Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the complaint are that the complainant took admission 08.08.2017 to the OP for treatment of his left eye attacked with stone flakes which was diagnosed as fungal eye-ulcer. On 12.08.2017, on repeated exam, the diagnosis was changed to viral Keratitis. After necessary treatment the complainant was released on 17.08.2017.
On 22.08.2017, the complainant again visited the Eye OPD and his vision was recorded as 6/12 in left eye. He was asked to continue necessary medication with an advice to attend Eye OPD after 07 days.
But after two weeks the complainant felt severe pain in eye and he was admitted again on 05.09.2017 with a diagnosis of herpetic Keratitis. The patient-complainant was treated medically accordingly for as many as 10 (ten) days and was discharged on 14.09.2017 with necessary advices to follow.
On 15.09.2017 the complainant again visited Eye-OPD for follow-up and was admitted to the OP-Medical College & Hospital. His complaint in left eye was diagnosed as endothelitis with Fibrinouns clump over endothelium of left eye-cornea. On 24.09.2017 the patient-complainant was referred and discharged to R.I.O Medical College after giving necessary treatment. The complainant stated in his petition (at Para-6) that he himself requested to refer him to higher institute.
Since there was no intervening gap in between the 02nd time admission and the third, the treatment taken together continued at a stretch for 20 (twenty) days. On the day following the day of discharge, i.e. on 25.09.2017 the complainant visited Mechi Eye Care Centre, Jhapa, Nepal and took their treatment till 28.12.2017. Having felt that treatment at Mechi Eye Care Centre is not yielding good results, the complainant got himself tested in the Department of Microbiology, Anandaloke Sonoscan Centre, Siliguri on 17.10.2017. The test report advises for further rectification.
Thereafter also, the complainant had undergone several treatments one of which at Siliguri Greater Lions Eye Hospital, from 16.10.2017 to 18.10.2017. But treatment there also proved to be of no effect and the complainant sustained a great loss.
The Complainant, who is a daily labour, is the only earning member of the family. Due to his visionary problem at left eye, he is totally stopped from his daily income, and thus sustained great loss.
The OP, i.e. North Bengal Medical College & Hospital received summon on 15.11.2018 as per document available in the case record. The OP sent a 03 men’s expert committee report dtd. 28.11.2017 under forwarding letter vide memo No. 9221 dtd. 20.11.2018 which was received by the Forum on the same day, i.e. 20.11.2018. But the OP-Medical College did not, appear physically, nor did they depute any authorized staff to represent them before this Forum by the statutory period for filing written version, i.e. 31.12.2018 and hence the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP- Medical College.
However, this Forum is of the opinion that there is no harm in knowing the say of the OP Medical College from the said 03-month’s expert committee report. From this report, the Forum may find out some materials necessary for disposal of this case.
To prove his case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-
- Health Department discharge card dtd. 17.08.2017.
- Health Department discharge card dtd. 14.09.2017.
- Health Department discharge card dtd.29.09.2017.
- Grievance letter dtd. 25.09.2017.
- Mechi Eye Care Centre Papers.
- Copy of Anandaloke Sonoscan centre.
- Reply of the OP dtd. 08.12.2017.
- Treatment papers.
On the basis of the above discussion, the following points come up for determination.
- Whether the complainant is, as a patient, consumer or not?
- Whether there had been any deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Medical College? And
- Whether the consumer-complainant entitled to get any compensation or not?
DECISION WITH REASONS.
All the 03 (three) points are taken up in seriatim for discussion.
Point No.1.
As per Section 2(d) of the consumer Protection Act 1986, a consumer means a person who, buys any goods and includes any user of such goods, and hires or avails of any service for a consideration and includes any beneficiary of such services. Service as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act means a service of any description which in made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities.A person availing of service even free of cost, in a consumer if he/she is a beneficiary. Any patient in a Government Hospital is a beneficiary.
The Act of service rendered a patient by a medical practioner by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medical and surgical, fall within the ambit of “service”.
The complainant is, thus viewed, a consumer of the OP.
Point No. 2.
The OP did not appear with any written version before this Forum but sent a medical report of enquiry committee in respect of the treatment of the complainant. The enquiry committee consisted of Dr. Piyali Sarkar and Dr. Rupanjali Lakra, both Assistant Professor, Department of Ophthelmology, as members with Dr. Rabindra Nath Saha, Head of the Department of Ophthalmology as the chairperson of the committee. The committee formed on 22.11.2017 submitted their report on 28.11.2017 and forwarded by the medical superintendent-cum-vice Principal of North Bengal Medical College & Hospital to this Forum vide his Memo No. 9221 dtd. 20.11.2018.
A perusal of the said three men’s medical expert committee report reveals that on the date of admission for the first time, i.e. on 08.08.2017, the complainant had the visual acuity of 1 meter (finger count) and on treatment, the vision, as found on exam on 15.08.2017, improved to 6/24 and the complainant was discharged on 17.08.2017. On 22.08.2017, the patient-complainant again visited the eye OPD of the OP-Medical College and his vision was recorded as 6/12 in the left eye. The patient-complainant was again admitted on 05.09.2017 and on that day his vision was 6/9 in the left eye. Up to 11.09.2017, the patient’s condition was same.Therefore, from 08.08.2017 onwards, the complainant’s eye-sight had been improving and he was discharged on 14.09.2017.
The complainant again visited Eye-OPD for follow-up on 15.09.2017 and he was admitted on that day for the third time. On 21.09.2017 his vision was tested and turned suddenly to reduce to 6/36 (unaided).After treatment his vision was improved to 6/24 but not of course, so satisfactorily and hence the patient-complainant was referred, and discharged to RIO medical college, Kolkata with non-resolving herpetic Kerakitis involving stroma and endothelium.
Thus reported, the enquiry committee of 03 specialists-experts unanimously opined that there was no negligence on the part of the treating Doctors.
The complainant alleged in his petition, inter alia, at Para -7 that he was badly treated before the OPs and at Para 10 that he sustained great loss for the negligent act of the OP and for their deficiency in service.This allegation is not acceptable in as much as it appears from the discharge report dtd. 24.09.2017 filed by the complainant himself as Annex- “C” that his vision was 6/36 as on 21.09.20174 and 6/24 as on the date of discharge in which he was referred to RIO Kolkata for better treatment.
The patient-complainant visited Mechi Eye Care Centre, at Jhapa District of Nepal on 25.09.2017, i.e. the day immediately following the date of discharge (24.09.2017).His further allegation that the said centre declared that the eye was totally damaged as they cannot recover the vision, is not acceptable to this Forum because (1) the OP did not refer the complainant to that Eye Care Centre Plus (2) thereafter also, he visited Anandaloke Sonoscan Centre on 17.10.2017, which too reports further rectification (i.e. not irrecoverable damage).Moreover, it appears from the documents (“H” series) enclosed with the complaint that he was treated at Siliguri Greater Lions Eye Hospital up to 18.10.2017.The complaint was filed almost thereafter 09 (nine) months.
Thus the complainant did not comply with the advice of the OP referring him to the R.I.O. Kolkata.The complainant submitted on 25.09.2017, i.e. the next day of his last discharge, on 24.09.2017 a petition stating his grievance in respect to negligence in treatment and claiming compensation.It is on this grievance, that the aforesaid enqiry committee was formed by an order dtd. 22.11.2017 and the opinion of that committee was passed on to the complainant by OP vide their No. 10917 dtd. 08.12.2017 informing that the treatment was done accordingly to protocol and also that he was ultimately referred to R.I.O. Kolkata for better management as his ocular condition was not improving in a satisfactory way.
The patient-complainant did not visit where he was referred to, rather, visited where he was not. It is thus not clear where the irrecoverable damage, if any, had occurred.
In the result, the case does not succeed. Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case being No. 79/S/2018 be and the same is liable to be dismissed against the OP.
The case, in spite of having thus no merit, had to be proceeded by this Forum ex-parte against the OP due to its absence/not contesting the case.
The case is dismissed, but the OP shall deposit a sum of Rs. 7,500/- (seven thousand five hundred rupees) to the consumer welfare fund through this Forum as they did not appear before this Forum. Such amount be paid within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% from the 46th day till its realization in full.
Further, the complaint as had to be dismissed in spite of its proceeding ex-parte, appears to be frivolous and vexatious but this Forum is not in favour of imposing any penalty u/s 26 of the C.P. Act, on the complainant as the OP kept the carrying out of their onus limited to filing of a report only in response to the summon.
Let a plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
