IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the 23rd day of February,2018.
C.C.Case No. 84 of 2016
Bijaya kumar Rout , S/O Late Chattanya ch. Rout
Now residing C/O Susanta kumar Rout
Vill.Purusottampur ,P.O. Jajpur Town
P.S./ Dist.Jajpur …… ……....Complainant . . (Versus)
1.Niranjan nath,Proprietor,FRIENDS LAB AND X-RAY ,Medical Road,
Jajpur Town,P.O/Dist. Jajpur .
2.Dr. Bidyadhar Patra (M.D) Medicine specialist Dist. Head quarter ,Hospital
Jajpur .
……………..Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Ramakanta Ghadai, Advocate.
For the Opp.Parties : No. 1 . Sri D.Ch. Dash ,Advocate .
For the Opp.Parties No.2 Sri S. K. Das ,Advocate.
Date of order: 23.02.2018.
SHRI JIBAN BALLAV DAS , PRESIDENT .
This is a simple case of medical negligence.
The brief facts of the petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was suffering from fever at regular interval , who went to Dr. B.D.Patra,M.D (Medicine specialist ) working at Dist.Head Quarter Hospital, Jajpur . He advised the petitioner for test of his blood before his treatment started . Accordingly the petitioner went to the Patho Lab of O.P.no.1 on 21.11.16 and gave blood sample for testing and paid Rs.530/- towards blood examination charge. After the blood test the report revealed ‘ Dengu infection , for which the petitioner was perturbed and suffered pshychological depression .The Dr. who saw the report immediately advised the petitioner to go to SCB medical college Hospital, Cuttack .and get treatment their . Thereafter the petitioner was treated under Prof.Dr. D.N.Moharana and again there was test the blood of the petitioner along with other test . In the second test at SCB medical college Hospital ,Cuttack there was no signed and symbol of Dengu infection “. Thereafter the petitioner was cured within two days after taking prescribed medicines by prof. Dr.D.N.Moharana.
Thus due to careless and negligence of O.p.no.1 as well as O.p.no.2 the petitioner suffered trauma and incurred expenditure of Rs.10,000/- for his treatment . the cause of action arose on 21.11.2016 when the wrong report was given by O.P.no.1 and on the same day the O.p.no.2 advised the petitioner to go to SCB medical College hospital ,Cuttack for treatment .
The petitioner was discharged on 28.11.2016 from SCB Medical College Hospital,Cuttack ,so due to mental torture under gone , the petitioner filed this case claiming Rs.2,00,000/- which is supported by verification.
On the other hand the O.P.no.1 denied the petitioner averments. It is also denied that the petitioner spent Rs.10,000/- only for his treatment . Basing on the report of O.P.no.1 , O.P.no. 2 referred the petitioner to SCB Medical College Cuttack on 22.11.2016 who was discharged on 24.11.2016. The O.P.no.1 stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought in the petition. In para-4 of written objection ,the O.P.no.1 stated that as per advice of Dr. O.P.No.2 blood of the petitioner tested by O.P.no.1 and the test result revealed “Dengu Infection “ .It is also submitted that the Dengu Infection in his blood which is a primary one and the test was done by special KIT. According to the O.p.no.1 It is a viral infection and not a final test . According to O.P no.1 any negative result at any time does not preclude the possibility of an early infection of Dengu virus .Further there are other medical test for detection of Dengu virus which is not available at Jajpur Town . According to O.P.no.1 there was nothing to be worried and perturbed was confirmed by the petitioner because more other tests were there for Dengu virus preliminary . In this connection the O.P.no.2 suggested the petitioner to go to Cuttack for proper test regarding Dengu Virus. Consequently the Dr. at jajpur Town only advised the petitioner to go to Cuttack for better test and treatment .The O.P.no.1 contended that to find fault with the O.Ps regarding negligence in-depth understanding of the professional and technical actions is required. In the result the present finding without comparison with other test i.e ALISA Test is not sufficient to hold the O.P.no.1 is guilty of negligence . Hence the O.P.no.1 prayed to reject the petition with cost.
The O.P.no.2 is a medical officer who denying the petitioner averment inter alia contended that after considering the report of O.P.no.1 he found that it was the primary stage and accordingly he advised the petitioner to go to Cuttack for treatment .Almost the same plea is taken by O.P.no.2 who submitted that there was no negligence on his part and he gave proper advice to the petitioner and the petitioner filed this false case to harass both the O.Ps.
On the date of hearing we heard the arguments from both the counsels. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
On the above pleadings of the parties, the points for determination as to whether the petitioner suffered mental agony and was panic stricken by the wrong and mis- leading report of O.P.no.1 leading him to spent money at Cuttack and whether the Dr. found no tresses of Dengu Virus .
Law is well settled that “ a patient aggrieved by any deficiency in treatment ,from both private clinic or government hospitals, is entitled to seek damages under the C.P.Act .
Services rendered by doctors may be by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medical or surgical would come under the ambit of service as define in the Act.
There was controversy whether the Medical services should or should not be covered within the expression “ service’ or defined in the act. In V.P .Nair V.Smt. V.P.Nair ,it was held that a patient is a consumer and medical treatment is a service.
In S.S subramaniam V.S Kumaraswamy it was held by the High Court that medical service is outside the ambit of the Act but on appeal Supreme Court reversed the judgement of theHigh Court and held that the patient aggrieved by any deficiency in treatment from private or Government hospital, are entitled to seek damages under the C.P.Act. Further the Supreme Court gave its historical judgement in Indian medical association V. V.P Shantha ,where it was held that service rendered at hospitals /nursing home/ dispensaries whether government or private charging fee to every body availing services or charging fee for some and giving free service to poor would be covered by the definition of service” under the Act and as such amenable to the provisions of the Act along with the management of the hospitals etc, jointly and severally.”
Keeping in mind the above proposition of law and considering the materials on record we were driven to conclude that the o.p.no.1 was negligent in giving the finding and the O.p.no.2 also without questioning the report of O.p.no.1 carelessly suggested the petitioner to go to Cuttack . if the O.P.no.1 was negligent or have not properly conducted the Dengu Test by taking money , O.P.no.2 should have gone into the authenticity and gennuinness of report before suggesting the petitioner to go to Cuttack for special treatment. So we have no hesitation to hold that both the O.P.no.1 and 2 are negligent in discharging their duties properly, so the petitioner was deprived of service from the O.P no.1 and 2 and the petitioner no doubt is a consumer and entitled to relief .
Hence this Order
Considering entire ga-mute of evidence on record and after hearing from both the counsels , we are direct both O.p.no.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.10,000/- ( ten thousand ) each to the petitioner within a period of three months towards the loss and expenditure incurred for filing this case and both the O.Ps are also cautioned to be more careful in future while dealing with the patient as this is a very important service considering all the services.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23rd day of February ,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
