IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/117/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

     25.07.17                                      01.09.17                               01.08.19

Complainant: Amal Kumar De, S/o Kalipada De

Poddarpara,PO- Khairamari,

PS-Jalangi, Dist-Murshidabad,

 Pin-742303

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Dr. U.S. Majumdar,

89/1, Rabindranath Thakur Road,

Laldighi, PO&PS-Berhampore,

Dist-Murshidabad,

Pin-742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant            : Sri. Arindam Banerjee.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : Sri. Biswadeep Chatterjee.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

 Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Amal Kumar De (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Dr. U.S. Majumder (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging  medical negligence and deficiency in service.

   The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            One Mitali De, wife of the Complainant admitted at Manipal Hospitals, Bangalore in Neurosurgery department on 05.01.17 on complaint of heaviness and weakness of bilateral lower limbs since 2 months with past history of K/C/O hypothyroid on thyronorm 50mcg since 10 years. After admission in Neurosurgery department at Manipal Hospitals MRI spine revealed C3-C6 and D2-D7 OPLL with CORD compression. Treatment plan was explained to relatives and she underwent C3-C6 cervical laminectomy, D2-D7 thoracic laminectomy. Post operatively, she was mobilised and started oral feeds. Her surgical wound was healthy and her bilateral lower limbs spascticity reduced and she was discharged on 08.01.17 with advice to continue medicines along with use of survical hard collar and to take regular care of surgical wounds with direction to remove staples on 16.01.17. Mitali Dey came to her home town within the district of Murshidabad and went to the OP on 28.01.17 for regular check-up at Berhampore.

            The OP advised the patient for different medical tests from his referred medical laboratories and advised to change the medicines which were advised by the Manipal Hospitals, Bangalore. The Complainant informed about the patient’s hypothyroid and told the OP that the patient was on eltroxin and showed him discharged certificate from Manipal Hospitals but the OP became furious and started claiming the Complainant with abusing language asked him to start the medicine advised by him.

            After administering medicines advised by the OP, the patient’s health conditions became deteriorated and on being informed the OP asked the patient to continue the medicines. The patient was compelled to continue the medicines as advised by the OP as it was not possible for her to go to Bangalore with regular check-up. The Complainant requested the OP to change the medicines of the patient but of no result and health condition of the patient became bad.

            Ultimately, the Complainant was compelled to rush to Bangalore and Manipal Hospitals refused to admit the patient due to his discontinuation of advised medicines and the Complainant went to National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science, where the patient was admitted on 28.04.17 and discharged on 03.06.17 after proper treatment. The OP treated the patient without reasonable care and he treated the patient negligently. The Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- against the OP for mental agony, emotional distress and financial loss due to negligent and unprofessional act of the OP. The Complainant also prayed for litigation cost against the OP.

            The OP contested the case by filing written version on 19.12.17, inter alia, denying the material allegations made out in the complaint contending that the OP has no deficiency in service or negligence for treatment of Mitali De. It is the specific case of the OP that the OP is a qualified Doctor having degree in Neurology and he treated the patient with due care and caution. The patient was whimsical in treatment over the period till 28.04.17 for which the OP did not prescribe for entire period. The OP has asserted that he has no negligence and deficiency in service. He prays for dismissal of the complaint.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point No. 1

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has not taken part in hearing of argument. The Complainant has not been taking steps since 06.12.18.

    The Ld. Advocate of the OP submits that the Complainant is not a consumer.

            It is urged that the OP treated one Mitali De and the Complainant has claimed that Mitali De is the wife of the Complainant.

            He argues that the Complainant never hired the service of the OP for consideration and the Complainant has not filed the case with the approval of Mitali De.

            We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence adduced by both sides and written argument filed by the O.P.  It is the specific case of the Complainant that his wife Mitali De was a patient of the OP for a considering period with effect from 28.01.17. Therefore it is clear that Mitali De hired the services of the OP. It is not the case of the OP that he treated the patient free of cost.

We find that the Complainant has not filed any letter of authorization or approval of Mitali De to establish that he filed the case with the  approval of  Mitali De. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant is not a consumer as he has not filed the case with the approval of Mitali De.

Point No. 2

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has not taken part in hearing of argument.

    The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that this Forum has no jurisdiction to file the case.

            On perusal of materials on record and on a careful consideration, we find that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point No. 3& 4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has not taken part in hearing of argument.

   The Ld. Advocate for OP submits that the OP is a renowned medical practioner, having qualification of neurology. It is urged that the OP treated Mitali De from 28.01.17 to 23.02.17 with due care and caution. He argues that the Complainant has not filed any  document/ expert evidence to establish that the OP treated the patient negligently and the OP has deficiency in service. He draws our attention to a decision passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint 149 of 1996 dated 16.07.09 where in it is held that one has to prove medical negligence not discharged by Complainant. Medical negligence not proved.

            We have gone through the materials on record. We have considered the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the OP. We have gone through the decision referred by the Ld. Advocate of the OP. We have already hold that the Complainant is not a consumer.

            On a careful consideration, we find that the Complainant has failed to establish the fact that there is any negligence/ deficiency in service on the part of the OP to treat Mitali De during  the period from 28.01.17 to 23.02.17. The Complainant has not even filed any expert opinion to establish that the OP has any negligence / deficiency in service to treat Mitali De. With due regard to the decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the OP, we find that the Complainant has failed to establish medical negligence / deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 25.07.17 and admitted on 01.09.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

Fees paid are correct

In the result, the consumer case fails. Hence, it is

                                             ORDERED

that the Consumer Case No. CC/117/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.

          Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          PRESIDENT

  Member                                                                                                   President.