DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-  43  of   2017

 

 

Sri Uttam Debnath,

S/O- Lt. Ananta Hari Debnath,

Uttar Tulamura,P.O.- Jitendranagar,

Udaipur, Gomati Tripura. .….…...Complainant.

 

           VERSUS  

 

      1. Fortis International Hospital Limited,

III, West of Chord Road,

Opp. to Rajajinagar,

1st Block Junction,

Bangalore- 560086.

 

      2. Information Centre,

Fortis International Hospital Limited,

Jail Road, Mathchowmuhani,

P.S. East Agartrala,

West Triprua. ........... Opposite Party.

 

 __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Swarup Pandit,

  Sri Pulak Saha,

  Sri Bhaskar Debroy,

  Sri Nabajit Kumar Biswas,

  Sri Anjan Debnath,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Bhaskar Deb, 

  Saikat Rahman,         

  Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 09.11.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T

  This case arises on the petition filed by one Uttam Debnath U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he on 18.02.13 he went to Tripura Medical College and Hospital, Hapania with the pain in the lower back side. The doctor opined that there was calculi in the right pelvic-ureteric region. Same opinion was given by the doctors of Gomati District Hospital. Complainant then went to Bangalore and was admitted in the Fortis hospital. Calculus in the right kidney was detected and doctor decided to perform surgery. Surgery was done and petitioner discharged. Doctor opined that there was no renal calculi in the kidney after operation. He paid Rs.1,50,508/-. After 5 months on 17.10.15 complainant again suffered from pain and treated in the Tripura Medical College and Hospital, Hapania. He consulted Dr. Manas Kumar Mandal, Urologist of ILS Hospital and again calculus was detected in the right renal region. Date was fixed for surgery in the ILS hospital. But operation was not done. So he made contact with Dr. Uttam Lodh, Urologist who detected calculus in both the kidney. Stenting was done and he went to Kolkata for treatment in the year 2016. In the Fortis Hospital, Bangalore operation was done but Calculus was not removed. He spent huge amount without proper treatment so, petitioner claimed compensation Rs.13,58,000/- for harassment and medical negligence. 

 

2. O.P. No.2, Information Centre of Fortis International Hospital did not appear after receipt of notice. So case was proceeded against them exparte.

3. O.P. No.1, Fortis International Hospital Limited Bangalore appeared, filed written statement along with O.P. No.2 denying the claim. It is stated that there was no medical negligence. There was no cause of action in this case and court  also has no jurisdiction as operation was done in Bangalore.

 

4. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

  (I)Whether there was any medical negligence by O.P. No.1 and 2?

(II)Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

5. Petitioner produced discharge summary, CT Scan Report, Ultrasonography Report, Intravenous pyelogram of Dept. of Radiology. Also produced the statement on affidavit of Uttam Debnath complainant of this case. 

 

6. Complainant also produced statement on affidavit on another witness Sukanta Das. Later also produced Estimation slip of Fortis, Discharge Summary,  USG Report, Inpatient bill, Out Patient bill, X-Ray Report, Admission counselling form, Service Voucher, prescription of Dr. Manash Kumar Mandal, prescription of Dr. Uttam Lodh, Exhibit- 1 Series. 

 

7. O.P. on the other hand produced some medical documents, Operation notice, C.T. Scan, discharge summary, medical report, admission report, also produced written version of O.P. No. 1 and 2.

 

8. On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

 

  Findings and Decision:

 

9. It is admitted fact that operation was done at Bangalore. Petitioner could not prove convincingly that the Information Centre of Fortis at Agartala was connected with the Bangalore Fortis Hospital. However, O.P. did not deny it. But petitioner did not take Information from the Information Centre and went to Bangalore directly. So Information Centre, O.P. No.2 is not necessary party. There is also no definite evidence to prove that O.P. No.1 is doing business at Agartala. So definitely the question remained whether this court has jurisdiction when the cause of action arose at Bangalore. 

 

10. The  main contention of the petitioner is that operation was done but the calculi was not removed from the kidney. The petitioner came to this conclusion on the opinion of doctor of ILS Hospital and subsequently went to Dr. Uttam Lodh who  examined him. After 5 months ultrasonography and X-ray was done at Agartala on 06.11.15. On 11.01.16 Intravenous pyelogram was done. Horse shoe kidneys was seen as per report. 

 

11. Uttam Debnath petitioner stated that ultrasonography was done on 08.05.16. No evidence was there to support that on 04.11.15 complainant visited doctor Manash modal of ILS Hospital and X-ray was done at ILS hospital. 22.10mm calculus found in the right region. In R.G. Stone Urology & Laparoscopy Hospital of Kolkata again X-ray was done and horseshoe kidney was found. So from this 2 report complainant concluded that respondent No.1 did not remove the calculus through surgery. Dr. Uttam Lodh and Dr. Manash Mandal had also opined the same fact  but these two doctors did not give any written information in this regard and they did not given any opinion to support the fact as narrated by the complainant.

 

12. Learned advocate for the O.P. on the other hand produced some medical journal stating that there is every possibility of growing of calculi in the kidney after a period of 3 months. We have gone through the medical journal. In the medical journal it is clearly stated that there is every possibility of recurrence after the first stone episode. There is possibility of growth of stone again as per medical journal. There is nothing in the evidence to support that the surgeon of the Fortis Hospital had no reasonable skill, knowledge to care in the matter of performing their duties as a medical practitioner. Standard reasonable care was taken and complainant was relieved from the pain. After 5 months he developed pain and again there was growth of calculi. This is not medical negligence at all. No medical expert supported the fact of medical negligence as alleged by the petitioner. Petitioner therefore, failed to prove the case of medical negligence. Apart from this there is doubt about jurisdiction of this court as cause of action arose at Bangalore. 

 

13. In view of our above findings over the two points we consider that this case has no merit and accordingly it is dismissed.  No costs. 

 

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

MT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.