IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/199/2008.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
30.12.08 30.12.08 11.07.19
Complainant: Saira Bibi
W/o Saidul Sk
C/o Idrish Ali
Vill-Nowdapara,
PO-Kaliganj, PS-Jalangi,
Dist-Murshidabad
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Anarul Islam
C/o Life Line Nursing Home
2. Abdul Wahed @ Abdul Rahed
C/o Life Line Nursing Home
Proprietor, Life Line Nursing Home
Old B.D.O. More,
Domkal, Murshidabad
3. Dr. Biman Kumar Mukherjee,
Jyotsna Clinic, Beside Power House,
Domkal, Murshidabad
4. Dr. P. Chatterjee
==Do==
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Pranab Kumar Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 &2 : Sri. Debraj Mukherjee.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3 : Sri. Subhransu Chowdhuri.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.4 : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Saira Bibi (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the against Anarul Islam and others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant went to the Lifeline Nursing Home on 17.10.07 with her abdominal pain for her treatment and Dr. Biman Kr. Mukherjee, the OP No.3 advised her to admit in the Nursing Home on 17.10.07 for surgical operation for removal of tumor from her overy. The OP No.3 Dr. Biman Kr. Mukherjee and OP No.4 Dr. P. Chatterjee examined the Complainant and suggested for surgical operation. On 17.10.17 the OP Nos. 3 and 4 performed operation at the Lifeline Nursing Home and anesthesia was done by Dr. P. Biswas attached to the said Nursing Home. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are the proprietors of Lifeline Nursing Home. On 26.10.07, the Complainant was discharged from the Nursing Home after making payment of all charges but subsequently her abdominal pain was not subsided for which she visited the OP Nos. 3 and 4 and they also prescribed some medicines and administered injections. In spite of that the condition of the Complainant was not improved and she became physically unfit to move and was completely bed ridden. Subsequently, the Complainant was taken to Berhampore for consultation with Dr. A.K. Bera who opined that the problem was due to wrong operation and advised the Complainant to undergo fresh operation followed by some tests. Thereafter the Complainant was treated by Dr. T.K. Ghosh, Dr. A.K. Azad, Dr. S.Roy Chowdhury, Dr. M.S. Gouri Ganguly, Dr. Supriya Ghosh Dostidar and all of them opined that the problem of the Complainant was due to negligent operation done by the OP Nos. 3 and 4. The Complainant also did different tests like ultrasonography, ex-ray, Dorsoluamber Spine and it revealed wrong and negligent operation done by OP Nos.3 and 4. Subsequently, the Complainant was taken to Kolkata to the Dept. of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of West Bengal, Bangur Hospital. One MRI was done on 25.06.08 and the Doctors opined that due to wrong and negligent operation so done in the Nursing Home and the functioning of the abdominal system and other parts of the body of the Complainant had been damaged and became inactive and there is less chance of recovery. The fact of wrong and negligent operation so done of the Complainant at the Lifeline Nursing Home performed by the OP Nos.3 and 4 was informed in black and white and on 28.07.08, the OP Nos.1 and 2 admitted their wrong and negligent operation so done on the Complainant. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 forwarded a letter to the Complainant requesting her to bring about peaceful settlement but the OPs failed and neglected to pay any sort of compensation. The Complainant incurred a total expenditure of Rs.15.5000/- towards her treatment and the Complainant suffered mentally and physically. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.15.50000/-.
The OP Nos.1 and 2 filed written version on 15.03.10 contending that the case is barred by law of limitation and the Complainant is not a consumer. It is the case of the OP Nos.1 and 2 that the Complainant came to the Lifeline Nursing Home and consulted the OP No.3 on 17.10.07 and as per advice of the OP No.3 and decision of the patient party, the Complainant was admitted in the Nursing Home. One Bojlur Rahaman who accompanied the Complainant at that time put his signature in the admission and consent form. The Complainant had abdominal histectomy operation successfully and there was no post operative complication. The OPs denied the allegations of any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Lifeline Nursing Home. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The OP No.3 Dr. Biman Kr. Mukherjee contested the case by filing written version on 03.10.13, contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the case of the OP No.3 that he is RMO of Lifeline Nursing Home and he is not a Surgeon and he had no role to surgery or doing anesthesia. It was within his task to inform the specialist Dr. relating to any impatient under his treatment in case any complications and the allegations of the Complainant against the OP No.3 is baseless, imaginary and motivated. He prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The OP No.4 Dr. P. Chatterjee filed written version on 05.02.10 contending that the case is not maintainable and as there is no cause of action to file the complaint. It is the specific case of the OP No.4 that the Complainant came to Lifeline Nursing Home with bleeding per vagina and exclusiting pain abdomen of 17.10.10. The Complainant came to the Nursing Home with U.S.G. report and other prescription. Dr. Biman Mukherjee after consulting about the reports and after examined the patient advised the Complainant for abdominal hysterectomy. The patient party decided to undergo the operation through the Nursing Home and admitted on that day. The OP No.4 being a Surgeon, perform the operation and one Dr. P. Biswas was the anesthetist at the time of operation. Total abdominal hysterectomy was done successfully and there was no post operative complications and the patient was discharged on 26.10.07.In August’08 the OP No.4 was informed by the OP Nos. 1 and 2 that the Complainant through her Ld. Advocate blamed the OP No.4 for performing a wrong operation. The U.S.G. report dated 13.05.08 and 14.05.08 speak that there are no operative complications and the reports are normal. The prescriptions of several Doctors also prove that there are no adverse comment against the operation done by the OP No.4. The MRI report of the Complainant also does not show any abnormality or any comment against the operation. The spine is far away from operative field and there is no connection of the spinal problem of the Complainant with the operation. The claim of the Complainant is excessive and the Complainant filed the case with ill motives and for illegal financial gain.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OPs for consideration.
The Ld. Advocates for the OPs submit that the Complainant is not a consumer. On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
The Ld. Advocates for the OPs submit that there is no cause of action against the OPs.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant suffered mentally and physically and financially due to negligence and deficiency on the part of the OPs. It is argued that the OP No.4 conducted the operation on 17.10.17 in a negligent manner without taking pre operative and post operative care. He further argues that the Complainant spent about Rs.15.50000/- for her treatment but still now the Complainant is not fit and it is due to negligence and also deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is argued that the main problem of the Complainant is in her spine and Dr. P. Biswas who was the anesthetist at the time of operation on 17.10.07 is mainly responsible for sufferings of the Complainant. It is argued that the Dr. P. Biswas was added as OP No.5 on 26.02.14 but his name was expunged as the Complainant could not provide complete address of the OP. He prays for passing appropriate order so that the Complainant may be compensated for her loss.
In reply, the Ld. Advocates for the OP Nos.1 and 2 submits that Lifeline Nursing Home has no negligence or deficiency in service. It is contended that the Complainant came to the Nursing Home for her treatment and as per advice of OP Nos. 3 and 4, the Complainant was admitted in the Nursing Home on 17.10.07 and operation was done by Dr. P. Chatterjee and the patient was discharged from Nursing Home on 26.10.07.He further argues that the Nursing Home came to know that the Complainant faced some complicacy after her operation for which the letter dated 28.07.08 was issued to the Complainant requesting her to meet the authority of the Nursing Home and the concerned Doctor for her treatment but the Complainant did not turn up. It is contended that the Complainant has not filed any scrap of paper to establish that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 have any negligence or deficiency in service.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.3 submits that OP No.3 is an RMO of Lifeline Nursing Home and he did not take part in operation and he had no negligence or deficiency in service in treating the Complainant.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.4 submits that the OP No.4 conducted the operation and the patient was discharged on 26.10.07 without any complicacy and the Complainant has not filed any scrap of paper to establish that there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.4 regarding treatment of the complainant.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence and xerox copies of documents filed by the Complainant. Admittedly, the Complainant came to Lifeline Nursing Home on 17.10.07 with serious abdominal pain and the Complainant was admitted in the Nursing Home on 17.10.07. Admittedly, the OP No.4 performed surgical operation of the Complainant for removal of tumor from her ovary and one Dr. P. Biswas was the anesthetist for operation of the Complainant on 17.10.07. The Complainant could not furnish the proper address of Dr. P. Biswas. It appears from the documents filed by the Complainant that she was consulted with Dr. A.K. Azad on 25.11.07, 13.01.08, 20.04.08, Dr. Ranjit Roychowdhury on 03.05.08 Dr. T.K. Ghosh on 13.05.08, Berhampore Nursing Home on 03.06.08, Dr.A.K. Bera on 07.05.08, Bangur Institute of Neuroscience & Psychiatry on 26.05.08, 02.06.08, 30.06.08, 28.07.08 and he also got X-Ray report and MRI report for her treatment. It is alleged by the Complainant that the sufferings of the Complainant was due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos. 3 and 4 as they conducted the operation on 17.10.07.
It is clear from the materials on record that OP No.4 conducted operation and there is no document filed by the Complainant to establish that the Complainant suffered due to operation done by the OP No.4 on 17.10.07. It appears from the prescription of Dr. A.K. Azad, Dr. Ranjit Roychowdhury, Dr. T.K. Bose that there was history of severe pain in low back.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the main problem suffered by the Complainant is her pain in spine.
On a careful consideration we don’t find anything to hold that the Complainant suffered due to negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1-4. There is no expert evidence to establish the fact that the OPs had negligence and deficiency in service for treating the patient at Lifeline Nursing Home from 17.10.07 to 26.10.07.
Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP Nos. 1-4. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was admitted on 30.12.08 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/199/2008 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member President.
