DATE OF FILING : 27-07-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 18-08-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 11-09-2012.
Sohid Sonkar,
s/o. Sri Ashoke Kr. Sonkar,
of 11, Mukhram Kanoria Road, P.S. Golabari,
District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. M/s. Euro Medical Service (P) Ltd.
of 5P, Mahatma Gandhi Road, H.M.C. Stadium Complex,
Howrah – 711 101.
2. Dr. S. Ray Chowdhury,
Consultant Pathologist of M/s. Euro Medical Service ( P ) Ltd.
of 5P, Mahatma Gandhi Road, H.M.C. Stadium Complex,
Howrah – 711 101.
3. Dr. S. K. Chatterjee,
of 19/2, Dr. A.K. Paul Road,
Kolkata – 700 034.
4. Calcutta Heart Research Centre,
of 114 B, Sarat Bose Road,
Kolkata – 700029.
5. Dr. S. Mukherjee,
Chief Pathologist of Calcutta Heart Research Centre
of 114B, Sarat Bose Road,
Kolkata – 700 029.---------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for compensation amounting to Rs. 5 lacs for medical negligence together with the costs as the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 conducted the blood examination of the minor Sohid Sonkar ( 8 years old ) as per the prescription of o.p. no. 3, Dr. S.K. Chatterjee and the same report appeared to be bogus for mentioning 302 IU/ml. which is too much excessive and high as the range prescribed is 200 for adult and 100 IU/ml. for minors upto 5 years or more. After consulting the doctor, o.p. no.3, the complainant approached the o.p.no. 4 on 07-05-2011. The report issued by o.p. no. 4 showed a ASO TITRE – Negative ( N.V = 200 IU/ml. ) duly signed by the pathologist, o.p. no. 5. By generating a bogus and unbelievable blood report in case of a minor the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 have caused medical negligence and deficiency in service. Hence the case.
2. The o.p. no. 1 submitted separate written version, challenged the maintainability of the complaint and contended interalia that there was no negligence on the part of the o.p. no. 1 ; that the test of the complainant was done as per the approved and newly discovered quantative method which is relatively modern as compared to the other methods ; that it is authenticate and it cannot be thrown away by any proficient medical expert. So the complaint should be dismissed.
3. The o.p. no. 3 by filing separate written version contended interalia that the report of the o.p. no. 1 was never disapproved, nor did he raise any doubt of the report in dispute.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The complainant in fact raises a dispute over wrong reporting of the blood tests of the minor. As per advice of o.p. no. 3, Dr. S.K. Chatterjee the complainant took the minor patient of ASOIITRE to the Euro Medical Service of o.p. no. 1 and the report disclosed an excessive high range of 302 IV/ml. which is apparently unbelievable. Then the complainant took the patient to the chamber of o.p. no. 3 who opined that the report was defective. He suggested for conducting similar test in any other reputed laboratory. The complainant thereafter conducted the similar tests before the o.p. no. 4, Calcutta Heart Research Centre. This report suggested the result negative. In view of such glaring difference between the two reports the complaint apprehended danger in case the minor would have been treated medically relying upon the first report of the o.p. no. 1. Unfortunately the doctor o.p. no. 3 never gave any advice in the prescription dated 01-05-2011 by endorsing a subsequent date when the first report was produced before him. So we are thoroughly in the dark if Dr. S.K. Chatterjee ever advised the complainant for a further report or he raised any suspicion over the content of the report. Furthermore if the subsequent report of the Calcutta Heart Research Centre if ever produced before the o.p. no. 3, Dr. S.K. Chatterjee, it is also not noted in his prescription, so we are also in the dark if the subsequent report was medically approved by the doctor o.p. no. 3. Therefore, a comparative estimate between the two reports cannot be arrived at off hand. In the absence of any opinion by a medical expert or the doctor himself ( o.p. no. 3 ), we are not in a position to provide relief to the complainant.
6. That apart the o.p. no. 3 in his written version never supported the case of the complainant rather denied that he ever raised any suspicion over the disputed report. In the written argument the o.p. no. 3 in no uncertain terms stated that he does not support the case of the complainant whatsoever and he has prayed for dismissal of the instant compliant.
7. Furthermore the complainant never pressed for evidence by the o.p. nos. 4 & 5. If o.p. no. 5 would have been produced before this Forum as a witness, he could have thrown some light over the difference between the two reports. In absence of such authenticate evidence we are unable to grant any relief to the complainant.
In disposing of this complaint we are of the clear view that the complainant never suffered any damage or disorder over the alleged defective report issued by the o.p. no. 1. Naturally the quantum of the damage can never be ascertained.
In the result the complaint fails.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 56 of 2011 ( HDF 56 of 2011 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
