PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, HON’BLE PRESIDENT The complainant Mr.Shri Pandharinath Tulshiram Londhe has filed this complaint case alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence in administering injection by OP Nos.1 & 2 which allegedly rendered his left hand permanently disabled and thereby claiming compensation of Rs.4.90,000/-. The story in nutshell is as under... 2.The complainant is a farmer and an electrician by profession. Due to ill health, the complainant approached to the Primary Health Centre, Wadhona (hereinafter referred to as PHC,Wadhona) for a checkup. OP Nos.1 & 2 are in government service at said PHC,Wadhona as doctor and nurse respectively. The complainant duly paid registration charges of Rs.5/- and thereafter he was checked by the OP No.1 doctor. OP No.1 doctor then directed the OP No.2 to administer injection to the complainant. The nurse accordingly administered an injection on the shoulder of left arm of the complainant. However, due to wrongful and erroneous administration of injection, the left arm of the complainant was rendered permanently disabled. Therefore, the complainant approached to Acharya Vinoba Bhave Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha where, on checkup, the concerned doctor opined that due to wrongful administration of injection, there was pain and disability to his left arm. The said doctor advised him to undergo a surgery on the arm and estimated the cost of treatment at Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant, in writing, demanded compensation from the OP Nos.1 & 2 and even filed complaints in this regard with the District Medical Officer, Chandrapur, Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur, Home Ministry of Maharashtra State, C.E.O.,Zilla Parishad Chandrapur, Central Ministry but none of the authorities initiated any action against the erring doctor and nurse. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the present petition. 3. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, upon receipt of notice, filed their commonreply and denied allegations levelled in the complaint.It submitted in their reply that the OP No.1 is a doctor and the OP No.2 is the Nurse at PHC, Wadhona. On 15/2/2016, the complainant came to the PHC at about 4 p.m. with a complaint of pain in left arm as he sustained injury in an accident & he felled down due to sleep of bicycle. The OP No.1 Dr. Pabhakar Morbonwar, checked the complainant’s injury and prescribed Diclofenac 3cc, Tab.Bruffen, & Tab.Paracetemol. On the direction of OP No.1 doctor, OP No.2 Vijaya H.Pise, nurse administered the injection on the shoulder of left arm of the complainant. However, prior to that the complainant did not disclose sufferance in his left arm to the said nurse. Even when the nurse asked him to get the shot in waist, he was not prepared to do so and insisted to administer it on the shoulder only. The complainant again came on 16/2/2016 and 18/2/2016 with a complaint of pain in his left arm. The OP No.1 duly checked the complainant and prescribed some medicines and further advised him to approach the District Hospital, Chandrapur for further treatment. They contended that there is no evidence of sustaining disability of permanent nature neither there is any report of an expert confirming the allegation of inflicting disability due to erroneous administration of injection by the answering OPs. They further contended that OP Nos.1 & 2 are government servants and the services at PHC are free of charge and fee is charged from the complainant for the same. Hence the complainant is not a Consumer of the OPs within the meaning of the term “Consumer” under C.P.Act. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4. On receipt of notice, OP Nos.3 to 5 appeared before this Commission but despite awarding a number of chances, chose not to file their reply. Hence the Commission, by passing order below Exh.1, to proceed further without written versions of these OPs. 4. Counsel for both the sides argued on the lines of their respective pleadings in the complaint and written statement. After carefully perusing the rival contentions, supporting documents and evidence filed on record, only two issues emerge for our consideration to which, our findings are recorded as follows.. ISSUES FINDING - Whether the complainant is deserve to be allowed No.
REASONING 5. It is well known that the government provides free health service to the citizens as a state policy and in the case in hand too no fees is charged by the OP Nos.1 & 2 for the treatment, from the complainant. The complainant claimed that he has paid registration charges of Rs.5/- for the said treatment and as such he is a Consumer. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court, at many times, has put this issue to rest by concluding that the payment of registration charges to the government hospital is not a consideration for availing health services. In the eventuality, the complainant does not acquire the status of a “Consumer” within the meaning of C.P.Act. 6. On perusal of documents we came across the report of enquiry conducted by Additional District Health Officer, Chandrapur which is filed at Exh.4/2 as per list of documents dated 7/1/2019. In this report, he has categorically stated that the disability sustained by the complainant is due to the external injury sustained by him and not due to the administration of injection. On perusal of disability certificate bearing No.656410 dated 16/9/2016, issued by the District Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur which is filed by the complainant at Exh.4/15, it reveals that, on scrutiny of the complainant’s case, panel doctors concluded that the injury sustained is of non-progressive and temporary nature, and is likely to be improved. The complainant has not filed affidavit evidence of the concerned treating doctor of Acharya Vinoba Bhave Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, who allegedly told him about his sufferance from pain and disability due to the wrongful administration of injection by the OP Nos.1 & 2. In absence of any cogent evidence, the complainant failed measurably to substantiate his allegation of medical negligence on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2 and, as such, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order.. ORDER - The complaint No.CC/19/10 stands dismissed.
- Both parties to bear their own cost.
- Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
|
