Date of Filing: 26.7.2017
Date of Judgment: 22.2.2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by the complainant, Priya Sankar Bose, under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party ( referred to as O.P hereinafter) namely Forties Hospitals and Kidney Institute, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The case of the complainant is that he visited Doctor S.K Mukherjee of O.P hospital on 17.12.2016 with urinary problem as flow of his urine was slow for the last one year. He requested the doctor to prescribe some medicine and if no improvement by medicine then pathological test could be directed to avoid the cost as he is a pensioner. But Doctor directed for blood test and urine test. On 21.12.2012 he went to the doctor with the blood report for calcium and TSH and also urine report which were within normal range but doctor directed further tests for ultra-sonogram of KV13 and more blood test like creatinine etc. The total costs for all those tests was about Rs.4000/-. Finally all the tests undertaken by the said doctor of Fortis Hospital showed normal range including prostate serum and further urine culture as normal. Those tests could be deferred till completion of medicine course but the doctor directed those test imposing heavy costs on the complainant. Further the tablet namely ALUFUSIN (10 mg) prescribed by the doctor showed harmful reaction just after taking one tablet at bed time. When complainant went to hospital to report about reaction, he was told that doctor S. Mukherjee was on leave. However, on 7.1.2017 when treating doctor was reported, said medicine was directed to be stopped by the doctor. Complainant asked for some alternative medicine but he was not prescribed any medicine and complainant was asked to see some other doctor. So, test after tests was directed by the treating doctor of the O.P but no proper treatment was provided to the complainant causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, the present complaint is filed for directing the O.P to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/- and to refund the sum paid by him for unnecessary tests.
Complainant has filed copy of his bank account statement and copy of prescription dated 17.12.2016, 23.12.2016 and 07.01.2017.
O.P has contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegations levelled against it contending inter alia that complainant had visited the hospital on 17.12.2016 and was checked by doctor Subrata Mukherjee. He complained that he had low urine flow for the last one year. Complainant did not show any document pertaining to his visit to Dr. Shivaji Basu 5 years ago. After examination of the complainant, since he had no external symptoms and as he was 72 years old, for better diagnosis complainant was requested for certain tests. One of them was called “Urocheck” which is a package of several tests done on the patient which costs Rs.2900/-. Since complainant was 72 years old and had done check up 5 years ago, he was asked to do urocheck. In urocheck, USG and X-ray of prostate was done to check for enlargement of prostate or for stone in urinary bladder. Uroglowmetry was done for checking any obstructions in the urinary duct. Creatinine and other blood tests were recommended for checking the level of creatinine, glucose and thyroid levels as the same can affect the flow of urine in the patient. If the individual test was done, the cost would have been more and for which urocheck was suggested. Complainant was suffering from mild prostatomagaly (enlargement of prostate) and LUTS which was evident only after the tests were done. Thus O.P has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
During the course of trial, complainant filed affidavit-in-chief which was followed by filing questionnaire by the O.P and reply by the complainant. However, since no evidence was filed by the O.P inspite of opportunities given, argument has been heard. parties also field brief notes of argument.
So, the following points require determination :
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition. Complainant in this case has mainly claimed that he had to undergo tests including of blood and urine test and had to pay Rs.4000/-. These tests were unnecessary directed by the treating doctor of the O.P hospital. The complainant only had problem of low urine flow which could be treated by medication and if it did not improve then those tests could be done. So, the only question which is to be considered is whether those tests were at all required for the purpose of treatment of the complainant?
Admittedly complainant visited O.P hospital on 17.12.2016 with urinary problem and he was checked up by Dr. Subrata Mukerhee. Complainant had complained that he had low urine flow for the last one year. Complainant had also informed that he was checked by one Doctor Basu 5 years before but admittedly no document or prescription of doctor Basu was shown to Dr. Mukherjee on 17.12.2016. So, contention of the O.P that for better diagnosis and to know real cause, complainant was requested for doing certain tests especially when complainant was 72 years old appears to be a normal process. Complainant if knew and was sure that medicine alone was sufficient, he could have approached any other doctor and would not have gone for those tests directed by the treating doctor of O.P hospital. It is evident that complainant was not admitted in the hospital but was an OPD patient. So, complainant was free of not doing those test.
It is the specific case of the O.P that since the complainant had the said urinary problem for more than one year, doctor thought it prudent and wise to advice medication only after being sure of the ailment which could be known from tests and thus complainant was asked to do urocheck which is a package of several tests and it costs Rs.2900/-. Complainant though has claimed that he paid Rs.4000/- for those tests but has not filed any document to support his claim of payment of total Rs.4000/-. It is evident from the prescription that after those tests were conducted it was found from the reports that complainant was suffering from Mild Prostatomagaly (enlargement of prostate) with lower urinary track symptom. According to O.P normal size of the prostrate was 20 gms but the prescription dated 23.12.2016 indicates that the weight of the prostrate of complainant was 22 gms. Complainant has not filed any document or opinion of any other doctor in order to substantiate his claim that the tests directed by treating doctor of O.P was not necessary. In such a situation, claim of the complainant that those tests were done unnecessary cannot be accepted. However, his claim that on taking one tablet “ALUSIN” prescribed by Dr. Mukherjee, he had adverse reaction is substantiated from the prescription dated 7.1.2017. It appears that on 23.12.2016 Dr. Mukherjee had advised him Tab. ALUSIN (10mg) at bed time and asked to review after three months. But on 7.1.2017 when doctor Mukerjhee was available in the hospital and had checked up the complainant, he stopped the said medicine. It is evident that after stopping of the medicine, Dr. Mukherjee did not prescribe any alternate medicine but directed the complainant to see Dr. S Basu; which was surely not expected from a doctor who advised all the tests and after finding that complainant was suffering from Mild Prostatomagaly with lower urinary track symptom, left him without treatment. It may be pertinent to point out that even though O.P has contended that complainant did not visit after 23.12.2016 but it is nowhere claimed by the O.P that writings dated 07.01.2017 in the prescription was not by the treating doctor or it was forged or manufactured by the complainant. On the contrary the two writings of dated 23.12.2016 and 07.01.2017 in the prescription appears to be of the same person. If that be so, then, there cannot be any denial that O.P has been deficient in rendering service to the complainant and thus complainant is entitled to compensation for such mental agony.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/416/2017 is allowed on contest.
O.P is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within two months from this date , failing which the entire sum shall carry interest @8% p.a till realisation.
