Orissa

Cuttak

CC/102/2020

Prakash Ch Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Sai Jivan Hospital Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S K Sara & associates

09 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.102/2020

                               

  Prakash Chandra Sahoo,

  S/O: Late Nrusingha Sahoo,

  At/PO/Via:RAsulpur,

  P.S:Kuakhia,Dist:Jajpur.                                                           ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

      

1.          Mangiang Director/Owner,Sai Jivan Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,

At:Kathagola,PO:Mangalabag,Cuttack-753001.

 

2.         Dr. Susanta Kumar Sena,Surgery Doctor/Consultant Sai Jivan Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,

At:Kathagola,PO:Mangalabag,

Cuttack-753001                                                      .... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    01.12.2020

Date of Order:  09.05.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr.S.K.Sara,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.No.1& 2:          Mr. B.R.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

            The case record is put up today for orders

The case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition  bereft unnecessary details is that he had met with an accident on 23.9.2020 at Baransha Chhak under Kuakhia P.S.  and was admitted at the S.C.B.Medical College & Hospital at Cuttack for treatment because he had sustained fracture and multiple injuries on both of his legs. But, since there was pandemic situation then, the complainant was discharged from S.C.B.Medical College & Hospital and was admitted at Sai Jivan Hospital, Kathagola, Mangalabag, Cuttack for quick treatment.  At the said Sai Jivan Hospital, Dr. Susanta Kumar Sena (O.P No.2 in this case) had treated the complainant and had operated his legs by nailing the same on 15.10.2020.  The complainant had paid the required fees of the said hospital and was under treatment with effect from 14.10.20 to 22.10.20.  He has spent an amount of Rs.1,46,842/- there for his treatment.  The complainant subsequently felt loss of sensation along with heat sensation in his left leg where the O.P No.2 had operated for which he had to run to the said doctor (O.P No.2).  He also found pus cells being discharged from the said leg and the said leg became static thereby not allowing the complainant to move.  The complainant therefore became bedridden and when consulted, O.P No.2 directed him to put paracxin powder. 

            Admittedly, on 16.11.2020, the complainant had gone to Shreema Hospital and was treated there under the supervision of Dr. Partha Das.  The said doctor Partha Das noticed serious infection along with other difficulties in the legs of the complainant for which he had referred for an X-Ray and clinical test.  Due to the callous attitude and negligent behaviour of the initial doctor Dr. Susanta Kumar Sena the complainant sustained pain.  On 24.9.2020 it was Ex-Professor Dr. Rabi Jee(Ortho)  had advise for an  X-Ray of  the FEBULA of the left leg of the complainant which was hanging and there was mis-match of  the joint noticed, as such the plaster was not properly done  for which the said leg was remaining straight for being displaced.

            The complainant alleges that it is due to the fault of the O.P No.2 Dr. Susanta Kumar Sena, he had to suffer physically, mentally and financially for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the medical expenses, conveyance, medicines etc incurred alongwith a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental harassment and agony with sufferings.  He also claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards litigation expenses.  In support of his claim, the complainant has filed a series of medical documents.

2.         On the other hand, both the O.Ps have contested this case and have jointly filed their written version.  According to them, the case is not maintainable, there was no deficiency in service.  Both the O.Ps have suspected on the total treatment of the complainant by them for which they require strict proof from the complainant.  They admit that the complainant was hospitalised on 14.10.2020 in the hospital of O.P No.1 where it was detected fracture of femur RT which was 3 weeks old by then and for this the complainant was operated on 15.10.20 by use of “Nail” at his left femur and left Tibia.  He was under operative care till 22.10.20 when he was discharged and was advised to take medicines.  According to them, while the complainant was hospitalised with  O.P. No.1 since 14.10.20 to 22.10.20, he had made absolutely no complaint.  Both the O.Ps dispute the discharge report dt.22.10.20 as submitted by the complainant; submitting that the same has been manufactured/fabricated by the complainant to file this claim.  According to them, both of his legs were treated by them at their hospital.  They suspected that during the stay at their hospital, the complainant might have obtained a blank letterhead printed pad (paper) from any of the employee or staff of their hospital by influencing them and had utilised the same as his discharge report by manufacturing seal of O.P No.1.  The said discharge report does not reflect the signature of treating physician, instead reflects the signature of an authorised signatory which is not the signature of any of the employees of the hospital of O.P No.1.  The O.Ps have filed another copy of discharge report dt.22.10.20 from Sai Jivan Hospital,Cuttack which they claimed to be the actual discharge report of the complainant.  They have also filed extract report of the patient discharge report with effect from 14.10.20 to 30.10.20 of Sai Jivan Hospital,Cuttack.

3.         After going through the averments of the complaint petition and the averments of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission feels it proper to adjudicate the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion of this case.

            i.          Whether the case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any cause of action for the complainant to file this case?

            iii.        Whether was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues No.1,2 & 3.

            For the sake of convenience issues No.1,2 & 3 are taken up jointly first for consideration.  As it appears, undoubtedly the complainant was admitted to Sai Jivan Hospital(O.P No.1) on 14.10.2020.  It is also not disputed that O.P No.2 had operated the complainant on 15.10.2020 at the hospital of O.P No.1.  It is the case of O.P No.1 that due to post-operational complicacies he sustained pain and pus oozed out from his wound for which he contacted many a times to O.P No.2 who was negligent and for which he went to another doctor, Dr. Partha Das and subsequently had to be treated by Dr. Rabi Jee, the Ourthopadic specialist.  To support his case he has filed a series of documents.  Perused the same and it is noticed that as per Annexure-7(copy of the prescription of Dr. Partha Das) the complainant was advised for X-Ray of left femur and Tibia which were earlier operated.  As per Aannexre-8(copy of the prescription report of Dr. Rabi Jee, there was in fact operation of the left femur and left leg of the complainant on 14.10.20 and there are series of medicine prescriptions which goes to show that the complainant had purchased medicines, surgery equipments/attachments for fracture twice.

            To counteract, the O.Ps disbelieve copy of the discharge certificate of Sai Jivan Hospital dt.22.10.20 vide Annexure-5 as filed by the complainant.  According to them, the same has been manufactured/fabricated by the complainant who had managed to obtain a blank form from the hospital while he was under treatment there and that does not contain the signature of OP No.2.  Quite interestingly the O.Ps have filed another copy of discharge report dt.22.10.20 reflecting the discharge report of the complainant from the hospital of O.P No.1 on 22.10.20.  The said discharge report according to the O.Ps contains the signature of O.P No.2.  While scrutinising minutely and comparing both the copies of discharge reports appertaining to the discharge of the complainant from Sai Jivan Hospital on 22.10.20, it is noticed that there is drastic diversion in both the reports as filed from either sides.  The contention of both the O.Ps that the complainant had manufactured/fabricated the discharge report as filed by him which the complainant might have obtained by influencing any of the staff/employee of O.P No.1.  Thus, it is the O.Ps who are to prove that the contentions of the discharge report as filed by the complainant was not made by them and rather the discharge report filed by them is the authentic one.  When the burden of proof here for the same was upon the O.Ps, they have not proved the same properly.  Moreso, there is nothing left before this Commission to entertain doubt over the discharge report as filed by the complainant.  To the contrary, clouds cluster over the O.Ps imbibing this Commission to have a second thought that it may be the combined effort of the O.Ps to file the subsequent discharge report by manufacturing the same in order to escape from the allegations brought against them by the complainant in this case.  As such, this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant had a definite cause of action to file this case, the case is undoubtedly maintainable and there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P who were quite negligent and callous while treating the legs of the complainant.  These issues are accordingly answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.4.

            From the above discussions, it can well be concluded here that the complainant is definitely entitled for compensation.  Hence it is ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed contest against the O.Ps.  Both the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the sufferings of the complainant.  Both the O.Ps are thus directed to compensate the complainant by reimbursing the entire treatment amount of Rs.1,46,842/- as incurred by him while he was under their treatment at their hospital  together with interest @ 10%  per annum with effect from 14.10.20 till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-  to the complainant towards his mental agony and sufferings, loss of income for the said period and also towards litigation expenses.  This order is to be carried out within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 9^th day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

                                                                                                                             Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.