West Bengal

Bankura

CC/40/2014

Jaganath Garai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Pratima Garai and others - Opp.Party(s)

Samudragupta Choudhary

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 40/2014

          Date of Filing: 20.02.2014

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.                                    

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

For the O.P.1, O.P.3, O.P.4: Ld. G.P., Bankura   For O.P.2 Ld. Advocate Banamali Chaudhuri

Complainant 

 Sri Jagannath Garai, S/o Late Duksha Bhanjan Garai, Vill +P.O.+P.S.Onda, Bankura

Opposite Party

1.Dr. Paratima Garai, Asst. Professor, Deptt. of Gynecology & Obstetrics, BSMCH, Gobindanagar, Bankura

2.Dr.Ram Krishna Sahana, Deptt. of Gynecology & Obstetrics, BSMCH, Gobindanagar, Bankura

3.MSVP, BSMCH, Gobindanagar, Bankura

4.Secretary of Family Health and Welfare, Kolkata

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT       

                                                                                                                                                    

Order No.64

Dated:16-10-2023

Both parties file hazira through advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

The Complainant’s case is that his wife Dipali Gorai felt pain in lower abdomen and was admitted at O.P.3 /BSMCH, Bankura and underwent a series of investigations as advised by O.P.1 and O.P.2 Doctors attached to the said Hospital. Both Doctors advised for her surgery preferably in a  suitable nursing home as there was no infrastructure for holter monitoring but she was not agreeable to that and ultimately she was discharged on 09/11/2013 by BSMCH, Bankura under referral discharge. She had the surgical treatment at CMC, Vellore  from 08/12/2013 to 12/12/2013 with no requirement of holter monitoring. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for compensation alleging medical negligence on the part of the O.P. Hospital and Doctors for refusing his wife’s surgical treatment.

O.P.1 submitted a written version stating clearly therein that she is not connected in any way with the subject matter of the Complainant case as she never treated the victim wife in the said Hospital.

O.P.2 Doctor contested the case by filing a written version denying medical negligence and deficiency in service contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable.

O.P.3 / BSMCH Hospital also submitted a written version corroborating the statement of O.P.2 taking the same plea that the case is not maintainable in the present Form and law.

O.P.4 did not file any written version.                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                            Contd……p/2

                                                                                                          Page: 2

-: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents on both sides the Commission prefers to decide the maintainability issue first. It is no doubt true that the victim wife was admitted in O.P.3 Hospital which is purely a District Govt. Hospital rendering free medical service to the patients without taking any charges irrespective of the status of the patient. O.P.1 and O.P.2 were attached to the O.P.3 Hospital at the relevant time. The issue is now set at rest by the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in India Medical Association Vs V.P. Shantha reported in AIR 1996 SC 550 and re-affirmed in a subsequent decision dated: 07/12/2021 in Nivedita Singh Vs. Asha Bharati & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.103/12 that the medical services rendered by the purely Govt. Hospital free of charges to the patients rich or poor is not a service within the definition of Consumer Protection Act and as such the case is not maintainable against the O.P. Hospital or O.P. Doctor attached to such Hospital for any medical negligence or deficiency of service. The Commission will not detain further to go into the merit of the case but to dismiss the complaint on this    preliminary issue.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Liberty is however given to the Complainant to seek appropriate relief before the competent Forum to which Section-14 of Limitation Act shall apply.

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 

 ____________________                  _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT             HON’BLE MEMBER