West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/81/2011

Smt. Sephali Tunga - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Soumen Roy - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint case No.81/2011                                                         Date of disposal: 29/08/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                        : Mr.K. Palmal, Advocate.                                   

                                                                    

    Smt. Sephali Tunga, W/o Sri Subrata Tunga, Vill & P.O. Aknageria, P.S. Pingla, Dist- Paschim   

    Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. Dr. Soumen Roy, C/o Sushrut Diagnostics, at Debra Bazar, P.O. Debra, P.S. Debra, Dist- Paschim Medinipur.
2. Sushrut Diagnostics, at Debra Bazar, P.O. Debra, P.S. Debra, Dist- Paschim Medinipur.
3.  Sushrut Diagnostics, at Commerce College Road, P.O. & P.S Medinipur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur...……………Ops.

          The case of the complainant Smt. Sephali Tunga, in short, is that as per advise of Dr. A.K. Mallick the complainant collected blood report on B+ blood group prepared by Dr. Soumen Roy (OP no.1) from Sushrut Diagnostics (OP no.2) on 20/01/2011.  On 1/07/2011 while examination of the complainant Dr. Mallick referred her for admission in the District Hospital, Medinipur.  Accordingly, on the same day she got admission.  During treatment in the District Hospital, the complainant was detected that she bears O+ blood group and thereby the hospital Doctors became confused and thereafter second time examination was held which resulted confirmation of O+ blood group.  Thus, it is alleged by the complainant that the report of B+ blood group prepared by Dr. Mallick is not correct and thereby it was expressed anxiety by the complainant that her life would be in danger if the erroneously prepared blood report bearing B+ blood group is given effect to.  Stating the case the complainant has come before us for seeking relief in terms of the prayer mentioned in our petition of complaint.

Contd……P/2                                                                    

 

 

- ( 2 ) -          

          The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and complainant is not a consumer as the Op gave sincere service to her free of charge  and if that be so, the Op should not be liable for payment of compensation.

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2.  Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the service of Ops.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that it is very clear case of serious negligent conduct of the OP No.1 (Dr. S. Roy) who prepared blood group of the complainant to be B+  whereas, the complainant, in fact, bears O+ blood group which has been confirmed by the expert in the Medinipur District Medical Hospital. This has been successfully established by virtue of evidence on record.  Thus the complainant is entitled to get compensation and other reliefs as prayed for.

        The argument made above is strongly challenged by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Ops by drawing our attention that the complainant filed this case cannot be stated to be that actual person whose blood was examined and alleged report dated 20/01/2011 was prepared in the OP Nursing Home.  There is no relevant evidence adduced on the part of the complainant in order to establish the identity of the complainant whom the alleged report was issued to.  It is the regular feature in the Op Nursing Home where so many patients are coming for treatment and clinical examination.  Under such facts and circumstances, the pathological reports in various items are prepared.  No evidence is forthcoming to so that the blood sample whether taken particularly from this complainant.

        Besides, no charge has been taken from the complainant for the alleged report and to that effect the complainant is also incapable for production of relevant evidence in the matter of payment on account of blood test and on clinical test.  Thus according to the principal of the

Contd……P/3                                                                   

 

 

- ( 3 ) -   

 

Consumer Protection Act the complainant should not be regarded as consumer and as such the case should not lie for seeking relief as prayed for.  Thus the case should be dismissed.

        We have carefully considered the entire case of the parties and it is primarily appearing before us that the complainant has received and enjoied gratuitous and free service from the Op Dr. Mallick in the matter of obtaining blood report.  Besides, there is no legal evidence in the matter of establishing the question of identity of the complainant as a patient appeared before the Op Dr.  Mallick in connection with the clinical performance for blood test.

        Under the facts and circumstances, the statute does not provide any relief in such a case as made out by the complainant here in this case in the way of making relation based on service at free of charge.  To become a statutory Consumer there must be a principal condition for payment to purchase any service to the person who gives or render any such service for such consideration.  Thus, the complainant is not governed under the rules of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As a result, the case of the complainant fails.  

        All the issues are held and decided against the complainant.

                     Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

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

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                  Member              Member                                  President

                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur.