The complainant Sanjay Karmakar, himself patient who was treated in a Mental Hospital has filed this case on ground of ill treatment and negligence of the OP No. 1 and OP No.2. He i.e. the complainant was admitted in OP No. 1 Manasi Mental Health Service Centre who has five partners, by Dr. Debasish Das, OP No. 2.
2) The case germaned in the petition can be reproduced in a precise form as hereinunder :-
The complainant all on a sudden became ill from 14.05.2015 to 20.05.2015 with psychiatric problem. Complainant’s father consulted with OP No. 2, Dr. Debasish Das. The father of the complainant requested Dr. Debasish Das, OP No. 2 to come to his house and treat the patient. But the Doctor OP No. 2 did not come to his house and advised for admission of complainant in the Manasi Mental Health Service Centre i.e. OP No. 1. Accordingly, this complainant was admitted in the Mental Health Service Centre. After admission to the OP No. 1, the complainant became violent on 16.05.2015 and he damaged cot, bed and beddings and bathroom fittings and as such the complainant was kept in the floor with beddings to avoid any further damage and he was not provided any cot due to early damage.
3) On 20.05.2015 Dr. Debasish Das reported his family members the condition of the complainant and advised for keeping the complainant in the OP No. 1 for further observation for another 2-3 days.
4) It is further case of the complainant that complainant was normal. So, family members of complainant requested the Manasi Mental Health Service Centre and Dr. Debasish Das for releasing the complainant. But they did not release the complainant and advised for keeping the patient for more 2-3 days. The complainant has also made allegation that on 22.12.2015, owing to some incident of missing drinking water glass, there was some untoward incident for which the Hospital Staffs started beating the complainant with fists and blows. The complainant was compelled to lie down on the floor and thereafter his hands were tied and legs were also fixed. Thereafter the complainant was beaten with the sticks. The complainant raised alarm but none came to rescue him. On 23.05.2015 the complainant felt severe pain all over his body and hands and legs. The OP No. 2 came and made necessary enquiry and found that the condition of the complainant became very much serious and he arranged for transferring the complainant to Imambara Sadar Hospital for better treatment as such complainant was admitted in the Imambara Sadar Hospital. But the condition of the complainant was so serious and that there was no availability of doctor in the Imambara Hospital. The complainant was shifted to private doctor and after X-ray it was detected that complainant was not suffering from any psychiatric attack rather several bones all over his body had broken in various pieces. On enquiry the family members of the complainant came to know that on 22.05.2015 the complainant suffered severe psychiatric attack and fell down from bed and broken several bones all over the body and as his condition was serious he was shifted to Imambara Sadar Hospital.
5) It is also case of the complainant that due to negligence of the men of OP No. 1 complainant sustained severe injury in his person. Accordingly the case is instituted by the complainant himself claiming compensation from OP No. 1 and Op No. 2 for deficiency in service for causing bodily pain, mental agony and harassment etc. and cost.
6) The cause of action of this case arose from 16.05.2015 when complainant was admitted into the Manasi Helah Centre under treatment of Dr. Debasish Das, OP No. 2.
7) The OP No. 1 has contested the case filing W/V denying, inter alia, all material allegation. It is the case of the OP No. 1 that the complainant was admitted in the nursing home. Only amount of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited to the OP No. 1 on behalf of the complainant. No payment has been made for entire treatment from 15.05.2015 till his shifting to Imambara Sadar Hospital comprising of consulting fees and fees for subsequent medical treatment including cost of medicine, bed charges, attendant’s charges, ambulance charges and other ancillary charges.
8) It is also case of the OP No. 1 that the complainant has damaged the equipments of Manasi Health Centre on 16.05.2015. But on humanitarian ground OP No. 1 did not press any cost from the patient party. The patient was kept in the hospital because physical condition of the patient was not fit for which there was no question of requesting by the family members of the complainant for releasing the patient. “The shifting of the patient to Imambara Sadar Hospital was arranged for exclusive better management of the patient since he became violent at a time and District Hospital has better infrastructure than the OP No. 1”.
9) It is further case of the OP No. 1 that it is beyond their knowledge whether the complainant was suffering from any sort of bodily pain, mental agony, anxiety or harassment or that for any set of violation on the part of OP No. 1. The relief claimed by the complainant is not acceptable. Accordingly, the case of the OP No. 1 is nothing but denial the allegation of the complainant and not full payment of cost by complainant. Accordingly, the OP No. 1 prays for dismissal of the case.
10) The OP No. 2 Dr. Debasish Das has filed W/V denying, inter alia, all material allegations and stated that the complainant being a psychiatric patient himself cannot represent himself without any guardian on his behalf. It is admitted position that the OP No. 2 is consultant psychiatric and he completed degree from the Calcutta University and later on from SSKM cardiology and diploma in psychiatric medicine in the year 2007 from West Bengal University of Health Science. His registration number 58056 of 2002.
11) The positive case of Dr. Debasish Das is that on 15.05.2015 the father of the Sanjay Karmakar came to his chamber with the complaint of his son’s severe abnormal as well as of violent behavior, increased talkativeness and sleeplessness for past few days. The doctor went to his house as per request of the father of the patient but at that time patient bolted himself in the roof which was not possible for the doctor to see the patient. The doctor then contacted with OP No. 1 for escorting the patient to the Centre for his examination and further management. Accordingly, the patient was hurriedly brought to the Manasi Health Centre and on the next morning the patient i.e. complainant ransacked his room. He is very tall and stout. He destroyed bathrooms fittings, commode, cistern, broke the cot also. Then the staff of hospital tied his hand and leg and the doctor prescribed some medicine to make the patient calm. He prescribed antipsychiatric medicine. On 22.5.2015 the patient’s mother gave history of prior seizure and unconsciousness at the age of 1.5 and 9 years. On 23.5.2015 the doctor got a phone call from Manasi Hospital and got information that all on a sudden complainant had a fall on the floor. The doctor came there at 11.30 a.m. and he found that patient was lying on the floor, he was conscious, slightly confused. No seizure, no vomiting, no sign of external injury. Minor Subconjunctival Haemorrhage was present. Patient got injections in the morning, so drowsiness was there. His vitals were stable. He was obeying commands other CNS signs were normal. Then doctor ordered to shift the patient to any higher centre for his further investigation and management and gave Decadron injection. Doctor stated that patient walked down by his own accord and he was brought to Imambara Hospital by vehicle. Parents were informed. He cannot say what happened afterwards.
12) It is further caser of the Doctor OP No.2 that he observed his task, possible degree of skill and knowledge and experience on his part with his best possible degree of care and caution maintaining all sorts of medical ethics. Accordingly, doctor prays for dismissal of the complaint against him.
13) Complainant has filed following documents (Xerox copy) :
i) Advice slip issued by Manasi Mental Health Service Centre dated 16.05.2015 to 23.05.2015
ii) Money Receipt issued by Manasi Mental Health Service Centre dated 15.05.2015.
iii) Permission Slip issued by Imambara Sadar Hospital.
iv) Prescription issued by Dr. Debasish Das dated 27.05.2015
v) Prescription and money receipt issued by Sana Nursing Home.
vi) Prescription issued by Bangur Institute & Neuro Science.
vii) MRI Report issued by Fortis dated 03.06.2015
viii) Money Receipts showing purchase of medicine from different medicine shops.
ix) Documents showing involvement of Sanjay Karmakar in different fields.
x) Serampore Radiology Centre dated 23.05.2015.
i) Xerox copy of Admission Form dated 15.05.2015 in the name of Sanjay Karmakar with Conditions issued by OP No. 1 Health Centre.
ii) Xerox copy of Advice Slip (Or Bed Head Ticket) in the name of Sri Sanjay Karmakar for the period from 16.05.2015 to 23.05.2015, prescribed by the OP No. 2 Dr. Debasis Das attached to Manasi Mental Health Service Centre.
Complainant has filed Affidavit in Chief. He has also filed reply Interrogatories against OP No. 1 and OP No. 2.
OP No. 1 & 2 have filed Brief Notes of Arguments. OP No. 1 & 2 have also filed Evidence on Affidavit separately. OP No. 1 & 2 have filed Written Interrogatories against the complainant.
POINTS FOR DECISIONS
- Whether the complainant is competent to file this case?
- Whether complainant was a psychiatric patient?
- Whether complainant took admission under OP No. 2 in OP No. 1 ?
- Whether complainant was not treated properly and was assaulted by OPs men or the complainant was injured?
- Whether there was negligence on the part of OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 regarding treatment?
- Whether complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
14) Point 1 is taken for consideration
Whether the complainant is competent to file this case?
It is admitted position that the complainant was admitted in OP No. 1 as per advice of OP No. 2, OP No. 2 treated the complainant in the hospital. There is no denial of this fact by any party. OP No. 1 and 2 raised one question that when complainant is a psychiatric patient then how he can file this complaint.
In this respect question was put to the complainant by OP No. 1, question no. 9 in which the complainant answered “ Yes, I am now get rid of psychiatric problem but I am under medication with recognized doctor”. In question no. 10 he answered he had filed the petition of complaint through Ld. Advocate. Complainant answered with respect to question no. 11 that “although I felt with psychiatric problem for the time being but later on my psychiatric symptoms were decreased due to proper medication after I have been referred to Imambara Sadar Hospital and other hospitals. So, this cross examination of the complainant by OP No. 1 fails to shake the complainant that he was not in a position to file this complaint. Not only that but also OP No. 1 and 2 would different type of question to the complainant in which the complainant has given answer after scrutinizing those answers it appears that the complainant is able to give rationale answer to the questions put to him by OP No. 1 and 2. So there is no impediment to take his complaint as legal, proper and just and he has capacity to file this case as a complainant as he is also major and an educated person. So, the first point raised by the OP No. 1 and 2 goes for the complainant that complainant is able to file this case.
15) Point 2 is taken for consideration
Whether complainant was a psychiatric patient?
Complainant has filed evidence, in this respect OP has filed evidence in their respect but the evidence in chief is oath v. oath. The story adduced by the complainant that he was brought to the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 treated him. OP No.2 doctor caused the admission of the complainant under OP No. 1. Complainant was brought after tieding by the staff of Mental Health Service Centre for escorting the patient. The complainant was brought in the OP No. 1 by car and escorting by the mental health service centre. Admittedly complainant was under treatment of OP No. 2, Doctor. In the evidence on affidavit the OP No. 2 doctor never uttered that complainant was psychiatric patient. OP No. 2 doctor imparted treatment to the complainant. So, he is the fittest man to say that Sanjay Karmakar had been suffering from such kind of alleged disease. The doctor stated in written version (Para 5) he passed diploma in psychiatric medicine. He also raised the questions calling the complainant as psychiatric. It is that OP No. 2 doctor who can explain that complainant was psychiatric and mental patient. But nowhere in his written version nor in his evidence, he uttered any word holding that complainant was a psychiatric patient. OP No. 2 doctor did not give explanation, reason of admission under OP No. 1. In evidence in chief, or in written version nowhere OP No. 2 uttered this word that complainant was suffering from psychiatric problem nor he stated in evidence that complainant was psychiatric patient nor he explained by medical book that he had been suffering by mental health or his mental health was deplorable. This OP No. 2 doctor treated him from 16.05.15 to 23.05.15 in the OP No. 1 Mental Health Centre but nowhere he has adopted for any relevant test as required by the mental health science. Merely violency and talkativeness and restlessness are not signs of mental health patient. He was brought in the Manasi Mental Health Service Centre, what was his diagnosis regarding the condition of the complainant on 16.05.15 or afterwards. Without going through the appropriate and relevant observation and without taking the help of medical science as adopted ordinary course of treatment and observation and examination has not been taken by the OP No. 2. Any chemical analysis or approved medical parameter for psychiatric patient had not been adopted by the OP No. 2 as per prescriptions. And if adopted has not been stated by OP No. 2 in written version or in evidence. The OP No. 1 also did not utter any word and so any reason for admission of complainant in his mental health service centre. The OP No. 2 uttered this word ‘psychiatric’ for complainant. So burden of proof is upon OP No. 2 to prove by adequate standard step that he was suffering from psychiatric problem. He did not even explain by any literature who is psychiatric and what are the characteristics of a psychiatric. Questionnaire has been put to the complainant by OP No. 1 and OP No. 2. OP No. 1 & 2 failed to prove that complainant was a psychiatric patient.
16) Point 3 is taken for consideration
Whether complainant took admission under OP No. 2 in OP No. 1 ?
It is admitted fact that complainant was admitted under the instruction of OP No. 2 in OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 stated complainant deposited Rs. 4,000/- on the first day. So, this point goes for the complainant that complainant took admission under the Doctor, OP No. 2 in OP No. 1 Manasi Mental Health Service Centre.
17) Point 4 is taken for consideration
Whether complainant was not treated properly and was assaulted by OPs men or the complainant was injured?
i) It is a fact that complainant was treated and OP No. 2 treated there. OP No. 1 did not utter any word regarding the infrastructure of the Manasi Mental Health Service Centre. It is not in the evidence Who are Medical Officers?, Who are Superintendent? Who were day guards?, Who were night guards? What number of psychiatric trained or trained under the general scheme were working there? or What are the total numbers of doctor was there? These all aspects of the nursing home have been suppressed by the OP No. 1. The treatment sheet shows the patient was admitted on 15.05.15. Patient was brought by escort for which mental health service centre Manasi took Rs. 1,700/-. The complainant in his evidence stated after admission in the OP No. 1, due to effect of such psychiatric condition, “I became violent on 16.05.15 and I damaged cot, beddings and bathroom fittings and as such I was kept on the floor with beddings to avoid any further damage and I was not provided any cot due to early damage”. This patient was admitted as per the advice of the doctor. The bed head ticket shows doctor treated him on 16.05.15. Doctor stated general condition but physical examination was not possible. Patient destroyed cabin furniture and toilet pan today i.e. on 16.05.2015. And doctor advised some medicines, injection and advised keep watch on patient and also advised pathological test of blood and serum and ECG. On 17.05.15 doctor again visited the patient (time not noted), doctor observed ‘quiet than before’. On 18.05.15 and 19.05.15 same advice. On 22.05.15 doctor observed violency reduced, patient was cooperating. Doctor advised some medicines.
ii) The complainant stated on oath that on 22.05.15 at night the complainant was inquest of water but failed to get the same. He repeatedly requested for water. Then the attendant became furious and addressed him as a ‘Pagal’ (Psychiatric Patient). The complainant then raised objection. Another person came. And then they started beating the complainant with fists and blows. Those persons then compelled the complainant to lie down on the floor and thereafter they tied hands and feet of the complainant and fixed leucoplast on his mouth and push injection in his body, thereafter those persons beat him mercilessly with sticks. He cried in pain but no one came to rescue him. He further said on the next morning i.e. on 23.05.15 he regained the sense.
iii) The advice sleep of doctor shows doctor came at around 11.30, the bed head ticket shows “no loss of consciousness, no vomiting, no external injury”, doctor prescribed four injections at 8.30 a.m. Doctor observed no external injury but observed minor subconjunctival haemorrhage. Doctor prescribed injection ‘Decadron’ and advised immediately shift to higher centre for observation.
iv) On that date i.e. on 23.05.15 the patient was referred to Imambara Hospital. His family members came there. That was Saturday, no doctor was present.
v) Doctor stated on 23.05.15 around 11 a.m. he got a phone from Manasi Health Centre that patient Sanjay Karmakar suddenly had a fall on the floor. The doctor came to the Hospital at 11.30 a.m. and found that the patient was lying on the floor. He was conscious, slightly confused, no seizure, no vomiting. Patient complained of pain but cannot localize. No signs of external injury, minor subconjunctival haemorrhage was present and after that he referred the patient to Imambara Hospital. The PW 2 doctor in his evidence stated patient was admitted, parents were informed, he could not say what happened afterwards. That is he had no knowledge what happened afterwards. On the other hand the patient party took the patient to the private doctor and after having several test and x-ray they found that the complainant was not suffering psychiatric attack rather several bones all over his body have broken in various pieces. It appears that on 23.05.15 x-ray was done and L.S. Spine was found partial collapse of L2, L3. It also appears from the Xerox copy of treatment sheet that department of radiology Fortis conducted MRI standard. The report dated 03.06.2015 shows “There is a fracture in the L3 body with retropulsion of fracture fragment into spinal canal with compression of the thecal sac and cauda equine and spinal canal stenosis. Vetrebral compression with fracture of the upper end plate is noted at D 12 to L3 bodies. There is marrow edema at the bodies and posterior elements of these vertebrae. There is abnormal signal in the interspinous ligaments at D11/12, D12/L1, L3/4 and L4/5 levels and in the posterior spinal muscles. Schmorl’s nodes are noted at D9-11 and D6 bodies. There is wedging of D3 bodies. There is posterior dislocation of the coccyx with abnormal marrow signal on lower sacrum & coccyx. Partial sacralization of L5 over S1 on the left side. There is mild disc bulge at L3/4 & L4/5 levels. No neural foraminal stenosis or nerve root compression seen. Pre and para-spinal soft tissues are normal. Cord and conus end at L1 level. There is suspicious abnormal signal in the cord/conus at L1 body level SI. Joints are normal”. This patient was referred for opinion Bangur Emergency psychiatric opinion. Whole body PLF Scan and other scan. The doctor Gunjan Gupta on 03.06.15 opined that there was “fracture in D12 to L3 bodies with retropulsion of L3 fragment and compression of the cauda equina. Abnormal gnal in cord/conus at L1 level >? contusion. Wedging of D3 body. Posterior dislocation of coccyx. Partial sacralization of L5”. So, the treatment sheet as given by the complainant dated 03.06.2015 department of radiography, Fortis shows that complainant got some force in his body, mainly spinal cord which caused the above dislocation and fracture and that happened due to fall on 23.05.15 in the Manasi Health Service Centre, which has already been admitted by doctor in his Written Version, in his prescription dated 23.05.15. And after that it is pertinent to mention that prescription of OP No. 2 shows the patient’s condition was good i.e. violency reduced. And no such abnormality on 22.05.15. Only on 23.5.15 at 11.30 patient had fallen. And due to fall there was some internal injury which has been proved by x-ray on 23.05.15 and later on 03.06.15 at Fortis.
vi) Complainant stated he was assaulted by the attendants in the Manasi Health Centre in the night when he wanted water. But the attendant refused to give water. And that incident was informed to the doctor, OP No. 2 and then OP No. 2 doctor came. Therefore, there is nothing to deny the fact of physical injury on the body of the complainant which has been proved by x-ray and MRI Scan at Fortis.
vii) The patient was admitted in the Hospital i.e. OP No. 1 under the active advice of OP No.2. The OP No. 2 demands himself as a psychiatric as per his diploma. It is expected that he must be known about the procedure of treatment as laid down by the Mental Health Act, 1987 read with Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 for the psychiatric patient or mentally disbalanced patient. The doctor calls the complainant a psychiatric patient. But his bed head ticket does not show the diagnosis qualifying the complainant as psychiatric patient. Doctor did not explain the action of the drug or action of the medicine prescribed by him upon the complainant. The doctor OP No. 2 did not explain in his Evidence nor in his Written Version, what medicine had been adopted as per medical requirement of psychiatric for relieving him from the disease. But during the entire Evidence Doctor did not follow a single section of Mental Healthcare Act as amended upto date or Mental Health Act, 1987 which has been repealed in the year 2016. Furthermore, it appears from the Doctor’s evidence as well as evidence of the complainant that during the days when complainant was kept in Manasi Health Centre no one came there mainly, the father and mother. Neither side has stated this fact their relatives were always aware of the condition of the patient. Furthermore, the Mental Health Act, 1987 as well as Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 cast some duty upon the doctor and nurse to observe some norms as per act and rules of treatment of mentally retarded person. The doctor did not explain anywhere how he presumed that the complainant was a psychiatric patient. There is no paper to see that he observed the patient for at least 7 days as provided by the Code and as provided and dictates by the famous psychiatric doctor of the world. Without any observation, without any personal knowledge the doctor told the father of the complainant to put the complainant under the OP No. 1 for treatment. But record shows the conditions of the OP No. 1 i.e. nursing home is very deplorable as per Mental Health Act and proper attention should be given to the patient. In this case there is no reflection in the bed head tickets for such action. It is seen that the patient was brought by tieding the patient’s hands vide receipt no. 387 (money receipt) given by Manasi Health Centre dated 15.05.15. Mental Health Act provided that sufficient attention should be given to the patient not to harm his local reputation and not to aware him or lower his social dignity that he is a mentally retarded person, such manner of brining the patient from his home to the Manasi Hospital OP No. 1 is disgraceful to the complainant and to the surrounding people. This has probability to create sense of insecurity and ill behaviour from the men of nursing home. Furthermore, nursing home should pay very human behaviour to such patient. Otherwise there is every probability to become violent. To lessen his violency such patient are treated in mental asylum. So the mental asylum and hospital have some special responsibility to higher degree to such type of man like the complainant as per prescription and statement of doctor. It is expected that doctor must be aware regarding the provision of Mental Health Act, 1987 and Mental Health Act amended afterwards and culminated its highest peak in the year 2017. The incident took place in the year 2015 being guided by Mental Health Act, 1987. Therein, some rights and liabilities have been given upon the patient and upon the doctor and nursing authority. But here, as material on record shows, there had been no infrastructure in the Manasi Hospital to look the patient to supply medicine or other essential to the patient, to make good behaviour to the patient. It has been stated by the complainant that the indoor staff did not like him and assaulted him on the night of 22.05.15. Later doctor’s observation supports this. At that very night there was no one except the complainant and his attendant. All things have happened on that night behind all other men even behind the authorities. There is no material to see that there was any house staff or nurse on duty to look after the patient complainant in our hand. When the complainant raises the allegation of assaulted and doctor’s bed head ticket states there had been no external injury but internal haemorrhage and subsequent x-rays and MRI done on 03.06.15 shows there was injury in spinal cord, the hospital authority cannot avoid their responsibility. The nursing authority Manasi Mental Health Service Centre did not come forward or any one member of that centre have come forward to give any statement herein only a written letter on affidavit. Even Manasi Mental Health Service Centre did not produce register to show their roaster duty at night, to show who were given charge of this patient complainant. Particularly, who were present at that night near the complainant, whether complainant was in cot or in bed? But facts remains that there was some incident in that night among the complainant and their attendant for which the doctor went there and made prescription. At that juncture doctor OP No. 2 has some responsibility given by Law upon him to inform the guardian of the complainant but the doctor does not act in conformity with the expressed law and general behaviour to inform the family member on that night. As per provision of law laid down in Mental Healthcare Act any such institution which can offer treatment to the patient under the Mental Healthcare Act can make admission of the patient for his treatment and shall give sufficient support and help for his treatment. But in this case the complainant has been brought forcefully by the staff of the OP No. 1 which is against the laws of the land.
viii) This OP No. 1 did not placed any document that they have been registered under the Clinical Establishment Registration & Regulation Act 2010 or any other regulation for the time being in force in a State. No registration certificate has been filed by the OP No. 1 before this Forum regarding the authority or taking admission and authority of brining the patient by force in lieu of money.
ix) Every persons shall have the right to access to mental health care and treatment from mental health service run or funded by the appropriate government. The patient has also right of mental health service of affordable cost of good quality service available in sufficient quantity also to provide treatment in a manner which supports persons with mental illness to live in the community and with their families. Minimum quality standards of mental health service shall be maintained by each such mental health service centre.
x) In this case in our hand there is no material produced on behalf of the OP No. 1 to see the capacity of their imparting service to the complainant. Whether there had been any cot or any infrastructure for a patient as described by the OP No. 2 doctor. Doctor has sent complainant to OP No. 1. Complainant party had deposited Rs. 4,000/- before the OP No. 1. But the support and treatment which have been imparted on the complainant is undervalued specially the incident in the night of 22.05.15 which is proved on record by oral evidence of doctor by oral evidence by complainant and by x-ray report and MRI report that three had been tremendous application of force on the person of the complainant by which the injury as shown in the MRI report have been occurred. It is crystal clear in the record that conduct of nursing home and conduct of the staff is out of praiseworthy. They are not diligence and sympathetic to a patient like the complainant who was alone in the mental health centre for treatment and that too has been done by the prescription of OP No. 2.
xi) The Mental Healthcare Act also giving right to protection from cruel inhuman and degrading treatment. Every man with mental illness shall have a right to live with dignity, shall be protected from cruelty inhuman or degrading treatment in any mental health establishment and have some rights. This privileges as well as rights of the mental illness people have been given in Sec. 20 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 which was previously stated in the Mental Health Act, 1987.
xii) In this case in our hand the patient was brought by force by the staff of OP No. 1 on 15.05.15 by taking money. On 16.05.15 doctor OP No. 2 first clinically observed him and made prescription for medicine and injection without any proper medical test. Patient was treated with allegation of destruction of some articles. The OP No. 1 nursing home is well aware that such patient often becomes violent. So, it is their duty to keep guard during day and night for protection of the mentally ill men and women or patient of mental health care. But no acceptable evidence of OP No. 1 partner/partners have come forward before this Forum on this behalf either documentary or orally, either to show their register of doctor, register of drug etc. They have utterly disregarded this Forum by omission. The complainant got admitted, howsoever treated by the OP No. 2 but became injured on 22.05.2015 at night at 11.00 a.m. and on 23.05.15 doctor released and got him admitted in Imambara Hospital violating the expressed provision of law of Mental Healthcare Act, Sec. 88, 89 without giving any notice either to the complainant or to the family member of the complainant. Even family member was not called for in the morning of 23rd or in the night of 22nd. Later after examination in different places and by different doctors the internal injury was detected by MRI and doctor detected external injury on 23.05.15 at 11.30 a.m. regarding haemorrhage.
xiii) On the premise above, keeping in mind the law for Mental Health Care and Services for persons with mental illness and to protect, promote and fulfil the rights of such persons during delivery of mental health care and services giving particular attention to this law and circumstances as reproduced in this record by witnesses by act of the parties and by reports of the doctors fully convinced this Forum to hold that the aforesaid Manasi Health Centre and Dr. Debasish Das did not impart treatment to the complainant in accordance with the parameters of treatment as required and laid down in the Mental Healthcare Act and other acceptable treatment protocol worldwide for the benefit of the complainant.
xiv) According to renowned doctor Dipak Kelkar and others such kind of disease as stated by the OP No. 2 is recoverable. The medicine of such disease was firstly discovered by Dr. Philippe Pinel in the year 1952. Since then much improvement has happened regarding medicine of such disease. In this case the OP No. 1 & 2 That the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 brought the patient by tieding his hands by vehicle from his house to the Mental Health Centre. This kind of treatment is inhuman and not favourable to the approved medical norms by the world psychiatric association of doctors and different journals in which the treatment manner has been expressed. Both sides have filed Written Notes of Argument wherein they have written their own cases absolving them from their defect. They did not mention the provision of law laid down in the Mental Health Act as well as Mental Healthcare Act and rights and liabilities of the complainant as advocated by OP No. 2 in his written statement and Evidence in Chief and Written Notes of Argument. Moreover, the Argument is nothing but the reproduction of Written Version. Moreover, the incident of assault was taken place in the night of 22.05.2015 within the room of OP No. 1. So, Doctor has also proved that there was injury. Complainant stated that the staff engaged in that night, assaulted him all over his body. Such evidence that those persons assaulted and caused injury over the body of the complainant is established and the statement of complainant is believable and trustworthy regarding story of assault upon him on the night of 22.05.2015. Furthermore, those injury have been established by scientific method i.e. X-ray and MRI Report.
xv) Accordingly, we have no hesitation to make conclusion that OP No. 1 Nursing Home and OP No. 2 Doctor are responsible for causing absolute negligence to the complainant creating deficiency in service for the treatment of the complainant. So the Point no. 4 and 5 goes for the complainant.
19) Point No. 6 is taken for consideration
Whether complainant is entitled to get relief?
It has been discussed hereinbefore the genesis of the case and admission of the complainant under OP No. 1 and manner of treatment by OP No. 2 and conduct of the OP No. 1’s staff or OP No. 1 upon the patient/complainant who is a patient under Mental Healthcare Act so far as the statement of OP No. 2 Doctor is concerned. After dwelling over the facts and materials supplied by both parties along with law under Mental Healthcare Act it has been held that Manasi Health Centre and Doctor is guilty of causing injury on the person of the complainant and also imparting for wrong advice and treatment, keeping the father, mother in darkness of treatment procedure, resulting permanent dislocation of spinal cord as revealed in the MRI Report and Doctor’s opinion. The age of this complainant is about 28 years who is still unable to work without help of instrument. He has come to this Forum on several occasions. We have seen that young man in this Forum. He is now unable to make any income and there is no probability of future cure of his Spinal Cord. The act of the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 also are absolutely responsible and they cannot be freed themselves from absolute liability for their act and omission as mentioned hereinbefore. At present, average income of a person is Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. The complainant became handicapped, though no handicapped certificate has been filed. The complainant has prayed Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing grievous hurt to the complainant, Rs. 50,000/- for financial damage, Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation in favour of the complainant and a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- for mental pain, agony, anxiety and harassment. But the complainant has incurred expenses of Rs. 1,40,805/- from 15.05.15 to 03.07.15 for medical expenses as per material supplied before this Forum. Now the condition of the complainant is not in a position to work because he is unable to move freely. His minimum income is Rs. 150/- per day. Then in a month income stands Rs. 4,500/- that is in a year income stands Rs. 54,000/-. So, for remaining 30 years his total income will stand as Rs. 54,000 * 30 = Rs. 16,20,000/-. In our view, considering the physical condition of the complainant which have been seen by us, we are inclined to pass order for payment of Rs. 16,20,000/- to the complainant along with this, the complainant is also entitled a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost. And OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 are jointly and/or severally liable to pay the sum for their act in complete violation of law laid down in Mental Health Act, 1987 as amended upto date. OP No. 1 Manasi Mental Health Service Centre and OP No. 2, Dr. Debasish Das are jointly and/or severally liable to pay the total sum of Rs. 19,80,805/-.
IT IS ORDAINED
That the CC Case being No. 146 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 & 2 with a litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
OP No. 1 & 2 is further directed to pay jointly and/or severally a sum of Rs. 1,40,805/- to this complainant towards medical expenses.
The OP No. 1 & 2 is directed to pay jointly and/or severally a sum of Rs. 16,20,000/- to this complainant as compensation for causing injury to this complainant. They are also directed to pay jointly and/or severally a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 for harassment, mental pain and agony to this complainant. All the payments are to be made by the OP No. 1 & 2 within 45 days from the passing this order.
In case of not acting as per above order the OP No. 1 & 2 shall pay at the rate of Rs. 200/- each to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum, from the date of this order till the date of compliance.
Let a copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties at once.
Dictated and corrected by me.
