Order-17.
Date-10/12/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Biman Das by filing this complaint has submitted that complainan thas a small business as well as developer of software project with a good reputation in the local area and at the age of 32, complainant was suffering from fever since March-2015 and primarily he was given paracetamol 500 but no result.Then he was checked and examined by house physician Dr. Sumit Saha who came to his flat on 18.03.2015 at about 22.00 hrs. and prescribed to admit immediately as detected FVC of fever for 20 days and accordingly complainant was admitted at Dreamland Nursing Home on 18.03.2015 at 11.00 hrs.
In course of investigation relating treatment of the complainant, Dr. SumitSaha detected that complainant was suffering from Enteric Fever UTI Dysclectrolytenia, Lever Dysfunction DMC dyslipidemia and on 21.03.2015 Dr. Saha advised for H.N., Test of throat Swab from National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Disease, Govt. of India, Kolkata and nursing home authority without engaging their man, gave his a requisition slip by mentioning its email id for bringing kit from NICED and being father of the complainant he had been to NICED and collected kit which was made over on the following day to NICED after preserving throat swab of the complainant and preserved by the Nursing Home on 23.03.2015 and on the same day NICED sent the report through email id which was duly acknowledged by the Nursing Home though Floor Manager Abhijit Mandal flatly denied to receive the same which caused in convenience to the complainant for discharge from the Nursing Home and due to such sort of negligence and deficiency on the part of Nurshing Home, the situation pressed the complainant to remain on the Nursing Home another 7 days for which Nursing Home charged Rs. 2,300/- per day which was contrary, arbitrary, motivated and with some ill purpose and for which complainant’s father suffered from metal agony and financial loss.
Fact remains that complainant’s health was covered under mediclaim policy, Nursing Home Authority submitted a bill containing High Protein of which price was differ from day to day but description of food protein was written thoroughly and imposed a high price which shows commercial attitude of the authority and at the moment of discharge of the complainant, Nursing Home Authority took Rs. 38,519/- out of total bill of Rs.67,019/- and rest has been adjusted from mediclaim policy which is unprecedented.
The Nursing Home Authority has adopted unfair trade practice by submitting excess amount which is not justified and authority had deficiency of service for not sending the requisition before appropriate authority that is swan flue test and authority created pressure to the father of the complainant to send the requisition H1N1 test to NICED, Kolkata for which complainant’s father had to spend more time and he could not give relief to his client and for causing harassment, mental pain and for adopting unfair trade practice, this complaint is filed for redressal.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant was admitted to Nursing Home who took all initiative to send the sample of throat swab to National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Disease, Govt. of India through their men but at the request of the complainant and other relatives of complainant the kit containing throat swab was handed over to the complainant’s father for the test at NICED and Nursing Home Authority did not engage their men for sending kit containing throat swab.
It is further submitted that no doubt NICED sent their report through email id but such Nursing Home could not receive the mail sent by the NICED on the said date and as such the complainant was reported by the Nursing Home Authority regarding non-availability of the said mail and it is categorically denied that the Nursing Home Authority acted arbitrarily, motivated and in commercial attitude causing irreparable loss to the complainant as well as to the father of the complainant and caused mental agony of complainant and his father and further the allegation made by the complainant against the nursing home is false and fabricated and prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint and written version and also the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of both the parties and further considering the test report, it is found that H1N1 test was done on 23.03.2015 and report of Influenza A is negative and also H1N1 result was negative by Dr. Swati Ghosh of NICED, Kolkata.But that report was sent to some email id but that was practically in the email id of the Dreamland Nursing Home and it is proved that Dreamland Nursing Home has its email id i.e. . But practically the said report was sent to wrong id. But Nursing Home Authority reported that there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of them and after correcting the email id that report was received after proper treatment complainant was released.
In the present case the main contention of the complainant is that even after receipt of the report of H1N1 tested by NICED, Kolkata on 23.03.2015, complainant was kept in the hospital for another extra 7 days in AC Room for which Rs.2,300/- per day was changed but there was no ground to keep him further 7 days and it was taken by adopting unfair trade practice and there was no reason to keep the patient for another 7 days when H1N1 test report was found negative and report was prepared on 23.03.2015 and it was sent by NICED to the ops as per complainant’s version and ops received it on 24.03.2015 but even then he was kept for another 7 days without any cause.
In this regard we have gone through the discharge summary wherefrom we find that complainant was suffering from several diseases in Enteric Fever, UTI, Dyselectrolylemia, Liver Dysfunction, DMC Dyslipidemla etc. and fact remains that for different reasons his fever was not controlled for which he was admitted to this Nursing home on 18.03.2015 and he was discharged on 30.03.2015 and during that period several tests and other treatment were done.So it was the lucrative approach of the doctor to satisfy himself/herself about the stability of the patient at first after treatment and thereafter being satisfied, he shall have to discharge and the claim amount of the complainant that he was stayed another 7 days extra but it is not proved that he was kept for what reason.
On the contrary it is found that the complainant had been suffering from several ailments and Nursing home felt that it was not safe to release him even after receipt of the said report and also on the ground of some other factors for which he was suffering and when he was found stable he was released because in many cases without keeping under observation forthwith the patient are being discharged and again further diseases are found recurred and in the present case we have found that for no false reason patient was not kept in the said hospital and only 15 days he was there havingmediclaim policy also.But anyhow under any circumstances op did not keep him for extra 7 days and same is also not at all proved.But it is the order of the day to keep the patient for extra days but we have minutely considered the prescription and other reports and we have gathered that the condition of the patient would be serious if he would be released forthwith without further observation because treatment was conservative in nature and complainant was suffering from several diseases at the age of 32 years if all the diseases would not be controlled there was no question of release of such patient because there was chance of recurring of such diseases.So that doctor adopted scientific process to satisfy before his discharge as it is properly done by the hospital and all sorts of tests were done by doctor for the cause of his different type of diseases and it was found that the patient was not suffering from H1N1 but curing the patient from other diseases the doctor kept him and further treated and cured the diseases and then the patient was released after proper treatment when he was found stable.
So negligence and deficiency on the part of the ops is not proved.At the same time no sort of adopting unfair trade practice as claimed by the complainant is at all proved.The reason for release on 30.03.2015 was justified and keeping the complainant for another 7 days was justified in view of his nature of diseases and if he would be released on 24.03.2015 in that case there was a chance of recurring other diseases so for the the safety of the complainant he was releasedin a stable condition.But under any circumstances we have failed to search out any deceitful manner of trade or keeping the complainant for further 7 days without reasons.
In the result, this complaint fails.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the ops.
