BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-48/2016
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy,Member (W).
Mohan Kumar Sha @ Sahu, aged about 35 years,
S/O-Tapan Sahu,
R/O- Kumbharpara,Sambalpur Town,
P.O-Samabalpur,P.S-Town,Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
Dr. Atanu Thakur(Consulting Doctor)
M/S-Vivekanasnda Hospital,
At-Nayapara,Near Gole Bazar Chowk,
Sambalpur Town,P.O- Sambalpur,,P.S-Town,
Dist-Sambalpur,Odisha
A Unit of Dream India Associates Pvt. Ltd. …….O.P
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Sri Bhagat Singh,Advocate & Assocites.
- For the O.P-1 :- Sri A.K.Mishra, Advocate
DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 24.02.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant when felt uneasy in passing urine and stomach ache, he went to the hospital of the O.P for a health check up and treatment on dtd. 15.05.2016 and he was admitted there as an indoor patient vide Admission No-429/430, bed /cabin No-126. His consulting Doctor was Dr. B.R Hota. After a through diagnosis the doctor found stone in the anterior Urethra and gave some prescription for different injections and capsules. Besides this, the treating doctor has advised him to take sufficient water, normal diet and discharged him on dtd. 17.05.2016. Also he was advised for removal of Catheter after seven days on dtd. 24.05.2016 and discharged from the hospital on dtd.17.05.2016. The Complainant paid the bill amounting to Rs.12,700/- . As per the advice of the previous Treating Doctor(Resident Doctor) dtd. 03.05.2016 at about 10.30 p.m the Complainant reached at the Hospital of the O.P in order to remove the Catheter the resident doctor instead of removing the Catheter again prescribed some injections and medicines and paid a bill of Rs.350/- towards hospital services vide bill no-433 dtd. 23.05.2016. The Complainant complains that if the O.P advised him for removal of Catheter after having proper diagnosis, clinical tests and investigations why he instead of removing the same, further prescribed injections and medicines and referred him for hospitalisation as indoor patient. Due to this the Complainant has to face financial loss, mental pain agony which amount to gross deficiency in services. The Complainant claims that he would have opted for better services at any other hospital in addition to that the O.P is in the habitual practice of extracting money from the patients by adopting the lengthy procedure of treatments.
According to the O.P in the while he was in the Hospital, the Resident Doctor of Vivekananda Hospital called him to see a patient who was in severe pain and difficulties in micturition. The O.P examined the patient and prescribed him certain medicine to reduce the pain and advised him to be hospitalised and consult with the surgeon named Dr. Hota. The Complainant made contact with the surgeon who tried to relive the pain. The Complainant was discharged on dtd.17.05.2016 and asked him to come to the hospital for removal of the Catheter. Again on dtd. 23.05.2016 the Resident Doctor of Vivekananda Hospital came to the O.P and requested see a patient in casualty. The O.P rushed to the casualty and found the Complainant there suffering from high fever and pain in Urethra. The O.P examined the Complainant and found it to be Urinary Tract Infection and prescribed some antibiotic and for blood test. The O.P asked the Resident Doctor to contact the surgeon who had treated the Complainant earlier and received his consultation fees. But later on he found that the Complainant left the Hospital against medical advice(LAMA). Hence the O.P is no way connected with deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice to the complainant hence he shall not be penalised.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.2019?
- Whether the Commission has the jurisdiction to try this case,
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has availed treatment on payment of consideration from the O.P. The O.P is a “Visiting Doctor” and not the “Resident Doctor” and during his visit to the above said Vivekananda Hospital incidentally the Complainant came and admitted for abdominal pain and he has only prescribed some medicines and advised him to make surgery of the Catheter as soon as possible and left the hospital after taking his consultation fees. It is the duty of the Resident Doctor to carry out necessary surgery on the patient as and when required. He had informed the resident doctor to call on a surgeon to conduct surgery and remove the Indwelling Urine Catheter. Hence from the above we observe that the allegation made against the O.P are not proved for committing deficiency in service. Hence the O.P is discharged from the liabilities and the complaint petition is disallowed being devoid of any merit. No orders as to cost.
Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e, on 24th day of February 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-sd/-(24.02.2021) -sd/-(24.02.2021)
Smt. S.Tripathy Sri. D.K. Mohapatra
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-sd/-(24.02.2021)
Sri. D.K. Mohapatra
PRESIDENT
