West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/68/2014

Sk. Yusuf Ali. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Bibhutibhusan Raj. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                        DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President, Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and  Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.68/2014

                                                        

                                          Sk. Yusuf Ali…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

1)Dr. Bibhutibhusan Raj,

2)Raj Surgical and Diagnostic Clinic Pvt. Ltd..…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant : Mr. Dulal Chandra Roy, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Mr. Kshitish Palmal, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 05/11/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Complainant’s case, in a nut shell, is as follows:

                        The complainant is a poor cultivator aged about 39 years old and he had been   suffering from pain in his abdomen for which the complainant went to the chamber of Dr. Dibakar   Samanta at Medinipur and as per his advice, USG of whole abdomen was done.  Being referred by  Dr. Samanta, the complainant went to Spandan Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. and after USG, Consultant Radiologist of Spandan Diagnostic Centre supplied USG report on 02/05/2013.  Thereafter, the complainant went to the chamber of opposite party no.1 Dr. Bibhutibhusan Raj, Consultant Urologist and laparoscopy Surgeon on 20/07/2013.  After showing all reports and test, opposite party no.1 suggested the complainant for admission for operation and as per his advice, the complainant was admitted in the Diagnostic centre of opposite party no.2 Raj Surgical and Diagnostic Clinic Pvt. Ltd on 18/08/2013. Laparoscopic Surgery was done by opposite party no.1 and the complainant was discharged on 20/08/2013.  As per advice of opposite party no.1, the

Contd…………………P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

complainant again went to his chamber on 18/09/2013.  Opposite party no.1 again    adviced for scan of his abdomen. As per advice of opposite party no.1, the complainant again scaned his abdomen in Spandan Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.  and it was seen that the stone of kidney was very much there in the right side of his kidney.  After receiving the report, the complainant met opposite party no.1 on 22/09/2013 and he advised the complainant that by pressure he will dissolve the stone of kidney and opposite party no.1 again in second sitting applied his pressure theory and assured that the stone of the kidney had been dissolved by such theory.  Even thereafter the stone in the kidney of the complainant was not dissolved and the complainant is suffering from pain and various problems.  He had to spend more than 50,000/- for his treatment, operation, various test etc.  Due to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered much and hence this complaint, praying for an order of compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- and for other reliefs.

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that being referred by Dr.T.K. Biswas, the complainant met opposite party no.1 on 20/07/2013 with all necessary investigation reports and it was found that he had 1.8 c.m. stone in right upper ureter  with small multiple bilateral renal stones.  On clinical examination, the complainant was found to be hypertensive.  As the patient was diabetic and hypertensive, so he opted for PB-SWL method for avoiding any cut or hole on his body.  On 18/08/2013, the complainant was taken to operation theater and necessary operation was done on 20/08/2013. The patient was discharged with necessary advice in absolute stable condition.  The patient/complainant again came after one month as per instruction on the discharge certificate with X-ray KUB from which residual stone was found and 2^nd sitting ESWL was done as an OPD procedure free of cost.   He was advised to come again after 7 days for removal of double J Stent.  It is stated by the Ops  that there was no negligence on the part of the doctor in treating the patient and the patient was provided with best possible treatment from his side without any negligence.  The present complaint has been made only to malign the professional reputation of the Op-doctor.  Opposite parties, therefore, claim dismissal of the complaint.

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

                            To prove their respective cases, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1

Contd…………………P/3

 

 

 

 

( 3 )

and during his evidence, he filed some documents which were marked 1 to 5 for identification.  On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, Dr. Bibhutibhusan Raj, the opposite party no.1 has been examined as OPW-1 by tendering an examination-in-chief, supported by affidavit and no document was admitted in evidence during his examination.

                             Now let us considered as to whether the allegation of medical negligence and deficiency in service has been proved or not in this case.

                             In an action for medical negligence, onus to prove normally rests upon the complainant. Here in the present case, the complainant examined no qualified doctor to prove such alleged medical negligence on the part of the Ops.  He has only examined himself as PW-1 and produced some documents relating to treatment and operation.  On the other hand, on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 Dr. Bibhutibhusan Raj, who performed such operation, has been examined as OPW-1 and during his evidence, he has denied the allegations of negligence in conducting such operation and treatment of the complainant.  We have already stated that in a case of medical negligence, onus lies upon the complainant to prove such negligence by examining an expert doctor.  Here in the present case, the complainant examined no such medical expert.  In his cross-examination, PW-1, the complainant,  has clearly stated that he shall not examine any doctor in this case to establish that the treatment made by opposite party no.1 Dr. Bibhutibhusan Raj was wrong.  He has further admitted in his cross-examination that he is not conversant with the medical laws.  He has further admitted in the cross-examination that he is unable to produce any expert opinion regarding such alleged medical negligence and wrong treatment on the part of the opposite parties.  In absence of any such expert opinion, we have no other alternative than to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his allegation of medical negligence and wrong treatment against the opposite parties.  It is, therefore, held that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case of negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite parties.                              

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                       that the complaint case no.68/2014  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

          Dictated & Corrected by me

                         Sd/-                                 Sd/-                     Sd/-                              Sd/-

                    President                          Member              Member                        President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur