DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 108 of 2019

 

1. Sri Santanu Dhar,

S/O.-Sri Dhiraj Dhar,

Resident of Joynagar-1,

Ronaldsay Road, Near Hotel Sonar Tari,

P.S.-West Agartala, P.O.-Agartala,

Pin-799001, Dist.- West Tripura …....….....................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Dr. Swarup Majumder,

S/O. Sri Shyamal Majumder,

Resident of Krishnanagar, Hrishyamukh,

P.S. Belonia, Dist.-South Tripura.

 

Present Chamber:-

Dr. Swarup Majumder,

Opposite side of the Sarkar Nursing Home,

P.S.-West Agartala, P.O.-Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001…...........................Opposite party.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bhaskar Debbarma,

  Sri Debasish Rakshit,

  Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Advocates. 

For the O.P. : Sri Kushal Deb,

  Sri Dhrubajyoti Saha,

  Sri Subhankar Deb,

  Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 01/12/2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Santanu Dhar,  set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.P.  

  The complainants' case, in brief, is that on 19/09/2019 Complainant had gone to the chamber of the O.P. for consultation  and Complainant had taken advice from O.P. for his problem of piles. On the same day Complainant was admitted in the Life Line Nursing Home as per advice of O.P. at about 3 P.M. on 19/09/2019. Complainant did not give consent for operation but the O.P. performed fissure anal dilation  upon the Complainant which amounts to negligence. The Complainant started feeling acute pain in his rectum. On 29/09/2019 on being called once again O.P. visited Complainant's house and gave Ayurvedic Medicine. The O.P.'s treatment could not cure the pain and other problems of the Complainant and after operation the condition of the Complainant was not improved. The O.P. had performed the operation without due care, attention and caution and in the most negligent manner. The Complainant stated that the O.P. did not take proper and reasonable care and caution in the instant case in respect of the Complainant. So, O.P. is guilty of deficiency of service or negligence. 

Hence this case. 

The O.P. has contested the case by filing a written statement denying any deficiency of service having been committed by him towards the Complainant.

O.P.  in their written statement stated that the fact of admission in the Life Line Nursing Home was not true. It is fabricated and hence denied and disputed as the Complainant never admitted to the Life Line Nursing Home. After the examination the O.P. finding the Complainant suffering from chronic anal fissure suggested for taking sitz bath with bitadin solution. The O.P. further suggested to take some medicine and ointments. 

The O.P. has thus prayed for dismissal of the Complaint for the interests of justice. 

 

 3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

The Complainant examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 4 documents comprising 6 sheets under a Firisti dated 20/12/2019. The documents are namely Original Postal Receipt, Computer print of Track Consignment report, Xerox copy of Prescription & Xerox copy of Advocate Notice. But document are not exhibited.  

Two witnesses namely OPW. No.1- Sri Swarup Majumder, S/O. Shyamal Majumder of Krishnanagar, Hrishyomukh, Belonia  as Ayurvedic Doctor & OPW. No.2- Sri Badal Chanda, S/O.-Late Rabindra Chanda of Aparaskar. O.P. examined himself as OPW-I and one witness namely Sri Badal Chanda as OPW-2. O.P. submitted 4 documents comprising 4 sheets under a Firisti dated 08/03/2021. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – A Series & Exhibit-B.   

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

 

4.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues were framed for determination:  

  (i). Whether  there was/is  any deficiency of service committed by the O.P. towards the Complainant?

    (ii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

 

 

 

5. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES:

      We heard argument of both sides. 

At the time of argument Learned Advocate Mr. Kajal Nandi(Legal Aid Counsel) submitted that on 19/09/2019 Complainant went to the chamber of the O.P. for consultation of his problem of piles. O.P. examined the Complainant and advised him to admit in the Life Line Nursing Home for his operation. On the same day O.P. performs fissure anal dilation upon the Complainant without his consent and also gave Ayurvedic medicine. Despite the operation and taking medicine problem of the Complainant was not cured. O.P. has no reasonable degree of care and skill as medical practitioner. Complainant suffered a lot which amounts to deficiency of service and medical negligence. Mr. Nandi further submits that Complainant examined himself as witness and in his examination-in-chief on affidavit he deposed the entire facts and circumstance to prove his complaint. So, Complainant is entitled to get sufficient compensation from the O.P. for deficiency of service and medical negligence. 

On the other hand Mr. Kushal Deb submitted that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as well as in law. He submitted that Complainant filed a false and fabricated complaint to squeeze the O.P. It is further submitted that no operation was done on the Complainant in the Life Line Nursing Home and Complainant was never admitted in the Nursing Home. Complainant came to the chamber of the O.P. with a problem of anal fissure and undergone treatment of Ayurvedic Kshar Sutra ligation by one doctor from West Bengal namely Sultan Khan but the said treatment was not successful. O.P. advised him for proctoscopic examination and to visit to Life Line Nursing Home for such facilities. It is further submitted that after examination O.P. suggested for taking sitz bath with bitadin solution and also take some medicine and ointments. The Complainant several occasions disturbed the O.P. through mobile phone and finally O.P. blocked his number. Complainant visited the chamber of the O.P. and threatened for filing case against him. Mr. Deb further submitted that O.P. has obtained Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery in the year, 2016. He also obtained Ayurvedic Dhanwantri(M.S.-Ayurveda) Shalya Tantra in the year, 2020 and also got registration as a practitioner. So, there is no question of medical negligence as well as deficiency of service. Mr. Deb further submitted that the Complainant has failed to prove allegation of medical negligence or deficiency of service. So, complaint is liable to be dismissed.     

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

Both points are taken-up together for convenience for decisions: 

We have gone through the pleadings as well as the evidences adduced from both sides. Complainant though examined himself as a prosecution witness and submitted affidavit-in-chief but he has failed to exhibit any documents. In the examination-in-chief on affidavit Complainant stated that O.P. is unskilled doctor and he has no academic qualification as required by the law. It is not true. In this regard O.P. submitted his qualification certificate which was marked Exhibit-A series. In the examination-in-chief on affidavit Complainant stated that on 19/09/2019 he visited the chamber of the O.P. for consultation and he was advised to take admission in the Life Line Nursing Home for undergoing operation. But Complainant has failed to prove the fact of admission in the Life Line Nursing Home. In this regard Complainant did not submit any documentary evidence. 

On the other hand O.P. in his examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that Complainant was asked to visit Life Line Nursing Home for proctoscopic examination and Complainant was advised for taking sitz bath with bitadin solution as he was suffering from chronic anal fissure. O.P. also adduced examination-in-chef of one witness namely Sri Badal Chanda and the said witness(OPW-2) in his examination-in-chief stated that he knows O.P. as a doctor of Ayurvedic. He was suffering from fistula in the year 2019 and after taking treatment from the O.P., he became cured. OPW-2 also stated that Doctor Swarup Majumder treated him with utmost sincerity and due care .      

 

7. On appreciation of entire evidence, we are in the opinion that Complainant has totally failed to prove his complaint filed U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Hence, the complaint is dismissed and no costs. 

    Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.    

 Announced.

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.