The record is placed before us for passing final order. The hearing arises out of an application u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Sri. Arjun Dutta (complainant) against Dr. A. Mondal, Consultant Radiologist, Sureksha Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Jalpaiguri; Dr. S. K. Roy, Chief of Lab, Sureksha Diagnostics Center, Jalpaiguri and Dr. Bidhan Saha, Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri (Opposite Party).
Complainant’s case in short is that he has been suffering from severe pennies pain for last two years. On 02/04/2011 he was medically examined by Dr. Bidhan Saha(O.P. No.3) and he prescribed some medicine. The complainant continued the medicine for 6 months. As per advice of Dr.Bidhan Saha, the complainant went to Suraksha Diagnostic Pvt.Ltd. Jalpaipuri on 24/10/2011 for some clinical tests and examinations. On 25/10/2011 he obtained the reports prepared by O.P. No.1 & 2. On 26/10/11 the complainant met Dr.Bidhan Saha (O.P. No.3) and showed him (Dr.Bidhan Saha) his clinical reports and Dr. Bidhan Saha prescribed some medicine after perusing the clinical test reports. The complainant continued the medicine prescribed by Dr.Bidhan Saha for a long time . On 09/06/2012 he met Dr.D.Das(surgeon)as he didn’t get any relief. Dr.D.Das referred him to Urology, OPD, NBMC & H Matigara Darjeeling. On 27/06/2012 the complainant went to NBMC & H and there he met Dr. Bishwajit Roy who opined that the X-ray plate is alright but the report is wrong and that Mr.Bidhan Saha prescribed medicine on the basis of wrong report. It is alleged by the complainant that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of all three O.Ps. and for the complainant has filed this case and prays for the reliefs specified in his petition of complaint.
All three O.Ps. have contested the case by filing 2sets of W/V wherein they denied and disputed the claims and contentions as alleged against them in the petition of complaint.
The specific stand of O.Ps. 1 and 2 is that upon various clinical tests performed on the patient(complainant) it revealed that, “A RADIODENCE SHADOW SEEN IN PARAVERTIBRAL REGION AT L2 LEVEL suggests USG KUB PLEASE” and that through the entire clinical tests conducted upon the complainant clearly revealed that the tests were concerning the abdominal/paravertibral region of the complainant but due to certain machine/typing error the said report mistakenly flashed the following words “X-ray report of the chest(PA)” instead of “X-ray report of the abdomen” and that was an unintentional bonafide machine/typing error and that error doesn’t amount to any act of medical negligence and the complainant neither care to report about such typing error nor he came to O.Ps 1 and 2 for rectification of such errors.
The specific stand of the O.P.3 is that all treatment and medicine administered by him upon the complainant after strictly perusing all related clinical test reports relating to urinary complications/complains of the complainant basing on observation of “A RADIODENCE SHADOW SEEN IN PARAVERTIBRAL REGION AT L2 LEVEL” and the complainant was never diagnosed or given treatment or medicines with any chest related disease.
All three O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION.
1. Is the case maintainable as alleged?
- Is the complainant a consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
- Are/Were the O.Ps. guilty for deficiency of service as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for? If so to what extent?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All four points are taken up together for consideration and decision for the sake of convenience.
Seen and perused the petition of complaint, the W.Vs. and a documents filed by both the parties. We have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld.Lawyers of both sides over this case at a length in full on the previous date.
Now after due consideration of arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both sides an the materials on record we find that admittedly the complainant was examined by Dr.Bidhan Saha (O.P.3) and he gave medicines to the complainant and that as per advice of O.P.3 the complainant went to Sureksha Diagnostics Center Jalpaiguri for his clinical test/examination and that O.P.1 & 2 attached to Sureksha Diagnostics Center Jalpaiguri conducted the clinical tests and supplied the report of the test to the complainant ofcourse on complainant’s payment of required charges. Admittedly Dr.Bidhan Saha, O.P. 3 is a medical officer (Homeopathy) of Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri and he examined and treated the complainant as OPD patient of Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri as it appears from the OPD patient card etc filed by the side of the complainant on 20/05/14. Of course the complainant didn’t pay fees to Dr.Bidhan Saha for examining and treating him as OPD patient. Therefore we may safely come to this conclusion that the complainant is not the consumer of Dr.Bidhan Saha(O.P.3) in terms of Sec 2(d) of the C.P.Act 1986 but he is a consumer of Sureksha Diagnostics Center Jalpaiguri as per provision of Sec 2(d) of the C.P.Act 1986.
Now we find from the Written Version filed by O.P.3 which is supported by affidavit that all treatment as well as medicines administered by him after perusing related clinical test reports relating to the urinary complains/ complications of the complainant basing on the observation of, “A RADIODENCE SHADOW SEEN IN PARAVERTIBRAL REGION AT L2 LEVEL” and the complainant was never diagnosed nor given treatment or medicines with chest related disease. From the Written Version filed by O.P.1 and 2, which is supported by affidavit, we find that the entire clinical tests performed upon the complainant clearly revealed that the tests were clearly concerning the abdominal/paravertibral region of the patient but due to certain machine/typing error, the said report was mistakenly flashed the following words “X-ray report of the chest(PA)” instead of “X-ray report of the abdomen” and that was unintentional bonafide machine/typing error and that the complainant neither reported the matter to O.Ps.1 and 2 and nor he came to them for rectification of the typing error. Now from paragraph 8 of the petition of complaint we find that the complainant went to NBMC & H Matigara Darjeeling on 27/06/2012 and there he met Dr.Bishwajit Roy with all treatment papers and after perusing the medical reports Dr.Bishwajit Roy opined that, “ X-Ray plate is right but report is wrong”, and on the basis of wrong report Dr.Bidhan saha prescribed medicine. But the complainant couldnot produce any opinion of Dr.Bishwajit Roy to show that Dr.Bishwajit Roy has opined that on the basis of wrong report Dr. Bidhan Saha prescribed medicine. Most probably Dr.Bishwajit Roy didnot pass any such opinion because he is an allopathic doctor and Dr.Bidhan Saha is a homeopathy doctor. Now from the X-Ray report which is the subject matter of this case we find that in its bottom it is clearly printed that, “In case of any discrepancy due to machine/ typing error please report immediately for rectification. This report was received by the complainant on 25/10/2011 as per paragraph 5 of the petition of complainant and he collected the opinion of Bishwajit Roy on 27/06/2012 wherefrom the complainant came to know that the X-Ray plate was alright but the report was wrong but he didn’t report the matter either to O.P. No.1 or 2 for rectification of X-Ray report and instead he has filed this case on 25/02/2013 with some ulterior motive of wrongful gain by way of compensation. There is no whisper in the petition of complaint to the effect that the physical condition and ailment of the complainant have deteriorated due to taking medicines prescribed by Dr.Bidhan Saha(O.P.3) on 26/10/2011.
In view of the discussions made herein before we find and hold that O.P.No.3 who is a Medical Officer, (Homeopathy), Sadar Hospital Jalpaiguri examined and treated the complainant all through as OPD patient and he prescribed medicines to the complainant for his urinary complains/ complications basing on the observation of “A RADIODENCE SHADOW SEEN IN PARAVERTIBRAL REGION AT L2 LEVEL” and he never diagnosed or given treatment or medicines to the complainant for any chest related disease and that the complainant being aware of the fact that in the X-Ray report it is printed “X-ray report of the chest(PA)” instead of “X-ray report of the abdomen” due to machine/typing error, didn’t come forward either to report the matter to O.P.No.1 and 2 or for rectification of the said machine/typing error. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant had no cause of action to file this case against the O.P. and there was no gross deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of the O.Ps. 1,2 and 3 as alleged by the complainant. In this view of the matter we find and hold that the complainant had no cause of action to file this case and that the allegation as made by the complainant against the O.Ps. in his petition of complaint is found to be baseless and vexatious and as such this case was/is not maintainable as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and it deserves dismissal.
All points are disposed of.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the case stands dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.3000/-(Three Thousand) to be paid by the complainant to all 3 O.Ps. of Rs.1000/- (One Thousand) each within 30days from this day failing which the complainant shall have to pay interest @9% p.a. till realization and the O.Ps. shall be at liberty to realize the same in accordance with law.
Let copy of this final order be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith in terms of Sec.5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Act 1987.
