This is a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer for an order directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation and other reliefs.

The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant was suffering pain in his belly since June, 2012 and he was treated by Dr. P.S. Das who advised for some pathological test and treated the complainant but as no improvement was found, the complainant attended before Dr. Kali Sankar Bhattacharjee, O.P No1 after examining the patient Dr. advised for pathological test of Hemoglobin and various Plazma Glucose (Random) test.After obtaining obtaining the pathological report the complainant again attended to Dr. Bhattacharjee who advised the complainant to admit at Upasom Nursing Home for Appendix operation. The complainant was admitted on 19.08.2012 at Upasam Nurshing Home, Dr. Bhattacharjee was made operation in the belly of the complainant,  d removed the appendix from his belly and treated the complainant and he was discharged on 22.08.2012. After releasing from Nursing Home the complainant feeling pain in his belly and reported to Dr. Bhattacharjee through said Nursing Home who examined the patient, prescribed some medicines and assured the complainant that the pain will subside very soon but getting no result the complainant was attended to Dr. Tanmoy Pal who advised some clinical test and treated the complainant for few days. Finding no better  improvement of the problem the complainant was admitted at T. B. Centre at Raiganj District Hospital under Dr. Somenath Chatterjee who advised for “Fine niddle aspiration Cytology (FNAC) examination and USG and after obtaining the report it reveals that the complaint is suffering from T.B. in his belly. Due to negligence of  Dr. K. S. Bhattacharjee the complainant is suffering physical problem which caused to be bed ridden condition with mental pain and agony, suffering monitory  loss as such the complainant was forced to come before this Forum.

O.P. No.1 contested the case appearing on the date of hearing by filing W.V. stating interalia that this O.P. had no knowledge about subsequent complications of the complaint, patient was advised for some clinical examination but he did not do so, the operation made by this O.P. was successful, the complaint will be dismissed.

O.P. No.2 contested the case appearing on the date of hearing by filing W.V. stating inter alia that the complainant was admitted on 19.08.2012 to the O.P.’s Nursing Home, O.P. No.1 was held operation to the complainant, this O.P. was taken proper care and attention to the complainant and prayed to  dismiss the complaint. 

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To establish his case the complainant relied upon some photocopies of medical documents, statements with affidavit, oral evidences for self and his wife as P.W. I & 2 and also files questionnaires. O.P. No.1 submitted written statement, written deposition  supported by affidavit,  answer of questionnaires etc. O.P. No.2 also submitted written statement supported by affidavit and some documents.

We carefully perused the documents filed in this case, adduced evidences including oral evidences and argument advanced by the parties it reveals that the complainant was suffering pain in his belly, appeared before the O.P. No.1 Dr. Kali Sankar Bhattacharjee and as per advise of Dr., after some pathological examination the complainant had to admit the Nursing Home of O.P. No.2 on 19.08.2012 for Appendix Operation. The O.P. No.1 operated the belly of the complainant and removed the Appendix by way of leproscopic surgery and after two days i.e. on 22.08.2012 the complainant was discharged from the Nursing Home. After discharging from said Nursing Home the complainant was felling pain on his abdomen then he reported to the O.P. No.1 through O.P. No.2 but they ignored it. On 27.02.2012 for releaving  pain the complainant again attended before O.P. No.1 who examined the complainant and  prescribed some medicines and assured the complainant that the pain will subside very soon. After taking medicines, no improvement was found. So, the complainant attended before Dr. Tanmoy Pal who advised for USG of whole abdomen and some pathological test, after obtaining the clinical and pathological  test report the complainant appeared before Dr. Pal who prescribed some medicines and treated him for few days. But as the complainant was not feeling better he was to admit at T. B. Centre of Raiganj Government Hospital under Dr. Somenath Chatterjee who advised for “Fine Niddle Aspiration Cytology” (FNAC) examination and the said examination report it reveals that “Nodular Swelling in the Umbilical Region (Laparoscopic Wound) – Granulomatous inflamation consistant with tuberculosis.”

The statement and written deposition, O.P. No.1 stated after operation the specimen of Appendix with chemical handed over to the patient party for its “Histo-pathological examinations” and submit report to the O.P. No.1 but the patient party did not do so. In support of his statement the O.P. No.1 did not produce any documentary evidence rather at the time of cross-examination of the complainant and P.W.2 denied that such specimen of Appendix with Chemical was handed over to them for “Histo Pathological Test” and in the original prescription of O.P. No.1 nothing mentioned regarding the test mentioned above. The O.P. No.1 did not take precautionary measures prior to operation in the belly of the complainant and also did not take proper care after operation as such infection arises in the belly of the complainant for which the complainant had to suffer physical and mental pain after operation and as such the complainant had to spent money unnecessarily and due to that the health condition of the complainant is deteriorated day by day and for that he have to go bedridden condition. 

In view of the discussions herein before this Forum is of opinion that O.P. No.1 was negligent, carelessness and deficient in service on the part of a service provider for which the complainant had to suffer physical and mental pain along with other physical problems which caused to deteriorated condition of health of the complainant as such the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

that the complaint case No. CC - 88/2012 is allowed in part on contest against the O.P. No.1 and dismissed against O.P. No.2 without cost.

That the complainant to get an award directing the O.P. No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation for physical and mental pain and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which total awarded amount will carry interest @ 8% p.a. till full realization. The complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.

Copy of this order be supplied to the each party free of cost.