 13.09.2021, copy of the USG plate of Sarama Mondal was sent to Superintendent, Baruipur Sub-divisional Hospital with a request to appoint a radiologist under his control as expert to examine the USG place dated 17.05.2019 (issued by Rabi Rashmi Centre) and it was directed to submit a report whether there was any cyst seen in the left ovary of Sarama Mondal. On 16.02.2022, report is received from Sub-divisional Hospital, Baruipur. On 22.03.2022 the complainant states that they want the original USG place. On 13.09.2022, the Baruipur Sub-divisional Hospital was directed to send the USG plate. On 01.09.2022, OPs 1, 2 and 3 and Palash Bhattacharya, Radiologist of Baruipur Sub-divisional Hospital submit the USG report of Sarama Mondal. He stated that “there is a predominantly cystic SOL shown in the left abdominal region with? echogenic focus which comes in differential diagnosis of ovarian cyst as on adenexal SOL… it will be highly obliged if a second opinion is taken”. On 02.11.2022, the complainant prays for a second opinion. On 06.12.2022 it was ordered to send the copy of USG report Diamond Harbour Medical College and Hospital. On 23.10.2023 Report was received from Diamond Harbour Medical College and Hospital. On 01.06.2023, the OPs 1, 2 and 3 file additional BNA. Heard argument of the complainant on 28.06.2023 and 24.07.2023. Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement.
Points for consideration :-
- Is the complainant, a consumer?
- Are the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
Point No.1:-
On perusal of the documents and records, it appears that the complainant No.2 is a married woman, felt abdominal pain on 02.05.2019. The complainant No.2 visited the chamber of Dr. M. Halder. She was told to make an Ultrasonography. She did the Ultrasonography on 17.05.2019. Subsequently she did Ultrasonography at Satyajit Diagnostic Centre and Welkin Midecare Pvt. Ltd. The complainant had to pay for her Ultrasonography. So the complainants are consumers U/S 2(7) of C. P. Act 2019. So the first point is decided in favour of the complainants.
Point No:2 :
The complainant got a report of USG, from Rabi Rashmi Medical Centre. Again she went to Dr. M. Halder on 20.05.2019 who advised for Laparoscopic ovarian Cystetomy. The size shown as 7.1 x 4.5 cm. As per authentic report, a cyst will not heal until it is lanced or drained or surgically excised. Without treatment, the cysts will eventually rupture and partially drain. It may take months or years to progress. Some cysts go away on their own, but not all the cysts. If the cysts are not drained out, the cysts remain, and after gaining fluid, it may occur again. If there is a big cyst, it is not removed without treatment. It was stated by OPs 1, 2 and 3 that Dr. M. Halder misread the report. On the basis of diagnosis he advised for operation. It is difficult to understand how a reputed diagnostic centre has given such wrong report. Subsequent reports of Satyajit Diagnostic Centre and Welkin Medicare Pvt. Ltd. obtained within a short gap from the first one show that there was no cyst in the uterus. Some skin cysts appear and disappear after some years, but not within a span of two months. The USG plate was also sent to Diamond Harbour Govt. Hospital for expert opinion. Their report was based on Rabi Rashmi Medical Centre. No positive report has been received yet. It appears that the OPs 1, 2 3 delivered a wrong report on the basis of which the complainantNo.2 was going to be operated. The OPs 1, 2 and 3 are negligent in rendering proper service to the patients / consumers. The OPS 1, 2 and 3 are deficient in rendering service. In case of negative reports, the diagnostic centres will get the charge. The reason of such unfair trade practice is best known to them. Hence the 2nd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs 1, 2 and 3.
Point No.03 :-
The complainant received the report from Rabi Rashmi Diagnostic Centre that she had a cyst. Getting the report, the complainant No.2 was shocked, because the left ovary showed complex cyst. The doctor suggested operating the cyst, immediately. She was also advised to obtain blood reports and the doctors gave other instructions. The complainant spent time in mental agony and pain. Hence she is entitled to get relief as prayed for. She was so scared that she decided to get the 2nd opinion, which proved that she had no cyst. Hence, the 3rd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs 1, 2 and 3.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against OPs. 1, 2 and 3 with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) and dismissed against OPs 4 and 5.
That the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are jointly and / or severally directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 are jointly and / or severally directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of this order.
That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within 30 days from the date of this order.
Ld. Member Sri Partha Kumar Basu joined on 11.04.2023 and he did not take part in hearing the argument of the case. As such, he did not sign the Judgement and Order passed on this day.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost.
That the final order will be available in the following website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sangita Paul
Member
