Date of Filing: 22/09/2014 Date of Final Order: 08/10/2015
The Complainant, Saddam Hossain, S/o. Hatem Ali has filed the present case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P. No.1, Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar and the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay compensation for negligence and financial loss with cost amounting to Rs.4,70,000/- in total and other relief(s) as the Forum may deem feet and proper.
The factual matrix of the case as can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant, suffering from his back pain and could not move anywhere, for that he came to the O.P. No.1, Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar on 11/03/2013 at Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar and the O.P doctor examined to the Complainant by the process of MRI Scan. After observing all the test report, Dr. S.K. Kumar diagnosed the disease as L4/L5 Leminectomy L4/L5 decectomy. Thereafter, the Complainant visited to Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar on several occasion i.e. 15/03/2013, 24/08/2013 and he took medicines as prescribed by Dr. S.K. Kumar and advised to conduct a surgical operation on his back side. Accordingly, on 25/08/2013 the Complainant admitted at the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar under Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar for surgical operation on his back side and the said operation was done on 26/08/2013 against the deposited money of Rs.45,000/-. After operation, the Complainant discharged from the said nursing home on 30/08/2013 with this assurance that the patient Saddam Hossain will recover soon and not to worry. But after 2/3 days of the said operation, the condition of the patient became deteriorated. Accordingly, the patient/Complainant visited the O.P doctor on 09/09/2013 but Dr. S.K. Kumar avoid to the Complainant with technically. On 10/09/2013 the Complainant again visit with Dr. S.K. Kumar and the O.P doctor advised to him to take admission at Subham Hospital, Cooch Behar and after examination the patient was discharged from the said hospital on 12/09/2013 but he was not curing for the treatment of the O.P. No.1. After that the Complainant visit with the O.P. No.1 doctor in several times, dated on 12/09/2013, 07/10/2013, 05/11/2013 but the Complainant did not get any response. Finding no recoupment, on 04/01/2014 the Complainant visited with another one Dr. Shamik Chowdhury, MBBS (Ortho), MS (Ortho) Pune, Orthopedic Surgeon of MJN Hospital, Cooch Behar, but he referred to Dr. Soumyajit Basu, MS (Ortho) DNB (Ortho) FRCS (END) Spine Surgeon at Park Clinic, 4-Gorkey, Kolkata-700017. Accordingly, on 04/02/2014 the Complainant visited with Dr. Soumyajit Basu at Kolkata. After some pathological tests Dr. S. Basu opined that his actual disease underwent L4/L5 decompression/disectomy 6 months back initially did well but started having severe pain 3 weeks after surgery. On 05/02/2014 Dr. S. Basu, Kolkata has admitted him at Kothari Medical Centre, Kolkata and discharge the patient on 08/02/2014 after surgery. For such treatment, the Complainant had to pay Rs.2,00,000/- Approximately. After the said operation the Complainant became cure by the proper treatment of Dr. Soumyajit Basu, Kolkata.
By putting all these the Complainant contended in his complaint that he is entitled to get compensation as bodily loss, damages, huge amount of pecuniary loss as well as mental agony and pain due to such careless treatment, negligence of the O.P. No.1, Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar, Cooch Behar and he is also liable to pay all damages and loss to the Complainant.
Hence, the Complainant filed the instant Case No. DF – 64/2014 with enclosed relevant documents before this Forum and prayed for direction to the O.Ps to pay (1) Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for huge financial loss, (2) Rs.50,000/- for financial loss, mental agony & pain, unnecessary harassment and (3) Rs.25,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar, M.B.B.S, M.S, M.Ch. (Neuro Seygery), doctor of Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar has contested the case by filing his written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the Complainant has no cause of action to being this case and the case is not tenable in law. The main allegation of the O.P. No.1, doctor is that during post operative period the Complainant was readmitted on 10/09/2013 at 10.30 PM with C/O back pain, then the Complainant was treated with analgesic and muscle relaxant and PPI. Responding to conservative management on admission, the O.P. No.1 suggested MRI L.S. Spine, but the Complainant refused this investigation due to financial problem. On subsequent OPD visit, the patient/Complainant stated that there was no leg pain but intermittent back pain. The pain was non-responding to usual treatment. Skin wound was healthy, no fever, no focal neuro deficit. Clinically the O.P. No.1, doctor diagnosed this case to be a post leminectomy discitis. The O.P. No.1 has explained the condition to the Complainant/patient that the Complainant needs bed rest and long term antibiotic therapy. The O.P. No.1 has also stated in his W/V that most of the cases use to subside with this conservative management. As the Complainant was very much anxious, the O.P. No.1 suggested the Complainant to take an opinion of Professor S.N. Ghosh, Head of the Department, Neurosurgery, Bangur Institute of Neuro Sciences, Kolkata. But the Complainant took admission to other Hospital and finally Dr. Soumyajit Basu did the fixation operation. Even Dr. Basu clearly mentioned that the patient was all right 3 weeks after surgery. There was no neuro deficit. In most of the post laminectomy discitis responds to conservative management so, the O.P. No.1 has given the standard treatment for this situation but after that, the patient/Complainant did not come again to the O.P. No.1 at OPD.
The contention of the O.P. No.1 that if there was any permanent neural damage then there should be gross neuro deficit. Even Dr. Soumyajit Basu has stated that there was no neuro deficit. The Complainant is suffering from left lower limb pain and left EHL Weakness. He first visited Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar on 12/03/2013. Then treated outside for 5 months and again visited the said doctor as there was not improvement of pain neuro deficit. After initial surgery his ridiculer pain was diminished and EHL Power was increased.
The O.P. No.1 further stated in his written version that there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1, Dr. S.K. Kumar. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as demand by him.
Ultimately, this O.P. No.1 prayed for dismissal of the case with heavy costs.
The O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar has contested the case by filing his written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the Complainant has no cause of action to being this case and the case is not tenable in law. The main allegation of the O.P. No.2, is that the O.P. No.1, Dr. S.K. Kumar neither the R.M.O. nor the employee of Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar. Like all other doctors of the locality this O.P rendered treatment to the patients by admitting in the said nursing home. Accordingly, as per advice of the O.P. No.1, the Complainant was admitted in the Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar on 26/08/2013 under the O.P. No.1, Dr. S.K. Kumar and after surgery he was discharged from the said nursing home on 30/08/2013. Thereafter again on 10/09/2013 as per advice of the O.P. No.1, the Complainant was again admitted in the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar under the O.P. No.1, Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar and after treatment he was discharged from the nursing home on 12/09/2013. In both occasions the staffs of the said nursing home took much care of the said patient during the period from 26/08/2013 to 30/08/2013 and also from 10/09/2013 to 12/09/2013, for which the Complainant did not made any allegation in his complaint against the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar.
Therefore, this O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar is not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant as his demand.
Ultimately, this O.P. No.2 prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the Agents of both the parties at a length. Considered the decision cited by the parties.
Point No.1.
It is the case of the Complainant that operation was rendered to him by the O.P. No.1, Dr. S.K. Kumar as per package of Rs.45,000/- and operation and indoor treatment were done in the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital, Cooch Behar. The O.Ps have not denied said facts.
So, the Complainant is consumer under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of CP Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The O.P. No.1, Dr. Kumar is attached with the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd. situated at N.N. Road, Cooch Behar. The O.P. No.2 is Subham Hospital, Cooch Behar.
So, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
Total valuation of this case is Rs.4,75,000/- for less than maximum pecuniary limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has preliminary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
The Complainant, Saddam Hossain in his complaint and evidence stated that he had been suffering from his back pain and could not move anywhere, for that he came to the O.P. No.1, Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar on 11/03/2013 at Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar and the O.P doctor examined to the Complainant by the process of MRI Scan. After observing all the test report, Dr. S.K. Kumar diagnosed the disease as L4/L5 Leminectomy L4/L5 decectomy. Thereafter, the Complainant visited to Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar on several occasion i.e. 15/03/2013, 24/08/2013 and he took medicines as per prescribed of Dr. S.K. Kumar and advised to conduct a surgical operation on his back side. Accordingly, on 25/08/2013 the Complainant admitted at the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar under Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar for surgical operation on his back side and the said operation was done on 26/08/2013 against the deposited money of Rs.45,000/-. After operation, the Complainant discharged from the said nursing home on 30/08/2013 with this assurance that the patient Saddam Hossain will recover soon and not to worry.
‘Annexure-3’ of the Complainant i.e. Discharge Certificate issued by the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital dated 30/08/2013 shows that the Complainant, Saddam Hossain was admitted to the said Hospital from 25/08/2013 to 30/08/2013 and his operation of L4/L5 Leminectomy L4/L5 decectomy was done there by the O.P. No.1, Dr. S.K. Kumar.
The Complainant further stated that but after 2/3 days of the said operation, the condition of the patient became deteriorated. Accordingly, the patient/Complainant visited the O.P doctor on 09/09/2013 but Dr. S.K. Kumar avoid to the Complainant with technically. On 10/09/2013 the Complainant again visit with Dr. S.K. Kumar and the O.P doctor advised to him to take admission at Subham Hospital, Cooch Behar and after examined the patient was discharged from the said hospital on 12/09/2013 but he was not curing for the treatment of the O.P. No.1.
‘Annexure-2’ is Discharge Certificate dated 12/09/2013 issued by the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital shows that the Complainant was again admitted to said hospital from 10/09/2013 to 12/09/2013 for treatment.
‘Annexure-1 & 4’ are prescriptions dated 09/09/2013 and 05/11/2013 issued by Dr. S.K. Kumar written in the letter-head of Subham Hospital in favour of the Complainant.
‘Annexure-5’ is MRI report of the Complainant dated 14/03/2013 issued by Anandaloke Sonoscan Centre Pvt. Ltd.
‘Annexure-6 – 27’ are Medical Bill issued by the O.P. No.2 Hospital to the Complainant.
‘Annexure-28 – 32’ are different Pathological Report issued by Subham Hospital to the Complainant.
‘Annexure-33’ is slip and ‘Annexure-34’ is Money Receipt issued by said Hospital.
In his complaint Saddam Hossain further alleged that inspite of operation rendered to him by Dr. Kumar and several visit on 12/09/2013, 07/10/2013 & 05/11/2013 he did not get any relief.
He further stated that finding no recoupment, on 04/01/2014 the Complainant visited with another Dr. Shamik Chowdhury, MBBS (Ortho), MS (Ortho) Pune, Orthopedic Surgeon of MJN Hospital, Cooch Behar, but he referred to Dr. Soumyajit Basu, MS (Ortho) DNB (Ortho) FRCS (END) Spine Surgeon at Park Clinic, 4-Gorkey, Kolkata-700017.
‘Annexure-35’ is the Xerox copy of prescription dated 04/01/2014 issued by Dr. Samik Chowdhury, Cooch Behar to the Complainant which reveals that he was referred to Dr. Saumyajit Basu, FRCS.
In his evidence, the Complainant also stated that on 04/02/2014 the Complainant visited with Dr. Soumyajit Basu at Kolkata. After some pathological tests Dr. S. Basu opined that his actual disease underwent L4/L5 decompression/disectomy 6 months back initially did well but started having severe pain 3 weeks after surgery and became cure due to proper operation rendered by Dr. Basu.
‘Annexure-35’ is patient visit Report of the Complainant, Saddam Hossain issued by Dr. Saumyajit Basu, which reveals that Saddam Hossain was attended by Dr. Basu on 04/02/2014 for first time.
‘Annexure-37 & 38’ are Patient Discharge Summary of Saddam Hossain issued by Dr. S. Basu of Kothari Medical Centre, Kolkata.
‘Annexure-39 to 41’ are Follow-up Visit Report of Saddam Hossain issued by Dr. Basu.
‘Annexure-42’ is the Certificate dated 19/03/2014 issued by Dr. Basu regarding discharge of Saddam Hossain.
‘Annexure-43, 48, 51, 55 & 64’ are different Medical Reports of Saddam Hossain issued by Kothari Medical Centre.
‘Annexure-44 – 47, 49 – 50, 52 – 54, 56 – 63 & 65 – 70’ are Medical Bills issued by Kothari Medical Centre.
‘Annexure-71’ is instruction to the patient.
‘Annexure-72 & 74’ are same CT Lumbo Sacral Spine Report of Saddam Hossain issued by BSR, Diagnostics, Kolkata.
‘Annexure-73’ is Xerox copy of Discharge Summary of the Complainant, Saddam Hossain by Kothari Medical Centre.
‘Annexure – 75’ is X-ray Plate.
It is the specific case of the Complainant that such trouble of acute pain on spine of the Complainant cropped up due to lack of proper cares in pre and post operative period of the Complainant by the O.Ps.
On the other hand, it is the case of the O.P. No.1, Dr. S.K. Kumar that after observing all the medical test reports i.e. all medical formalities, so as per duty of a doctor he has performed necessary duty as per medical science.
But the O.P. No.1, Dr. S.K. Kumar has not filed any scrap of paper regarding treatment/operation of the Complainant.
In view of the ruling reported in 2014 CJ 157 (NC) in respect of a case of medical negligence regarding death of a child, Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that from the observation of the State Commission it is evident that the Petitioner/Hospital failed to produce the treatment chart of the deceased in their evidence. In absence of the treatment record, which could have thrown light an issue of medical negligence, we are of the view the Foras below have rightly concluded that the Petitioners were negligent in the treatment of the deceased child.
‘Annexure-3’ i.e. Discharge Certificate dated 30/08/2013 issued by the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital, Cooch Behar shows that the Complainant Saddam Hossain was admitted to the said hospital from 25/08/2013 to 30/08/2013 and his operation of L4/L5 Leminectomy L4/L5 decectomy was done by the O.P. No.1 there.
‘Annexure-2’ i.e. Discharge Certificate dated 12/09/2013 reveals that he again admitted to said Hospital with back pain under Dr. S.K. Kumar and treated there for such problem.
It is the case of the Complainant that inspite of his operation by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Kumar and two times admission in the said hospital (O.P. No.2) and long treatment by Dr. Kumar he did not get any relief.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that the Complainant was suggested for MRI of L.S. Spine, but the Complainant refused this investigation due to financial problem. But there is nothing to show by the O.P. No.1 that actually, the Complainant refused the said investigation due to financial problem.
However, we find that the Complainant has spent huge money due to his treatment at Subham Hospital, Cooch Behar.
It is the case of the O.P No.1 that the Complainant did not attend him on 11/03/2013.
But ‘Annexure-6’ i.e. Medical Bill dated 11/03/2013 issued by the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital, Cooch behar shows that Rs.400/- was received from the Complainant as Consultation Fee for Dr. S.K. Kumar. The O.P. No.1 has not made any attempt to prove the fact that there was any other doctor viz. Dr. S. K. Kumar besides him.
So, it is cannot be said that the Complainant did not attend the O.P. No.1, Dr. Kumar on 11/03/2013.
We have already stated that the O.P. No.1 has not filed any paper regarding operation/treatment of the Saddam Hossain.
So, we are in dark about treatment rendered by the O.P. No.1, Dr. S.K. Kumar to the Complainant.
However, we find that inspite of operation rendered by the O.P. No.1, Dr. S.K. Kumar to the Complainant, he had been suffering from acute pain on his back and had not been cured.
‘Annexure-36’ is Patient Visit Report of the Complainant dated 04/02/2014 issued by Dr. Basu shows that according to his medical profile, he underwent L4/L5 decompression/decectomy 6 months back, initially did well but started having severe pain 3 week after surgery. Still now, he has severe back pain and cannot stand or sit due to pain.
‘Annexure-51’ is X-ray Report of the Complainant dated 06/02/2014 issued by Kothari Medical Centre shows that loss of normal curvature with internal fixation of L4 & L5 vertebrae with old compressed.
‘Annexure-72’ is C.T. Lumbo Sacral Spine of the Complainant dated 04/02/2014 shows that it was a “Follow up case of L4/L5 decinoressuib & Discectomy.
CT Lumbo sacral spite shows –
- Post operative changes at L4/L5 level.
- L4/L5 disc height reduction, mold retrolisthesis of L4 over L5 causing bilateral lateral recess & neural foraminal narrowing at L4/L5 level.
End plate irregularity adjacent to L4/L5 disc – may be sequel to spondylodiscitis.”
So, considering over all matters into consideration and materials on record, we find that even after rendering operation of the spine of the Complainant by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Kumar and on attending him on several occasions, the Complainant did not get any relief and ultimately he went to Dr. Basu of Kothari Medical Centre and got ultimate relief and became cured.
So, in view of our above made discussion, it is apparent that the operation rendered by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Kumar to the Complainant was not at all successful and it is also apparent that there was negligence and lacking of proper pre and post operative care and the O.P. No.1, Dr. Kumar is liable for such negligence act.
At the time of argument, the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P. No.1 submitted that in the present case the Complainant has not filed any affidavit challenging statement made by the O.P. No.1 in his written version and evidence. So, it can be safely said that the case of the O.P. No.1 is clearly proved on the basis of his un-contradicted evidence of the O.P. No.1.
In support of his contention he cited a ruling reported in (IV) 2006 CPJ 213 (NC) where in a complaint case the Complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence but the O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of evidence nor cross examined the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that allegation of the Complainant remained uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit, case of the Complainant stands proved.
But in the present case we have already concluded that the O.P. No.1 did not adduce any evidence on the point of actual issue i.e. regarding operation in question and post operation treatment/care. So, we think the said ruling is not applicable in this case.
It is also the specific case of the O.P. No.1 that the present case is bad for defect of the parties as Dr. Soumyajit Basu of Kothari Medical Centre, Kolkata has not been impleaded in this case as party to the case.
But the Consumer Cases are to be decided on the basis of allegation made out in the complaint.
In the present case the Complainant has made no allegation against Dr. Basu. So, we think his presence in the present case is not necessary.
More so, in view of ruling reported in 2014 (4) CPR 258 (SC) claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.
During hearing of argument the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P. No.1 submitted that in case of medical negligence regarding operation, evidence of medical expert is must and submitted a ruling reported in AIR 2010 SC 806 where in a case of medical negligence, the Complainant was operated thrice for decompression of Spinal Cord without success and Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to call for expert opinion of Neurologist on surgery but Assistant Registrar failed to forward all records of treatment and vital information to the said expert and the Complainant’s application for reconsideration of expert opinion was rejected by Hon’ble National Commission. Hon’ble Appex Court pleased to hold that the said rejection by Commission would amount to denial of fair opportunity to the Complainant to prove his claim based on expert report.
He has submitted another ruling reported in (III) 2008 CPJ 361 (Delhi) where in a case of medical negligence, Hon’ble State Commission pleased to hold that Forum has mandatory obligation to obtain expert opinion to arrive at just and material decision.
He has submitted a ruling reported in (II) 2000 CPJ 180 (Punjab) where in a case of medical negligence, regarding death of son of the Complainant no medical evidence or Post Mortem Report was produced by the Complainant and the Complainant was dismissed by the District Forum. Hon’ble State Commission pleased to affirm the order of District Forum and dismissed the Appeal.
He has submitted another ruling reported in (I) 2001 CPJ 532 (Punjab) where in a case of medical negligence, regarding abortion, some pices of unborn child remained in womb after operation, no expert evidence produced to prove the allegation of negligence and District Forum dismissed the complaint and Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the Appeal.
He has also submitted two other rulings reported in (I) 2003 CPJ 153 (NC) and (III) 2002 CPJ 242 (Jharkhand) where Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission also pleased to hold that opinion of medical expert is necessary to prove the case of medical negligence.
But we find from the judgement passed in Civil Appeal No.2641 of 2010 by Hon’ble Supreme Court, where in a case of medical negligence, Hon’ble Appex Court pleased to hold that in most of the cases the question whether a medical petitioner or the hospital is negligent or not is a mixed question of fact and Law and the For a is not bound in every case to accept the opinion of the expert witness. Although, in many cases the opinion of the expert witness may assist the Fora to decide the controversy one way or the other. For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that it is not bound by the general direction given in Paragraph 106 in D’souza (supra). This Court further holds that in the facts and circumstances of the case expert evidence is not required and District Forum rightly did not ask the appellant to adduce expert evidence. Both State Commission and the National Commission fell into an error by opining to the contrary.
In another ruling reported in 2014 CJ 157 (NC), where Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that expert opinion is not necessary in all cases, where negligence and deficiency in service of treating doctor is established from facts and circumstances of the case.
In ruling reported in 2012 (2) CCC 284 (NC), where Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that in case of medical negligence, a mere preponderance of probability would indict the guilty, of profession. Inference as to negligence may be drawn from proved circumstances by applying the rule of Res ipsa Loquitur.
Considering over all matters into consideration and rulings discussed above, we find that it is the latest view of Hon’ble Appex Court and Hon’ble National Commission that where in a case of medical negligence, the Principle of Res ipsa Loquitur operates, the Complainant does not have to prove anything as think(s) proves itself.
During hearing of argument, Ld. Advocate/Agent of the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital, Cooch Behar submitted that the Complainant was admitted to their Hospital under the O.P. No.1, Dr. Kumar and operation was rendered to him by Dr. Kumar. The staffs of their Hospital took much care regarding said patient and there was no negligence on the part of the hospital.
So, the case is liable to be dismissed against them.
We find that every payment for the O.P. No.1, Dr. Kumar and the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital were received by the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital.
We also find that Dr. Kumar issued his prescriptions (Annexure-1 & 4) under the Letter-head of the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital. So, it is clear that they are related to each other and the O.P. No.2, cannot avoid their liability.
Accordingly, we are constrained to hold that both the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service and liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00.000/- to the Complainant.
Thus, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
Accordingly, case succeeds in part.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. DF - 64/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part with costs of Rs.5,000/- against the O.P. No.1, Dr. Soumen Kanti Kumar and the O.P. No.2, Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Cooch Behar.
Both the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- jointly and/or severally as compensation for medical negligence, mental pain, agony, harassment and deficiency in service to the Complainant, Saddam Hossain. The ordered amount shall pay jointly and/or severally to the Complainant within 45 days failure of which the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 jointly and/or severally shall pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the parties by hand/Registered post, free of cost with A/D.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
