Today is fixed for order on MA being No. 276/2022.

We have taken into consideration the submission advanced by both sides and the material available on record.

It is apparent that for compensation and litigation cost the complainants Kamal Kumar Chakraborty and his sister Kana Banerjee have filed this case against Dr. BaburamHajra on the ground that the OP was responsible for putting Kana Banerjee into trouble and harassment. It is the case of the complainants that due to the irresponsible act of the OP the insurance claim lodged with Cigna TTK for reimbursement of the medical expenses of Rs. 41,288/- was rejected on 19.03.2019. It is the case of the complainants that due to her illness Kana Banerjee was taken to the OP on 19.07.2018 and the OP mentioned in the prescription dated 19.07.2018 that she had 10 years old T2DM.

It is their next case that she was treated at Salt Lake Medical Centre under the OP as indoor patient for the period from 10.02.2019 to 13.02.2019. The health of the patient was insured by the policy of Cigna TTK during that period. Immediately after her discharge she lodged a mediclaim with Cigna TTK for sum of Rs. 41,288/- and the said claim was repudiated on 19.03.2019 mainly on the ground of non-disclosure of pre-existing deceased i.e. to say 10 years old T2DM. They then tried to obtain some clarification from the OP as to why T2DM was mentioned in the prescription. The doctor displayed avoiding tendency and did not supply clarification or explanation. But it is no part of a doctor’s duty to convey to the patient party information or clarification as to his past observation. However, the complainants approached the ombudsman on 26.04.2019 and got the award. For the avoiding tendency as displayed by the OP the complainants have sought for the aforesaid reliefs. But the complainants have not filed any other doctor’s prescription to prove that Kana Banerjee did not have 10 years old T2DM. Moreover, the medical negligence on the part of the OP has not been alleged. Only to satisfy their ego and to squeeze some money from the OP, this case has been filed without roping the insurer into this case as Co-OP. In the absence of the case of the medical negligence and duty on the part of the OP to evoke clarification, the allegation as levelled against the OP appears to be frivolous once. The behavioural attitude of the doctor cannot be actionable one. The case is not at all maintainable. There is no need of dragging the case. There should be an end to it.

Hence, it is ordered, that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest; but without cost.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

 [HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT