DATE OF FILING                    :     14-02-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      19-03-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     04-09-2014.  

Ranjit Sarkar,

son of late Biswanath Sarkar,

residing at Ber Ballavpur, P.S. Kotwali,

District – Paschim Medinipur,

being represented by his wife viz. Dipali Sarkar,

wife of Sri Ranjit  Sarkar,

residing at Ber Ballavpur, P.S. Kotwali,

District – Paschim Medinipur,

PIN – 721101.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Dr.  A. Samanta,

a  practicing doctor at

Howrah District Hospital, Post & P.S. Howrah,

District – Howrah.

2.         Howrah District Hospital,

            being represented by its authorized officer

            at Post & P.S. Howrah,

            District – Howrah. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. no. 1 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- for faulty operation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs. On receiving an accident on 20-09-2013 the complainant was admitted at the Howrah District  Hospital wherein the complainant was under treatment of o.p.  no. 1. He sustained fracture injury on his waist, right hand and toe. During the course of treatment from 20-09-2013 to 26-10-2013 the complainant did not feel any significant recovery and was discharged on 26-10-2013. Subsequently on 01-11-2013 the complainant was admitted at Spandan Advance Medicare Pvt. Ltd. at Midnapore under Dr. Kuldip Mukherjee, who came to the conclusion that the previous operation was faulty. Hence the case.  

2.               The o.p. no. 1 in his  written version contended interalia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form; that the total surgical treatment was done free of costs and not a single farthing was realized from the complainant; that the complainant was properly treated and thereafter discharged ; that this  a case only to harass the o.p. no. 1 to extract money ; that the cut injuries were stitched in emergency room on 20-09-2013 and the stitches were removed on 03-10-2013 ; that after x-ray of the patient he was placed on traction which was subsequently removed and the plaster made on 24-10-2013 ; that the complainant was operated under general anesthesia on 21-09-2013 on his right wrist injury  and an  antibiotic was prescribed with calcium etc.; that review of the wound was made regularly and was checked through x-ray. On 23-10-2013 long arm plaster of the right arm was done in operation theatre; that after his recovery he was discharged on 26-10-2013. The o.p. no. 1 further stated that in Government Hospital the case of fracture tronchanter of femur is mostly and successfully treated by the conservative non-operation method i.e., traction and plaster.   

3.        Upon pleadings of both parties three points arose for determination :

i)                    Whether the complaint is maintainable ?

ii)                  Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

POINT NO. 1  :

4.               The pertinent question creeps in whether the instant complaint comes within the purview of medical negligence. Hon’ble Apex  Court in the land mark decision reported in AIR 1996  Supreme Court 550 in a case  between Indian Medical Association Vs.  V.P. Shantha and others  have laid down  that a service rendered free of charge to everybody would not be service as defined in  Section 2(1)(o) of the  C.P. Act, 1986 as amended. From the enclosures it is clear that the complainant did not have to pay a single paisa for his treatment in the Howrah  General Hospital. Naturally the service rendered by the doctor is not under any contract ; nor did the complainant pay any charge to the o.p. no. 1.  The salary received by the doctor from the Government cannot be treated as a charge. Naturally, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form as he was not treated by any private doctor in any private nursing home or private hospital. The point no. 1 is accordingly disposed of.

POINT NOS. 2 & 3   :

5.               Both these  points do not require any elaboration inasmuch as the complaint is  itself not maintainable. So both the points are disposed of accordingly in the negative.

           In the result, the complaint fails.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 73  of 2014 ( HDF 73  of 2014 )  is dismissed on contest as against the o.ps.   

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.