IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/66/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

   24.04.17                                   16.05.17                                                    05.09.19

Complainant: Purna Pal

                        S/o Late Premlal Pal

                        261, Majdier

                        PO-Gorabazar,

                        PS-Berhampore

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742101

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.  Dr.Indranil Saha

                        Proprietor

                        Sri Krishna Kripa Health Care

                        117/109/9, R.N. Tagore Road

                        PO&PS-Berhampore

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742101

                           2. Dr. M. Rahaman

                        M.D. (Chest Cal)

                        3/20/J K.K. Banerjee Road

                        PO&PS-Berhampore

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Sri. Prabir Kr. Banerjee.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri. Ajay Kr. Bhattacharya.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

                                     FINAL ORDER

  Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

            One Purna Pal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Dr. Indranil Saha, Proprietor  of Sri Krishna Kripa Health Care and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

   The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant was suffering from blood omitting and some other complaints on 18.11.16 and visited the OPD of Murshidabad Medical College & Hospital at Berhampore and the Doctors prescribed some medicines and advised him to undergo pathological test. The Complainant visited the chamber of the OP No.2 who is a chest specialist and after examining the physical condition of the Complainant, he  prescribed some medicines and advised certain pathological tests to be done at OP No.1. The Complainant visited the Laboratory of the OP No.1 for sputum test and after examination, the OP No.1 gave  report with finding ‘’AFB present’’ consecutively for 3 days i.e. on 02.12.16, 03.12.16  and 04.12.16. On 05.12.16 the Complainant visited the OP No.2 and OP No.2 informed him that the Complainant had been suffering from TB and prescribed the medicine, namely, Akurit 4. After taking the medicine, the Complainant was bed ridden and gradually his physical condition was deteriorated. Thereafter, the wife of the Complainant took the Complainant to Murshidabad Medical College and Hospital and the Doctors advised the patient for pathological test at other centre. Accordingly, the Complainant examined her sputum on 11.12.16 at Laldighi Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd and got the report with finding ‘’AFB not found’’. Thereafter, the Complainant treated himself under Govt. organization where in the Complainant had not been diagnosed as tuberculosis and due to wrong diagnosis and wrong treatment of both OP Nos.1 and 2, the condition of the patient had been deteriorated and the Complainant has been suffering from endless mental pain and agony. Hence, the Complainant filed the case praying for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- against the OPs.

            The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 13.09.17 contending that the case in not maintainable. The OP No.1 denied the allegations against him. It is the specific case of the OP No.1 that the Complainant came to Sri Krishna Kripa Health Care on 02.12.16 for sputum examination and the OP No.1 prepared a pathological report with finding ‘’AFB is present’’. The same examination was done on 03.12.16 and 04.12.16 with same finding  and the report was prepared with due care and after compliance of method as prescribed by medical science. The Opposite Party No.1  is an experienced pathologist having degree of MD in pathology and the report prepared by the OP No.1 with the help of International Standard Instruments and the reports were correct. The finding was ‘’AFB Present’’ and grade 1+ i.e. low level. The AFB present does not conclusively prove that there was TB and the finding was pathological and  the documents/ prescriptions filed by the Complainant show that Akurit4 was prescribed by OP No.2.  The subsequent sputum test certainly shows that AFB absent. So, the subsequent report dated 11.12.17 does not prove that the report of the OP No.1 was wrong. It is denied that the Complainant became bed ridden due to wrong diagnosis of the OP No.1. The AFB smears can provide presumptive results within a few hours and are valuable in helping to make decision about future treatment. The OP No.1 prays for rejection of the complaint.

            The OP No.2 contested the case by filing written version on 19.07.17 contending that the case is not maintainable. The OP No.2 denied the allegations against him. It is the case of the OP No.2 that the Complainant visited the clinic of OP No.2 on 29.11.16 with the complaint of coughing out of blood and produced one blood report, X-ray chest PA which showed opacity in the right upper zone of his lungs and considering his general condition as he was malnourished and his body weight was only 35.5 kg. and the X-ray report was very suggestive of TB. So, he was advised to go for sputum test for AFB for 3 days from any reliable laboratory and the OP No.2 never suggested any name of pathologist. The OP No.2 prescribed him anti-TB drugs as per his body weight and told that he might get the drugs from DTC/Local BPHC in support of the proof that he was suffering from TB. The slide was  handed over to him to produce to DTC/ Local BPHC for cross checking. The Complainant at his own choice went to the OP No.1 for pathological test and the OP No.2 accepted the report of OP No.2 and diagnosed that the patient was suffering from TB. The OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration.

The Ld. Advocates for the O.Ps. have not argued on this point.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Point No.2

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point Nos.3&4

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the reports of sputum test of the OP No.1 dated 02.12.16, 03.12.16, and 04.12.16 are wrong as subsequent report of Laldighi Medical Centre dated 11.12.16 showed that ‘’AFB not found’’ in the sputum of the Complainant. He argues that the OP No.2 prescribed medicine Akurit4 on the basis of the sputum test report of the OP NO.1. It is urged that the diagnosis of the OP No.2 was also wrong causing deterioration of health and condition of the body of the Complainant. He argues that both the OP Nos.1 and 2 are negligent and they have deficiency in service. It is urged that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,000,000/- against the OPs and cost of litigation.

In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the OP No.1 is a renowned pathologist at Berhampore and he examined the sputum of the Complainant on 02.12.16, 03.12.16 and 04.12.16 with Internationally Standard Machines and found AFB in this sputum of the Complainant. It is urged that the pathological reports issued by the OP No.1 dated 02.12.16, 03.12.16 and 04.12.16 in favour of the Complainant were correct. It is further urged that the OP No.1 collected the sputum of the Complainant and examined the sputum for 3 consecutive days as per standard practice. He submits that the OP No.1 has no deficiency in service for preparation of pathological reports dated 02.12.16, 03.12.16 and 04.12.16.

 The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 submits that the OP No.2 is a renowned chest specialist. It is urged that the OP No.2 examined the Complainant on 29.11.16 and 05.12.16 and he diagnosed the patient/Complainant on the basis of clinical examination, verification of X-ray report, blood report and sputum test reports dated 02.12.16, 03.12.16 and 04.12.16. It is contended that the body weight of the Complainant was only 35.5 Kg and chest report and clinical examination of the patient helped the OP No.2 to conclude that the patient was suffering from TB and accordingly he prescribed medicine. It is urged that there was no justification to ignore the sputum test reports dated 02.12.16, 03.12.16 and 04.12.16 X-ray report and other documents submitted by the Complainant for diagnosis. He submits that the OP No.2 has no deficiency in service. He prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

We have gone through the Written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant, Xerox copies of documents and written arguments. Admittedly, the OP NO.1 examined the sputum of the complainant for 3 consecutive days on 02.12.16, 03.12.16 and 04.12.16 as per report dated 02.12.16 AFB present and  report dated 03.12.16 it is found that AFB present(grade1+) and report dated 04.12.16 indicates AFB present. It is not mentioned in report about the number of AFB seen in the sputum generally if Zero AFB per 300 fields is found, the report may be AFB not seen. If 1-2 AFB per 300 fields is/are found  the report will be doubtful and advice may be given to report with another specimen. If 1-9 AFB per 100 fields is/are found the report may be grade 1+. If 1/9 AFB per 10 fields are seen the report will be grade 2+. If 1-9 AFB per field is/are found the report will be grade 3+. If more than 9 AFB per field are found, the report will be grade 4+

In the present case, the OP No.1 has mentioned grade 1+ in his report dated 03.12.16 but it has not been mentioned in any of the reports dated 02.12.16, 03.12.16 and 04.12.16 how many AFB per 300/100/10/1 are found in the sputum of the Complainant.

We think that the OP No.1 has prepared the report in a very casual and mechanical    manner without following the standard norms.

Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service. The Complainant suffered mentally if not physically and the OP NO.2 also based on the mechanical reports of the OP No.1 dated 02.12.16, 03.12.16 and 04.12.16.

We think that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.30,000/- against the OP No.1 for deficiency in service.

The OP No.2 examined the patient clinically and verified the X-ray reports and considered the sputum test report dated 02.12.16, 03.12.16 and 04.12.16. The OP No.2 also considered the body weight and other conditions of the Complainant for diagnosis and prescribed medicine.

We think that the OP No.2 has prescribed medicine and diagnosed the patient according to the Standard Medical Practice. Therefore, we find the Complainant has not been able to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.

In our considered opinion the Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- against the OP No. 1 but he is not entitled to get any relief against the OP No.2

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 24.04.17nd admitted on 16.05.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the Complaint Case succeeds in part. Hence, it is

                                             ORDERED

that the Complaint Case No. CC/66/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.1 with cost of Rs.1,000/- and dismissed on contest against the OP No.2 without cost.

The O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay compensation  of Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service  and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-  to the Complainant by sixty days from the date of this order.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          President

  Member                                                                                                   President.