HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the OP No. 1-Hospital challenging the judgment and order dated 17.9.2013 passed ex parte by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II, in C.C. Case No. 219 of 2012, directing the OPs to pay, within one month from the date of the order, to the Complainant Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost, failing which the OPs shall have to pay jointly and severally to the Complainant ‘@ 500/-’ as punitive damages till full satisfaction of the said decretal amount.

          Brief facts of the case, as revealed from the materials on records, are that the Respondent No. 1/Complainant visited the Outdoor Department of the Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital on 5.11.2011 with complaint of acute dental pain.  The doctor in the Department referred the Respondent No. 1/Complainant, for x-ray of teeth, to the X-ray Department which advised the Respondent No. 1/Complainant for reporting to the X-ray Department after 30 days.  Then the Respondent No. 1/Complainant for early relief of the unbearable dental pain got the x-ray done from a private x-ray clinic on 7.1.2012 and reported back to the Outdoor Department of the Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital on 7.1.2012 when the Outdoor Department, after payment of due charges, referred the Respondent No. 1/ Complainant, for extraction of the tooth, to a doctor who did not perform extraction allegedly for non-accompaniment of attendant as per rule of the said Hospital.  Then the Respondent No. 1/Complainant brought a person as attendant from ‘footpath’, but the doctor concerned did not perform the extraction for the alleged excuse of the attendant being not a member of the family of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant.  The extraction of tooth in question having thus not been done the Respondent No. 1/Complainant tried to meet the Principal of the Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital, but he was not available as averred in the Petition of Complaint.  Then some well-wishers of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant took the Respondent No. 1/Complainant to a private hospital at Rashbehari Avenue where the doctor on duty extracted the tooth in question at about 4.00 P.M. of the same day despite non-accompaniment of any family- member as attendant and then the Respondent No. 1/Complainant got relieved from the acute dental pain.  With this factual background, the Complainant moved the Complaint concerned before the Ld. District Forum which passed the order impugned in the aforesaid manner.  Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. District Forum the OP No. 1 has moved the Appeal before this Commission.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No. 1 submits that the Ld. District Forum passed the order impugned without taking into consideration that the Respondent No. 1/Complainant did not bring the family-member with him as per Notice displaying outside the Outdoor Department and thus did not follow the rule of the Hospital.

          The Ld. Advocate continues that accompaniment of the family member as per rule of the Hospital concerned is required for surgical procedure in question for taking care of emergency situation during surgery like excess bleeding, unconsciousness, etc.

          The Ld. Advocate also submits that for such contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant the extraction of tooth could not be done by the doctor of the Hospital and hence, there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital.

          The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Appeal should be allowed and the order impugned be set aside and the Complaint be dismissed.

          On the other hand, the Respondent No. 1/Complainant appearing in person repelled the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital submitting that accompaniment of family-member as attendant with the Respondent No. 1/Complainant for extraction of tooth was neither mentioned in the outdoor ticket, nor was Notice made available in the Memo of Appeal, indicating thereby that accompaniment of family-member for extraction of tooth, as the Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital has resorted to, is not as per standard protocol for extraction of tooth, and that  the requirement of accompaniment of family-member during extraction of tooth is not as per standard extraction protocol, as the Respondent No. 1/Complainant submits, is reinforced from the fact of extraction of tooth on the same day by other doctor in a private hospital at Rashbehari Avenue.

          The Respondent No. 1/Complainant continues that insistence of accompaniment of family-member is arbitrary and the same has been done to overcome the charge of deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital.

          The Respondent No. 1/Complainant finally submits that adoption of such unfair practice by the Appellant/OP No. 1-Doctor indicates unfair practice on the part of the Appellant. 

          The Respondent No. 1/Complainant concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Appeal should be dismissed and the impugned order be affirmed.

          The Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital has not adduced any evidence showing that the accompaniment of family-member for extraction of tooth is the requirement of standard protocol of extraction of tooth, nor has the Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital produced evidence of rule of the hospital concerned in respect of accompaniment of family-member for extraction of tooth.

          Further, the fact of extraction of tooth in question by a doctor of a private hospital on the same day without insistence of accompaniment of family-member with the Respondent No. 1/Complainant clearly indicates that the standard protocol concerned does not require the accompaniment of family-member at the time of extraction of tooth and hence, the Appellant/OP No. 1-Hospital committed negligence in not discharging its duties, which it owed to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant, on the excuse of non-accompaniment of family-member, which is not required as per standard protocol.

          The foregoing discussion leads to the conclusion that the impugned order does not deserve any interference by this Commission.

          Consequently, the instant Appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed.  No order as to costs.