By : SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
The case of the petitioner in short is that he was suffering from fever and was admitted to Anantapur BPHC under M.O. Dr. Asit Maity. As per advice of that Doctor the OPs.no 1 and 2 examined the blood of the complainant/petitioner for counting plate late for suspicious ‘Dengue’. On the basis of that pathological report doctor of Aantapur BPHC treated him medically. But the condition of the patient was gradually deteriorated. Then another doctor of that BPHC Dr. Pradipta Manna advised the complainant for a further blood test. This time the complainant went to another pathological laboratory namely Madhusudan Pathological Lab. Anantapur. This laboratory gave report of plate late count of 30.000/- per cmm. On the basis of this second report doctors of the Anantapur BPHC diagnosed the patient a victim of Dingue. So, the doctors of Anantapur BPHC referred the patient to Medical College/NRS/SSKM at Kolkata for better treatment. On 09/10.11.16 at night the petitioner was taken to Kolkata but no bed was available in Government hospital. So, finding no other alternative the patient was admitted to Rubi General Hospital Ltd. Kolkata and was treated there from 10.11.16 to 17.11.16 . During this treatment the complainant had to incur a sum of Rs. 1,39,275/- for purchasing medicine and Rs. 9534/- for different tests etc. Recovering from such treatment at Kolkata the complainant came to the pathological laboratory of the OP nos. 1 and 2 and complained of the wrong report prepared by them but the OPs remained careless at the complaint of the petitioner.
Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed this case with the prayers made in the complaint petition for the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
The OP no.1 contested the case by filing written version and written notes on argument. This OP denies all the material allegations made against them. It is the specific case of the OP that the case is not maintainable as there was no deficiency on their part. This OP gave the report after consultation with the OP no.1 Dr. Indrani Chatterjee as 1,70,000 /cu.mm at about 9.30 AM on 09.11.2016. This OP counters that after 12 hours of the test made by them, the complainant again made test of his blood sample at another pathological laboratory and found 30,000/- cu.mm as count of plate late. This second laboratory had no pathological training and had no license from CMOH. The patient did not show any count of plate late at Rubby Hospital where he was treated for Dengue. It is their further case that plate late count of any dengue patient may come down at any time if proper treatment is not given. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
The OP No.1 did not appear to contest the case.
On the basis of this case of both the parties, the points for determination are whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with Reasons.
We have gone through the complaint petition, the written version and the written notes on arguments, as well the documents filed by both the parties in this case.
After going through the complaint we find that the grievance of the compla9nantis that he was suffering from fever on 08.11.16 and was admitted to Anantapur BPHC under Dr. Asit Maity. The OP No.1 Mrs. Indrani Chatterjee examined the blood of the complainant for counting plate late and submitted report on 09.11.16. From the report it appears that result of plate late counting was 1.72,000 Cu/mm (Normal Range is 1.5 to 4.0 lakhs.) It is submitted by the complainant in his written notes on argument that after receiving said report the doctor of Anantapur BPHC medical treated the complainant in that hospital., But his physical condition deteriorated day by day. Thereafter another doctor of said Hospital Dr. Pradipta Manna advised the complainant for a further blood test. Therefore the complainant went to another pathological laboratory namely Madhusudan Pathological Lab. Anantapur. This laboratory gave report of plate late count of 30.000/- per cmm. On the basis of this second report doctors of the Anantapur BPHC diagnosed the patient a victim of Dingue. So, the doctors of Anantapur BPHC referred the patient to Medical College/NRS/SSKM at Kolkata for better treatment. The petitioner was taken to Rubi General Hospital Ltd. Kolkata and was treated there from 10.11.16 to 17.11.16 . During this treatment the complainant had to incur a sum of Rs. 1,39,275/- in Rubi General Hospital and for purchasing medicine Rs. 9534/-. Said documents are marked as Annexure E and F. According to the complainant his first pathological report was not correct and he has made responsible to the OP 1 and OP2 for such incorrect report for which he had to suffer much and had to admitted in the Rubi General Hospital and had to incur huge sum of money for the negligence of the OPs.
Ld. advocate for the OP No.1 referred to a decision reported in (2009) (3) CPR 257 (SC) wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21 (1) and 23 Medical Negligence, onus lies largely on the complainant . This onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence – It is the obligation of the complainant to provide facta probanda as well as facta probentia. Another decision referred by the ld advocate for the OP No.1 is 2015 (CPJ) 7 B (CN) Har.) wherein it has been held that medical negligence –Report of platelet counts varied - Deficiency in service alleged - District Forum dismissed complaint - Hence, appeal – No evidence produced to show that wrong report was prepared just to extract money – During treatment platelet can go up and can come down –Little variation does not mean that opposite party acted negligently or with mala fide intention.
Though we are not bound by these decisions but it appears that complainant absolutely failed to prove any kind of medical negligence on behalf of the OP No.1 or OP no.2 who did not contest this case. It is fact that when platelet is examined platelet may vary and that does not prove that doctor was negligent. We have thoroughly examined the documents filed by the complainant and we find that complainant has failed to prove any medical negligence on the part of the OPs and so, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the CC No. 314/16 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No.1 and ex parte against the OPNo.2. Parties do bear their own costs.
Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
