West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/270/2014

1.SRI PRABIR DUTTA. S/O. Late Prafulla Kumar Dutta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. RUBY GENERAL HOSPITAL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Nilanjan Das.

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,KULPI ROAD,  KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. _270_ OF ___2014

DATE OF FILING : 18.6.2014                           DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  31.08.2017

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

                                        Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad                        

COMPLAINANT             :    1.  Sri Prabir Dutta, son of late Prafulla Kumar Dutta.

2.Sri Pratip Dutta, son of late Prafulla Kumar Dutta ,boh of South Bankim Pally, P.O & P.S Madhamgam, Dist. North 24-Parganas, Kolkaa – 129.

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                        :  1.   Ruby General Hospital Ltd. Kasba, Golpark, E.M Byepass, Kolkata – 17.

2.   Dr. Arindam Das, attached with Ruby General Hospital Ltd. Kasba, Golpark, E.M Byepass, Kolkata-17

3. Dr. Amitabh Saha, Doctor of Ruby General Hospital Ltd. Kasba, Golpark, E.M Byepass, Kolkata-17

________________________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that the father of the complainant Prafulla Kumar Dutta was suffering from ailment and was taken to O.P-1 Ruby General Hospital for better care and treatment and he was examined by the emergency medicine department with a history of general weakness of lower limb and OCC.  He was diagnosed in the emergency department  of O.p-1 hospital and several pathological tastes 2were done as per advise of Dr. Arindam Das, the O.P-2 like blood , glucose(fasting), urine for C/S, TCDC, urine for routine , Glucose post prandial, TSH, ESR, Vitamine B-12, uria Creatinine, Sodium, Potassium, Glycosylated, Hemoglobin, etc . and he was provided general bed at the said hospital at a bed charge of Rs.1200/- per day. It has further claimed that O.P-1 hospital assured the complainants their other relatives that the complainant had nothing to be worried and the complainants and their relatives were rest assured by the O.Ps that better services will be provide to the patient.  It has also assured that considering the suffering of the O.Ps they will provide special attention and having heard the same the complainants and their relatives were in hope that they have nothing to be worried about the treatment and care of the patient and the complainants and their other near relations reposed total trust upon the O.Ps.

            All on a sudden on 1.4.2014 complainant received one telephone call form the O.P-1 to the effect that the patient of the complainants jumped from the 3^rd floor of the hospital building and hearing the same, the complainants and their near relations were really puzzled and such news was bolt from the blue to them and it was further informed over telephone by the O.P-1 hospital that the father of the complainants died.  Accordingly they rushed to the hospital without wasting any time and after arrival to the hospital the complainant other relatives found that they most respected father Prafulla Kumar Dutta died for whom complainants literally issued blank cheque towards the medical expenses for early recovery as well as costs of any type  of treatment as required and seeking the dead body of the father the complainants got tremendous shock and they were disheartened and mentally shocked .

            Thereafter, complainants and their other relatives with a view to unearthing the truth requested the hospital authority to allow them to see CCTV footage and at the first instance the hospital authority disclosed before the complainant and their relatives that as per rules and regulations, the private individuals would not be allowed to see the TV footage and they tried to convince the complainants and near relatives that only investigating authority had access to such footage , but such representation of the O.P-1 hospital could not satisfy the complainants and then they had to ask the O.p-1 hospital to submit the rules and regulations as the O.P-1 hospital meant to say before them and over that issue hot exchange of view took place and after long persuasion request and reminder, the O.p-1 hospital allowed the complainants and their near relatives to see the CCTV footage and it was found by the complainants that at about 4.30 a.m on 1.4.2010 the patient Prafulla Kr. Dutta came out from his room and went to balcony and it was further found that at that time there was no security guard in the third floor of the hospital building and in the balcony of the said floor of the hospital building, there was no CC TV coverage and for the reason aforesaid   the complainants and their near relatives were not in a position to see that how their patient was fallen from the third floor of the hospital building.  It has stated that patient was kept in the hospital room in unguarded position and none was there to look after, supervise  and control the patient and so at that point of juncture, the complainants who los their father had nothing to do,  but to agitate their grievances before the Administrative Officer of the O.P-1  in writing and they have received the written representation on that date. Anandapur Police Station lodged a G.D Entry being no.10 dated 1.4.2014 and the officials of the Anandapur P.S held inquest over the dead body of the complainant’s father being Inquest no.10 dated 1.4.2014 and thereafter the dead body of Prafulla Kumar Dutta was taken by the police authority for P.M being P.M no.884 dated 1.4.2014 and after that d3ead body of the said Prafulla Kumar Dutta was handed over to the complainant no.2 Prabir Dutta  . Accordingly cremation was done by the complainants. It has been submitted that from the final diagnosis  it will not be evident  that patient was in acute condition and/or was not responding to the treatment so far rendered and/or the patient was mentally shocked and total  nervous system was broken down and patient was suffering from acute Neuro Problem and even it will not be found that the patient had otherwise reaction. So, it can be easily said that practically the patient got no treatment during the period of admission in the said O.P-1 hospital and it goes without saying that proper treatment was not rendered to the patient and even proper care was not taken by the O.P-1 hospital inspite of the fact that the O.p-1 hospital for itself and the treating doctors raised bills from time to time and the complainants had to pay the same without any objection.

 It has strongly claimed that O.P-1 have no infrastructure ,no such security and safety to protect the interest of the patient and the TV footage will speak itself that the patient was not at all safe and in this case none was there to resist the patient, the father of the complainants  , from going out from the hospital bed to balcony and if anyone of the hospital authority be alert, the father of the complainants, since deceased, had no scope to leave the hospital bed and as such it can be safely presumed that hospital authority is highly negligent and deficient in rendering services towards the complainant and complainants have no hesitation to submit that the patient was kept uncared and for which such most unfortunate ,unwanted, unwarranted and undesirable incident took place and for such carelessness, negligence and deficient acts and activities these complainants have los their respected father forever and as such good lesson should be given to the caring opposite parties so that the other may not be victimized for similar incident.

 It has also claimed that O.P nos. 2 and 3 were equally negligent as neither the O.P-2 nor  the O.P-3 treated their father with due care and skill and they were negligent in not assessing the physical and mental condition of the patient and proper caution was not given by them to the persons who were on duty to look after the patient and as such the O.p-1 and the O.P nos. 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable for the present wretched condition of the complainants and their family members and it is pertinent to mention here that deceased Prafulla Kumar Dutta used to draw handsome money on account of pension which could help the family and if Prafulla Kumar Dutta would alive the entire family could have enjoyed such monitory benefit and the same would be helpful to the family and so the family of said Prafulla Kumar  Dutta have been deprived of such financial assistance for untimely and unwanted death of said Prafulla Kumar Dutta ,whose death  is caused completely due to gross negligence and deficiency on the part of the O.Ps.

  Hence, this case for deficiency of service against the O.Ps with a prayer for giving direction through West Bengal Medical Council to cancel the licence of O.P-1 as well as to cancel the registration of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 along with prayer for compensation of Rs.15 lacs against O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 jointly and/or severally on account of mental agony and pain and anxiety depriving the complainants and their family members from enjoying the retirement benefit of Prafulla Kumar Dutta, since deceased,  litigation cost  Rs.30,000/- .

                The O.P nos. 2 and 3 filed a joint written version and noted the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in India in 2009 (1) CPJ page 33  and has claimed that this type of dispute is a complicated one and without the evidence of medical expert in the specialized field it would not be possible for the District Forum to decide the matter and further voluminous evidence is to be recorded  because the Consumer Forum is created for summary trial . So, the present case should be dismissed. It has stated that no cause of action is disclosed against the O.Ps.  So, it is liable to be dismissed.   It has claimed that this case has been filed only to malign the reputation of the O.P. Again they have pointed out that the issues involved in this case is complicated, particularly the allegations involved in medical negligence is very technical in nature and Ld. District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and complainant should approach before the Civil Court. It has claimed that Consumer Forum having  right to exercise jurisdiction in the  simple cases would be pleased to decline its jurisdiction in entertaining the purported complaint. It has claimed that this case is bad for non-joinder of parties since complainant was examined by several doctors.  It has claimed that O.P nos. 2 and 3 are medical consultants and in no way connected with the safety of the patient , the role of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 are limited to see, evaluate and advice medicines which are required. It is claimed that no concerned doctor can be held negligent if any one committed suicide and in the P.M report it has mentioned that patient had committed suicide which is an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the O.Ps strongly claimed that O.P nos. 2 and 3 being the doctors acted as per their accepted medical norms without any negligence and prays for dismissal of the case.

            The O.P-1 Ruby General Hospital filed a separate written version and denied all the allegations leveled against them. It is the positive case of the O.P-1 that the suicide that was done by the father of the complainants was sudden, unprovoked and in absence of any symptoms or inclination . It has stated that not only the complainant but also the hospital authority who were taken aback by the sudden steps taken by the patient to end his life and the situation was equally puzzling to all and sundry since there was no history nor any indication of suicide or its connected indication in the patient history as revealed by the patient party while admitting his to the O.p-1 hospital and there was no preventive role that the hospital  could have played to avert the unfortunate incident. It has claimed that hospital is not a jail where the security services people will keep strict vigilance over the patients like accused in a jail. However, the CCTV footage which is in the custody of O.p-1would clarify the true facts as to what had happened on 1.4.214 after 00.00 hours onwards i.e in the dead of night when almost all the patients were sleeping. It has admitted that uncontrolled diabetes even with insulin injection for the last two years with weakness in two lower limbs which became severe for about last 10 days prior to his death might have given a great thrust on his mind since the patients was suffering from diabetic neuropathy and urinary incontinence with incomplete evacuation of bladder. Whatever it was, the spur o the moment was responsible for such uncalled for death since the patient thought that committing suicide would be the only way open before him for his permanent peace of mind.  There was no history of suicide attempt or psychiatric indication in its favour of any point of time. Suicide in psychiatric disorders by Roberto “Tatarelli et al and Sunopsis Psychiatry- Behavioural Sciences Clinical Psychiatry, 10^th Ed. By Benjamin James Saddock et al would clarify the same. Thus no one , not even the dear and near one of the patient had expected such type of extreme step could be taken by the patient. The CCTV footage will disclose how non-apprehensive were the movements o the patient during the material point of time. It has claimed that patient was never unguarded though there was no specific restraint on him as he was not a case of psychiatric illness. It has claimed that it was a case of unnatural death caused by the fall. So, there is no nexus with the hospital nor were the same imposed by the O.p-1 hospital upon the complainants. It has claimed that complainant also failed to clarify that in the dead of night in such a situation who would resist the patient from doing such uncalled for act and there was no record for suffering from mental trouble. It has claimed that railings on the floor were upto a reasonable height of 6 feet  and it was not raised beyond that height to handle fire emergency. It has claimed that sons of the deceased are much more interested to have the money for such sad situation of their father which no one assessed earlier rather no symptom was there prior to such extreme steps so taken by such patient and they considered that the Consumer For a is there in the country to provide enormous money to them as solace as if it is nothing but a jackpot lottery. Hence, the O.p-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint case.

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

 Decision with reasons

            Admittedly Prafulla Kumar Dutta, a 72 years male was admitted at Ruby General Hospital on 23.3.2014 at 3.10 p.m and from the Admission Form it is appearing that the said Senior Citizen old person was brought to the hospital from his usual place of residence at South Bankim Pally, Kolkata by his younger brother Shyamal Dutta and at that juncture although he has two sons who are the complainants were not taken any care to admit their ailing old father, who is a pension holder.

            Be that as it may, it is also admitted that Prafulla Kumar Dutta subsequently in the dawn morning climbed the wall of the hospital and jumped on the ground floor and thereby succumbed to the injury as unfolded in the Post Mortem Report that death was due to the effect of injuries as noted above “Antimortem in nature” and Police Officer of Anandapur Police Station visited  and prepared Medico Legal Case Report dated 1.4.2014 at 5.16 a.m at Ruby General Hospital where the patient was admitted i.e O.P-1 and from the report of the police after the occurrence it revealed “Early morning jumped off from the third floor lobby and had fallen down in the ground floor lobby in front of the reception and sustained injuries”. This is the history as it revealed from the case report.

            Now  complainants have claimed that due to uncared and negligence of the hospital authority as well as treating doctor said unfortunate incident took place.

             On the other hand both the O.Ps have stated that it is very difficult for the hospital authority as well as the Doctor to provide guard since the patient was not Psychiatric and it cannot be foreseen since patient was suffering from diabetic and Neuropathy and condition was stable, that is why, Ld. Advocate of the O.P-1 has advanced ornamental arguments on that point and his line of argument is that the patient has a long standing history of diabetic for more than 30 years and neurological problems resulting weakness in the leg resulting from Diabetic and his treatment was sequentially provided and he has stated that act of suicide was sudden unprovoked and without any symptom and patient had no history or likelihood of suicide or any attempt in past and he was never diagnosed with any history of major depressing disorder like something which pre-existed the likelihood of suicidal attempt and he has claimed that his son Pratip Dutta answered so to the questionnaire by the O.P-1 (Hospital) in point no.15,16,18 and 19 . It has further claimed that patient had mild depression something from likely of any patient admitted to the hospital at any advanced age. He has also admitted that Psychiatric was referred on 31.3.2014 but unfortunately patient jumped off and from night itself as an abundant precaution and there was no alarming situation of warrant security visit at any point of time since patient Prafulla Kumar Dutta was too communicative/friendly with the O.P nos. 2 ad 3 Doctors.  He has claimed that in absence of any depressing disorder it is impossible to predict any extreme steps on the part of the Hospital and the doctors as in the present case there can be no preventive measure on the part of O.P-1 hospital. He has relied some reported decision that there was no forcible situation indicating suicidal …….. no negligence shall lie. He has also relied a very reasonable judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi passed in F.A no. 452 of 2014 against the order dated 30.6.2014 in complaint case no. 65 of 2010 of the State Commission , West Bengal with I.A/2699/2016 , IA/5477/2015 . In the said Judgment appellant was Apex Institute of medical Science situated at 1219, Survey Park, Santoshpur, Kolkata – 75. The Hon’ble State Commission held guilty of deficiency of service for not taking precautionary step for safety and security of the patient admitted in the hospital and allow the complaint. The observation of the Hon’ble State Commission also noted in the body of the Judgment at page 4. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment the appellant Apex Institute of Medical Science preferred a revision before the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble National Commission has observed in the body of the judgment as follows:-

            “Applying the principle and recognizing the duty which a doctor and a specialist such as D r. Monckton owes to his patient and the duty which a hospital owes to a given patient as an individual. I am impelled to the conclusion that Lepine’s sudden leap through the window was not an event which a reasonable man would have foreseen and have been required to take more precautions that were available in this case. Short of having put Lepine in some restraining device or of keeping him at ground level, both of which were rejected by the Appellate Division as being necessary or required, the injuries sustained by Lepine were the result of an impulse on his part which could not reasonably have been foreseen. To hold otherwise would, in my judgment, make doctors and hospitals insurers against all such hazards which they are not”.

            In fine, Hon’ble National Commission has observed that “We are inclined to agree with the principles laid down in the said judgment. In the instant case, Niloy Banerjee had left the general ward, climbed to the roof and jumped on impulse which a reasonable person would not have foreseen particularly, when Niloy Banerjee was not even psychiatric patient or suffering from depression or metal disorder. The hospital authorities in our considered opinion cannot be held negligent for failing to prevent such unexpected events which a reasonable person is not expected to foresee. Therefore, in our view, the State Commission has committed a grave error in holding the appellants guilty of negligence with regard to the proper care and custody of Niloy Banerjee. Impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained”.

            The Ld. Advocate of the O.P-1 strongly relied and emphasizes over the views of the Hon’ble National Commission. We are also not in compelling circumstances, but exercising our judicial mind is in agreement with the observation and findings of the Hon’ble National Commission as stated above. But before that we have turned our eyes on the BHT as well as observation of the ward nurses and action taken by the treating doctor as well as of the safety measure taken by the hospital to be examined. Since, at a first flash the ornamental argument advanced by the ld. Advocate of the O.P-1 is very attractive, particularly when he forced on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission. So, our duty is to see whether the service of Niloy Banerjee is identical with Prafulla Kumar Dutta?

            Ld. Advocate of the complainant has shown the daily nursing assessment of O.P-1 Ruby General Hospital of Patient Prafulla Kumar Dutta who was admitted in Bed no. 3007 as well as nursing progress report.

            We have turned each and every pages till 31.3.2014 and we find that treating doctor was Dr. Arindam Das who is O.P-1 (A Das). From the BHT dt. 23.3.2014 column “Safety Protection” reveals that side rail guard and emotional status was psychological symptoms and psychological support was given. Again on 24.3.2014 the same bed side rail as well as emotional status was psychological support. On 25.3.2014 side rail bed was provided in the bed and psychological support was given. On 26.3.2014 Dr. A Saha Attended and safety protection was not provided, side rail off. But emotional status- was psychological support. On 27.3.2014 again side rail given for patient safety and psychological support was given. On 28.3.2014 the same side rail given in three shift of nurses for patient’s safety and emotional status was psychological support. On 29.3.2014 safety measure and psychological support was taken by three shift nurses. On 30.3.2014 the said safety measures of side rail given in three times and psychological support was given three times. On 31.3.2014 same thing was happened and n the dawn morning of 1.4.2014 patient had fallen down from the third floor and expired.

            Thus, the nurses’ observation clearly demonstrates that Prafulla Kumar Dutta had required psychological support and that is why three shifting nurses had given psychological support as well as side rail of the bed was given.

            If that be so, why treating doctor did not refer Psychiatrist immediately, but it was referred on 31.3.2014 and it is also unfortunate to point out that although treating Doctor referred for Psychiatrist but neither advised the hospital authority knowing fully well that hospital authority did not take care for vigil of the patient at least on that date. So, reported judgment clearly observed that Niloy Banerjee was not even Psychiatric patient or suffering from mental disorder. But here in the instant case Prafulla Kumar ?Dutta required psychological support for which the ward sister, safety measure, bedside rail were given in three shift. But what the treating doctor did?   Answer is , in order to save the skin he referred to Psychiatrist on 31.3.2014 , why not earlier, when daily observation has been unfolded by the Nurses, no explanation was given by the O.P-1 doctor  ,nor the hospital authority. So, it is a clear case of negligence on the part of the speciality hospital and doctors cannot save their skin, because they did not refer in time ,nor take any query why the Psychiatrist did not visit. It is a glaring example of deficiency of service on the part of the Doctors as well as the hospital authority, since the liability is a vicarious liability.

            It is pertinent to point out that from the questionnaire it reveals from the treating doctor as well as hospital authority that CCTV Camera was there. If that be so, why that footage was not provided firstly to the police authority, secondly to this Court, no explanation was given. Thus best witness has been withheld by the hospital authority. So, adverse presumption can safely be presumed in view of Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act. The Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1872 clearly empowers the Court to presume “That evidence which could be and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withheld it. In the case in hand, CCTV Footage is within the custody of the O.P-1 which has been withheld. So, presumption can be drawn that if the CCTV Footage was produced then real picture i.e how the patient Prafulla Kumar Dutta in the dawn morning left the ward and jumped from the third floor into the ground floor and succumbed to the injury, would have been come out. Definitely CCTV footage will demonstrate that no ward-boy was provided in the main gate of the ward and no nurses was present. If present, was in sleeping condition, that is the sheer negligence of the hospital authority which is a lack of supervision.

            We are aware that, whether or not the act or commission is negligent must be judged not by its consequences alone, by considering whether a  reasonable person should have anticipated that what happened might be a natural result of that act or omission. Here, in the instant case in continuous observation of psychological support as well as keeping Prafulla Kumar Dutta in the hospital with a protection of side rail, neither the doctor nor the hospital authority think for a moment either to transfer Prafulla Kumar Dutta in a Psychiatric ward or give attention which is required for a depressed patient. The O.P-1 has observed “Mild Depression”. But wherefrom he has obtained that mild depression.  The doctor opined that patient was depressed. In order to save the skin O.P-1 has taken this plea of mild depression. If the patient was depressed, why specific treatment was not taken in time and at last on 31.3.2014 referred to  Psychiatrist. Everything was done  hurriedly with the control of the O.P-1 , may be just after the death of Prafulla Kumar Dutta in the dawn  morning , because it was mentioned on 31.3.2014 “Referred to Psychiatrist”.  The probability  is that if the Psychiatrist was advised, definitely O.P-1 can arrange the same immediately in a City like Kolkata when the patient was already admitted at Ruby General  Hospital which is one of the leading hospital in Kolkata. But the Nursing progress report clearly demonstrates the defense of the O.P-1 as well as the doctor , since psychological support was given. If any normal person is admitted for chronic diabetic and Neurological problem, can it be considered that psychological support is required?  Answer is no. But when he was confined to the hospital bed the best person was the nurses who takes care round the clock, observed the attitude of the patient and rightly given side bed rail as well as psychological support. But treating doctor overlooked the same knowing fully well the age of the patient and the patient has lost his better half. It may be the cause of psychological depression in this very old age when person leaving alone.

            An argument may be thrown out by the O.P  doctors in the Court that the son of the deceased filed this case and deceased was leaving with the son. But if we go through the admission slip, we find that younger brother Shyamal Dutta admitted the deceased , not any of his son and the son after the death of their old father came to the daylight for performing ritual ceremony being a son and filed this case for compensation. So, loneliness and loss of wife is a very genuine cause of depression, that is why, attending nurses round the clock had given psychological support and bedside rail was given round the clock. So, there is apprehension that Prafulla Kumar Dutta at any time may leave the ward for any unfortunate incident. But neither the hospital authority nor the doctors had given any attention to that effect. Firstly, the doctor did not refer in time, and in order to save skin it was noted on 31.3.2014  referring to Psychiatrist very intelligently, otherwise question may arise if it was earlier, then why not Psychiatrist examined? So, all these pros and cons in connivance with the hospital authority, the treating doctor did it on 31.3.2014 , when in his opinion, the patient was depressed. So, it is undoubtedly a negligent act from the side of the treating doctor. He ought to have advised the hospital authority to shift the patient in the Psychiatric ward or keep vigil to the patient as it required when the patient is required psychological support by the three times nurses within 102 days of admission to Ruby General Hospital, O.P-1, but that care was not provided.

            Here in the instant case, the emotional status of Prafulla Kumar Dutta and beside rail provided to him clearly demonstrates that he could do anything at anytime which is a reasonable foreseen, but unfortunately the doctor and the hospital authority did not consider the same. Necessary precaution ought to have taken when patient was having psychological disorder and depression. It should be mentioned here that in order to prove this type of negligence of the doctors as well as the hospital authority Court must be careful to place itself in the position of the persons charged with the duty and to consider what he or she should have reasonably anticipated as a natural probable consequence of neglect and not to give undue weight to the fact that an accident has occurred.

            Here in the instant case placing ourselves as a management of the hospital as well as a treating doctor we definitely observe the day to day progress report of the nurses who are the right persons to observe round the clock firstly referring to the Psychiatrist as well as hospital authority was also responsible for shifting the patient in the first floor or ground floor or take vigil of such psychological depressed patient. But the said thing was not happened inspite of day to day progress report of the nurses of the said ward where Prafulla Kumar Dutta since deceased was admitted in bed no.3007. This is a glaring example of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

            We have already discussed the day to day assessment of the Nurses and the doctors who have to depend upon the investigation, report and conduct of the patient from the daily nurses’ assessment after observing the said Assessment Registrar which is produced in this case as a diagnosis of Prafulla Kumar Dutta under Dr. Dey as well as Dr. Das etc. So, from the very beginning we find that in column of “Emotional Status” always it has mentioned psychological support by the three shifting nurses and definitely doctors have observed the same and even then what prompted the treating doctors not to shift the patient in the psychological ward , particularly when in column no.IV “Safety protection” – side rail was given according to the report of the three shift nurses and until and unless the doctor advised, the hospital cannot shift the patient in a psychological ward. Thus the negligence of the doctors cannot be overruled and lastly on 31.3.2014 Prafulla Kumar Dutta was referred to Psychiatrist and at the same time if the patient was shifted to psychological ward, then this type of unfortunate incident can be managed somehow. But inevitable did not happen. So, what was done should not have been done since the care of the hospital authority as well as the doctor is unfortunate.

            It is interesting to point out that  in the written version of O.p-1 in para 8 last portion mentioned “That apart complainants have also failed to clarify that in the dead night in such a situation who would resist the patient from doing such uncalled for act”. This line of written version is undoubtedly created annoyance to this bench, because O.P-1 wanted to shift their burden in this manner . But the O.P-1 , where the patient ( complainants ‘father) was admitted, is the best person to say or clarify what happened in the dead night producing the CCTV footage, but the same ha snot been produced.  Again in para 6 of the written version O.P-1 has claimed that patient was never unguarded, though there was no specific restrain on him as he was a case of psychiatric symptoms. But the progress report of the Nurses ,under whose care the patients was staying in the hospital bed normally speaks otherwise. The report of the three times nurses was altogether different by giving side rail in the bedside ,but O.p-1 have no knowledge regarding the same. If the patient was not psychiatric , how in the emotional status it was mentioned psychological support was given. So, the claim of the O.P-1 has no leg to stand upon.

            It is not out of record that normally security guard is provided in any hospital including O.P-1  ,so that no admitted patient can be come out from the room provided by the hospital itself. So, how the father of the complainant went up to the balcony and jumped from there ? No positive or satisfactory answer can be given by producing CCTV Footage and if it was produced, then it can be safely presumed that there was no security guard . This is a glaring example of deficiency of service by the O.p-1 taking money from the complainants .

            So, all discussions clearly suggest that there are negligence on the part of the doctors not to exercise their medical mind to refer the patient in psychological ward and to the Psychiatrist in time and  reference was made on 31.3.2014 when the complainant already died due to psychological problem and the overall supervision of the hospital is undoubtedly very sorry state of affairs.

            Lastly we condemn the highhandedness of O.P-1 Ruby General Hosptial regarding the Law of the land. They have criticized not only the Consumer Forum but also the Hon’ble State Commission in para 9 last part by observing that “Complainants who are the sons of the deceased patient , are much more interested to have the money of their father , which no one assessed earlier. Rather no symptom was there and prior to such extreme steps taken by the patient and they considered that Consumer Forum or Commission is there in the country to provide enormous money to them as a solace and this is nothing but a jackpot lottery. Thus observation against the Forum and the State Commission is hereby condemned . It should be mentioned here that not only the Consumer Forum, Hon’ble State Commission, Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble Apex court clearly passed several views according to their services. So, it is not a jackpot lottery. So, once again we condemn the highhandedness of the O.P-1 which is a private organization and they should pray for apology before the Hon’ble State Commission when they will prefer appeal against this order.

            Considering all aspects we find that complainant has been able to prove the gross negligence of the doctors since the treating doctors did not care the regular condition of the patient who is none but father of the complainants , particularly when bed side rail was given in the bed and there was psychological symptoms. This is negligence which is more proved in delay in referring the patient to the Psychiatrist. So, this referring to the Psychiatrist proved that patient had Psychiatric problem and as such deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is clearly proved against the O.P-1 for not producing the CCTV footage and for not taking care of the patient during his stay in the hospital , although high-tech persons have been appointed by them to squeeze money from the members of the ailing patient.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest against all the O.Ps.

All the O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs to the complainants on account of suffering mental pain, agony and anxiety etc. by the complainant .

The prayer for direction upon the West Bengal Medical Council to cancel the licence of O.P-1 and registration of O.P nos. 2 and 3 is hereby refused at this stage.

The litigation cost is assessed at Rs.20,000/- to be paid by all the O.Ps jointly and/or severally.

The above payments shall be made within 45 days from the date of this order ,failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through due process of Law.

 

 

 

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps  through speed post.

 

Member                                                          Member                                              President

Dictated and corrected by me

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest against all the O.Ps.

All the O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs to the complainants on account of suffering mental pain, agony and anxiety etc. by the complainant .

The prayer for direction upon the West Bengal Medical Council to cancel the licence of O.P-1 and registration of O.P nos. 2 and 3 is hereby refused at this stage.

The litigation cost is assessed at Rs.20,000/- to be paid by all the O.Ps jointly and/or severally.

The above payments shall be made within 45 days from the date of this order ,failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through due process of Law.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

Member                                                          Member                                              President