West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/34/2015

Sri Swapan Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Gairik Maji - Opp.Party(s)

Prasanta Kumar Barman

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

                                                           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President, Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and  Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.34/2015

                                                        

                Sri Swapan Mondal, S/o Sri Chitta Ranjan Mondal, Vill- Bhandarpur,

                P.O.& P.S.- Binpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur…………….….……Complainant.

Versus

 

               Dr. Gairik Maji, At- C-1, Burdge Town, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali,

               Dist Paschim Medinipur……………………………..…..Opp. Party       

             

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Ashoke Mondal, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mrs. Nipa Rana, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 13/07/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant had been suffering from pain as there was continuously bleeding for last 3-4 years at the time of discharging stool and therefore on 25/05/2014, he went to the chamber of Dr. Gairik Maji, the opposite party.  After examining the complainant, the opposite party diagnosed that the complainant had been suffering from Halmarrhisdectomy of anal tissue.  As per advice of the opposite party, the complainant was admitted in Jhargram Nursing Home and the opposite party done an operation on 25/05/2014 and he was discharged on 26/05/2014.  After such operation, the opposite party took Rs 15,000/- towards operation charge from the complainant.  Although the opposite party assured the complainant that after operation his problem will be cured but the problem remained the same for which the complainant on 31/05/2014, 06/06/2014, 09/06/2014, 17/06/2014, 27/06/2014 and 02/07/2014 went to

Contd…………..P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

the chamber of the opposite party and he was treated after taking fees by the opposite party.  On last visit, the opposite party told the complainant that if his problem is not cured after taking prescribed medicine,  then he will have to go for another operation for which he will not take any charge.  As the problem of the complainant was not cured after taking such medicine, then he went to Dr. T.K. Biswas with same complain on 18/07/2014 and Dr. T.K. Biswas observed that the complainant’s problem is “Anal Stenosis”.  A video colonoscopy was also done by him on 20/07/2014 and on perusal of the said report, Dr. T.K. Biswas suggested for operation and also told that he was wrongly operated by the opposite party.  The complainant then met Dr. Bibhuti Bhusan Raj on 25/07/2014 for second opinion and the said doctor also opined that the problem was Anal Stenosis and advised for Anoplast again.  The complainant thereafter met Dr. T.K. Biswas on 01/08/2014 and he operated the same portion of anal tissue on 06/08/2014 at Shiram Laparoscopic Institute and he was discharged therefrom on 08/08/2014.  After such operation, the complainant became cured.  Prior to operation, Dr. T.K. Biswas opined that the earlier doctor i.e. the opposite party wrongly operated the complainant for which he suffered a lot.  The complainant thereafter sent a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party on 07/02/2015 through his Advocate Prasanta Kumar Barman but the opposite party remained silent.  The complainant is a cultivator by occupation and he earns Rs.1500/- per day only.  Due to such wrong treatment by the opposite party, the complainant was bed ridden since 25/05/2014 to 06/08/2014 and sustained loss of Rs.1,20,000/-.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant towards loss of his income, litigation cost and  compensation.

             The opposite party has contested this case by filling a written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that after examining the complainant on 25/05/2014, he observed that the complainant had problem like Anal Stenosis and he was of the opinion that unless bleeding was stopped the complainant would die.  In order to save the life of the complainant, opposite party advised for operation.  The complainant had no money and the opposite party on humanitarian ground treated the complainant immediately after monitoring all regular tests, which should be done before any operation.  On perusal of those reports, opposite party found that the complainant had SENTINEL AND INTERNAL HAEMOPRHOLDS AND ANAL FISSURE ANAL FISSURE.  After seeing the report the opposite party without taking any payment, done operation on emergent basis on 25/05/2014 and the complainant was discharged on 26/05/2014.  At

Contd…………..P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

the time of discharge, the opposite party advised the complainant to take “BETADINE LOTION TDS” to eliminate the possibility of infection.  After such discharge, the opposite party again checked the complainant on few occasions without taking any fees and initially he found that the problem of the complainant was developed.  It was learnt from the complainant that he did not use “BETADINE LOTION” and he washed the place with dirty water of field and pond after discharge of stool and as a result of which infection started.  The opposite party therefore advised the complainant for second operation but the complainant did not turn up and he got such operation done by different surgeons.  It is stated that there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party and there is also no deficiency in service on his part.  Being misguided and influenced by some persons, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with ill motive and with frivolous allegation.  Opposite party therefore claims dismissal of the case with cost.

 

Point for decision

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

                   

Decision with reasons

To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering an affidavit in chief and one Dr. T.K. Biswas as PW-2.  The documents relied upon by the complainant have been marked as exhibit 1- series and 2 respectively.  On the other hand, opposite party adduced no evidence.

 It is not denied and disputed that the complainant was suffering from “Anal Stenosis” and he was operated by the opposite party- doctor.  It is the allegation of the complainant that after such operation his problem remained the same and after examining the complainant on several times, the opposite party advised for second operation.  According to the complainant, he therefore got him examined by Dr. T.K Biswas and Dr. Bibhuti Bhusan Raj and they both opined that the problem of the complainant was “Anal Stenosis” and they further advised to go for a fresh operation.  Further according to the complainant, he was therefore operated by Dr. T.K Biswas on 06/08/2014 and after such operation, his problem was cured.  It is alleged by the complainant that Dr. T.K. Biswas, who done the second operation, opined that the earlier doctor i.e. the opposite party wrongly operated the complainant for which he suffered a lot.  The said Dr. T.K. Biswas has been examined by the complainant as PW-2.  From the evidence of PW-2 Dr. T.K Biswas, we find that the complainant went to his chamber with the history of “Anal Stenosis” and it was told to him that he was previously

Contd…………..P/4

 

 

( 4 )

operated by Dr. Gairik Maji but even after such operation his problem remained the same.  After examining the complainant, PW-2 performed Anal Spinectroplaxty operation in Shiram Laproscopic Institute and before such operation some tests were done like Colonoscopy, ECG and Blood test of the complainant.  During his cross-examination,  this PW-2 Dr. T.K. Biswas has stated that when the complainant visited his chamber he had seen all medical papers relating to his treatment by the opposite party- Dr. Gairik Maji and he noticed that there was no negligence or fault regarding the treatment.  This PW-2 has further stated in his cross-examination that as per his diagnosis, the opposite party did best treatment to the complainant.  PW-2 happens to be a medical practitioner and he is the witness of the complainant and he himself in his cross-examination has stated that there was no negligence or fault regarding the treatment of the complainant by the opposite party- doctor and the opposite party –doctor did best treatment to the complainant.  In view of such evidence, we are constrained to hold that the allegation of medical negligence against the opposite party- doctor is not at all established and therefore the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                        that the complaint case no.34/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and Corrected by me

      Sd/-B. Pramanik.        Sd/- D. Sengupta.     Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.  Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

             President                     Member                         Member                          President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur