Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, President. This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986. Present complainant named Priya Sankar Bose being a Senior Citizen filed this complaint for not getting proper service from the Dr.R. Ahmed Dental Medical College at Sealdah and in this case he has alleged that he visited the said hospital for relief against acute pain on gum on 05-11-2011 and outdoor doctor attended him and suggested for x-ray of teeth before sending him for extraction of teeth. But the X-ray Department having noted in his card directed him to visit after 30 days for x-ray and only name was noted and getting no x-ray report complainant was compelled to go to nearby private X-ray clinic by paying high amount on 07-01-2012 and thereafter getting such x-ray report visited the outdoor again when the outdoor doctor advised him to deposit money with the counter of said hospital for the purpose of extraction of teeth on 07-01-2012. Thereafter, money was collected and complainant was advised to go to doctor for doing the needful on 07-01-2012 and doctor having found the money deposit asked him to bring his attendant when complainant replied that nobody an earlier occasion advised him to bring attendant not it was printed in the card. But complainant expressed to give relief of the pain urgently when there were about 8/10 doctors mostly idly sitting but the doctor suggested to bring one attendant. Thereafter, complainant somehow managed to get one attendant from the footpath and appeared before the doctor. But the doctor refused to give him any relief though sufficient infrastructure of the Govt and manpower were available but no service was given and he was denied treatment at that time 12.00 noon approximately. Having failed to get the proper treatment from the doctors of the hospital, complainant came to the ground floor and enquired about the Principal/Superintendant of the Hospital for reporting but none was available. Thereafter, a complaint letter was given to the department but was too not received as it was reported that the concerned/receiving clerk had already left the desk. Thus the complainant had to suffer a lot and he was suffering from very acute pain and for which he also suffered from breathing trouble but some of the public showed sympathy and took him to hospital at Rashbehari at about 3.00 p.m. by Taxi and in that private Nursing Home doctors extracted his teeth at about 4.00 p.m. and gave him relief otherwise it would be fatal for him. Considering such sort of service and negligent manner of duty on the part of the hospital authority/superintendant including the administration complainant is compelled to file this case for relief because waiting for 6 months he did not get any result though he sent letter to Director of Health and also other offices and in the premises complainant has prayed for redressal. No doubt notice was served upon the OP by Regd. Post with A/D. but ultimately an answer was submitted by Professor Dr. Monimoy Bondyopadhyay, Professor and Incharge, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery of Dr.R. Ahmed Dental College & Hospital in this case on 09-11-2012. But thereafter, no step was taken so the case was heard ex parte. But in the said written objection Dental College Authority by submitting written objection tried to say that a notice outside the outdoor was fixed where it was clearly mentioned that no extraction will be performed without a family attendant but it is not possible to print everything in an outdoor ticket as there are some in-house rules for every department. Further it was stated that no surgical procedure is performed without a family attendant likewise extraction is also a surgical procedure and complications may occur during or after extraction like unconsciousness, excessive bleeding, seizure and even death. So it is very much essential that the patient should be escorted by an adult family attendant who will take care of him in case of any emergency both inside and outside the hospital. So, they asked every patient verbally to bring an adult family attendant, though it was printed outside the door. But in respect of the present patient it was submitted that he was aged about 68 so chance of complication was more for him so they were helpless to ask him to bring adult family attendant but unfortunately he failed to understand the real matter and brought such allegation. They stated in the written objection that he brought an attendant from footpath who was not at all related to him. Further that hired attendant refused to take any responsibility in case of any untoward complications. The other allegations made by the patient is fabricated and totally baseless though OPs express their deep sense of sorrow for his sufferings but it was his fault who did not see the notice and further failed to understand the real necessity of the adult family attendant and as a doctor it is always the doctor’s duty to serve the greater benefit of the patient rather than apparent one and it is specifically stated that the doctors of the department are very sincere and if the records of the patient treated by doctor in the hospital are checked and they have also expressed their utmost sincerety and sympathy to serve the patient and at the same time they have expressed that they shall have to keep the account regarding indoor complication that may be taken place and that is their only account of explanation which was submitted in this case. In view of the above situation we are convinced to hold that we have nothing to examine anything more but only relying upon the complaint and the written show cause or explanation of doctor on behalf of the Dental College we can decide the entire case for which we entered into merit of this case for decision. Most interesting factor is that the doctors were present at that date but it was admitted by the doctors that for want of attendant the extraction of teeth was not done by them and it is the explanation of the OP doctors that to avoid any future complication after extraction it is must to take care of the patient by the attendant and the risk if any would be found shall be taken by the attendant. But admitted fact is that on the very date after complying several formalities from outside the present complaint went to the Dental Hospital and doctor did not extract his teeth on that date on the ground that his family members are not there. Then question is if it is found that one person is unmarried and if he has no friendship with no family members and no connection with family members and in such a situation the doctor must not have to undergo any extraction of the teeth. Whether such type of patient can be refused by the Dental Hospital only on the ground that his family members are not there and it is to be mentioned that the entire explanation as made by the Hospital Authority Dental Hospital is completely a fake and unfaithful story in view of the fact that in many hospitals many persons with gum pain or tooth pain go to Dental Department where tooth or teeth are extracted as per requirement by the doctor without any attendant. Then the Forum’s question is before the Dental Hospital, Dr. A.R. Ahmed Dental College and Hospital whether this hospital is meant for the patient having their attendant but such sort of plea is completely baseless but truth is that the complainant deposited money as per requirement which is proved from the document of the OP hospital authority. But clarification as made by the doctor is found baseless without any foundation and actually there is any need for such observation after extraction because it was/is the duty of the doctor to admit him and to observe by their own nurse/men in that hospital but there was no ground for calling an attendant when extraction was necessary to give relief to the complainant. we have gathered in so many cases during the judicial career that many doctors in such a situation did surgical operation on the person of patient in absence of the attendant and it is duty of the doctor to save the life not to get attendant. Then it is clear that the entire Dental Hospital is being run by the administration without any administrative control. On flimsy ground the complainant was refused for extraction of teeth. Question is for what reason he was compelled to go to private nursing home when Govt. Hospital is here and there and undisputed fact is that this patient was denied treatment by the hospital without any reason and it has become a practice of many hospital to refuse patients in such a manner for giving indulgence to the private nursing home to continue their business and there is an internal nexus in between the hospital and the nursing home and that is the order of the day. Most interesting factor is that Director of Health is here and there but they are sitting in the administrative building with blind eyes in respect of the day to day affairs of the hospital. And they are not in a mood to control the administration of different hospitals and for which thousands of patients are being refused treatment by the hospitals and they are compelled to go to private nursing home and for that reason private nursing home business has become the health trade business and if such sort of trade by the nursing home shall not be controlled by the Government in that case Hospital doctors shall not give support to the patient to appear before that hospital. Practically ethics is nowhere in the hospital barring same experts and of some particular doctors and it is evident that Dental College and Hospital is under the control of staff and they are removing patient in such a manner by denying treatment at the hospital only to send them to private nursing home and perhaps this complainant also faced such taps. No doubt complainant was harassed by this hospital which is proved beyond any manner of doubt and no prudent manner shall have to believe that only for absence of attendant his teeth was not extracted. Fact remains it is a medical college and hospital, if it is required this patient may be admitted for want of attendant for observation after extraction that had not be done what it indicates that this Dental Hospital was negligent and deficient in rendering service to the patient even after payment of required charge but it is peculiar that for extracting an extra one month is required by the Hospital when one shall have to suffer from teeth pain then we are very much annoyed about the event of the entire health education particularly the present Dental Medical College and Hospital. After studying the explanation of the Dental Medical College Hospital we have gathered that they have stated many things about the precautionary measures which is under related to the extraction of the teeth. But it must be kept in our mind no doubt there is a free hoarding “prevention is better than cure” but in the present case it is not applicable. In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that the present Govt. Dental Medical College and Hospital and its staff and doctors were negligent in rendering service and deficient in giving proper medical aid to the complainant for which invariably the complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- from the Ops and OPs are bound to pay it for their negligent and deficient manner of service as shown or given to the present senior citizen of 68 years old complainant. After handling this case and on proper evaluation of the heart of the complaint and from denial of the Dental Hospital Authority we are bound to say when the poorer section of people in India shall have to get proper health service from Govt. hospital when it is the right of each and every Indian Citizen to get proper health service from the hospital and it is the right conferred by the Act and Constitution that cannot be denied by any hospital authority. But in this case virtually it was denied. So, invariably there was sufficient ground to file this complaint and no doubt it is an example of the entire service and behaviour of the hospital authority but fact remains if any assessment is made by any Govt. special authority it would be found that it is the daily history of all the government hospitals. Thus the complaint succeeds. Hence, Ordered That the compliant be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty-five thousand only) to the present complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which for each days disobedience of the Forum’s order both the OPs are severally and jointly shall have to pay punitive damages @500/- till fill satisfaction of the present decree and even penal measures shall be taken against both the OPs and their head of institute or the Directors of the Health for which they shall be responsible for.
| | [HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul] MEMBER | | 
