Orissa

Cuttak

CC/193/2021

Kalpana Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr Padmalochan Panda - Opp.Party(s)

R K Panda

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                 C.C.No.193/2021

                        Kalpana Behera,

W/O:Binod Kumar Behera of

Vill:Sompada,P.O:Badabhuin,

P.S:Tigiria,Dist:Cuttack.                                       ...   Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

Dr. Padma Lochana Panda,

Retired Sub-Divisional Medical Officer,

(Presently working as Contractual Consultant Physician),

At:Sub Divisional Medical,Banki,

At/PO/Ps:Banki,Dist-Cuttack

   

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.11.2021

Date of Order:   22.04.2022

 

For the complainants:   Mr.  R.K.Panda,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P :                  Mr. S.N.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.                    

 

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

            The case record is put up today for orders.

            The case of the complainant as made out in short from the complaint petition is that, the complainant was treated by the O.P. Doctor and had undergone family planning operation (Tubectomy) on 16.1.2020 at the CHC of Tigiria.  It is alleged by the complainant that the said operation was not properly done for which she suffered pain in her abdomen and there was swelling at the operated area of her body.  Thereafter she had gone to the Government Hospital at Tigiria where she was operated but no one there listened to her ailment.  On 23.1.2020 one staff of nurse and one Asha Didi had been to the house of the complainant to open the stitches but there was septic and blood had clotted at the operation area for which she was sent to the C.H.C Tigiria for treatment.  The In-charge doctor had advised the complainant there to go to Bindhanima P.H.C for better treatment as there was critical problem.  The complainant had tried to contact the O.P but could not, so the staff at Bindhanima P.H.C advised the complainant to go to Banki and meet the O.P doctor there.  But the complainant having no other way out, went to a private Nursingh Home at Cuttack where she was demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for her treatment showing that her operation was a  defective one which requires another operation.  Being a poor lady, she had to return with heavy heart to her home. Due to such negligence and carelessness of the O.P doctor, the complainant with her family suffers financial and physical stringencies.  It is further averred in her complaint petition that she had to spent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for her re-operation.  The complainant had sent a legal notice to the O.P demanding a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 7.1.2021 and the O.P.  had replied through his advocate denying all the allegations of the complainant vide his letter dt.25.1.2021.  As such, the complainant has filed this complaint petition demanding a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the O.P-Doctor for deficiency in service and as he has been negligent and careless.  She has annexed copies of her medical treatment to support her stand.

2.         On the other hand, the O.P had contested this case and has filed written version wherein the O.P has mentioned that the complaint petition is not maintainable there is no cause of action, the complainant is not a consumer of the O.P.  According to the O.P, the programme was organized under National Family Welfare Programme under the supervision of C.H.C,Bindhanima. The O.P in discharging of his official duties had conducted the surgery.  According to the O.P, the complainant had neither hired nor availed any service for a consideration from the O.P.  The O.P was serving as contractual physician against the vacant post of LTRMO,SDH,Banki vide order no.1399/G/TD/CDM and PHO,Cuttack dt.29.1.2020.  The complainant submitted her consent application form for undergoing Tubectomy at the CHC of Bindhanima to be operated at Tigiria Hospital.  According to the O.P, all the operations were done carefully and there was no question of negligence on the part of the O.P.  The O.P has further averred that the complainant had never informed him about any problem.  She also had neither complained at Tigiria hospital nor at Bindhanima CHC for any post-operative complications.  The O.P has urged that no certificate has been filed by the complainant to prove  that if there was any defective operation done to her as alleged.  Accordingly, the O.P has submitted to reject the complaint petition.

3.         Keeping in mind, the contentions of the complaint petition, as well as that of the written version, the following issues are essential to be adjudicated here in this case.

            i.          Whether the complaint case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant is a consumer?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the claim as made by her?

Issues No.1 & 2

            For the sake of convenience issues no.1 & 2 are taken up together first.  Undoubtedly the complainant had undergone Tubectomy operation at the C.H.C of the Tigiria by the O.P.  The O.P. had conducted the operation being appointed as a doctor by the Govt.  Nowhere the complainant has mentioned that if any consideration amount, service fee if any were paid to any one for such operation on her body and if she was a BPL Card- holder.  As such, here in this case, the complainant cannot term as a consumer.  That apart, the O.P.1 rendered service as a doctor and though alleged the complainant has not proved the negligence if any on the part of the O.P.  Moreso, as it appears that the said tubectomy operation was being conducted as per a welfare scheme of the Govt., called “National Family Welfare Programme”, and the same is not disputed.  Negligence being the crux of the issue, here it can never be said in this case that there was any negligence proved against the O.P while conducting the operation on the body of the complainant.  Keeping all these in mind, it can never be concluded here that the complainant is a consumer and the case as filed is maintainable.  Accordingly the above two issues are answered in the negative.

Issue No.3.

            When it is already settled that the complainant is not a consumer under the O.P, it can be concluded that the complainant is not at all entitled to any compensation as claimed by her.  Accordingly this issue is answered in the negative.

                                                ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest and as regards the facts and circumstances without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 22^nd  day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President

.                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.