West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/56/2015

Ranjit Jana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propritor, Annapurna Nursing Home - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

      Pulak Kumar Singha, Member. 

and 

    Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.56/2015

 

                                     Ranjit Jana, S/o Mohanlal Jana, Vill. Jot-Ghanashyam, P.O. Jotghanashyam, P.S. Daspur,

                                     PIN. 721153, District  Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1.  Proprietor, Annapurna Nursing Home, at Goura, P.S. Daspur, P.O. Goura, PIN. 721146, District.  Paschim Medinipur,
2. Dr. Tanmoy Mandal, attached to Annapurna Nursing  Home, at Goura, P.S. Daspur, P.O. Goura, PIN. 721146, District- Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Pradip Kumar Neogi, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Kshitish Palmal, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 06 /09/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Ranjit Jana against the above named O.Ps, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows

               Smt. Srabanti Jana, since deceased, the wife of the complainant was admitted in the nursing home of O.P. no.1 on 05/05/2013 for delivery of her pregnancy.   On that very day at about 1 p.m., surgery for delivery was performed on Srabanti Jana by

Contd…………………..P/2

 

( 2 )

Dr.Tanmoy Mondal, the O.P. no.2 and after such surgery, she gave birth of a male child.  After such delivery, the wife of the complainant and the new born baby remained in the nursing home of the O.P. no.1 but the condition of the wife of the complainant become deteriorated after 4 p.m. and the complainant requested the O.Ps to take appropriate measures.  The nursing home authority did not pay any heed to such request.  On the contrary, they appraised the complainant that she will be cured within few hours.  The condition of Srabanti Jana further deteriorated after 5 p.m. but Dr. P. Bera, who was looking after the patient, did not advise the complainant and his family members to shift her in a better hospital.  Flow of urine of the wife of the complainant was stopped from 5 p.m. and her abdomen further enlarged but Dr. P. Bera assured the patient party at about 8 p.m. that there was no need to worry about as the patient was under observation.  When the condition of the patient further deteriorated then the patient was forcibly taken  away from that nursing home at about 11.15 p.m. for shifting her to S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata although the nursing home authority was reluctant to release her.  At about 1.30 a.m. on that night she was admitted in S.S.K.M. Hospital.  Dr. K.K. Kundu, who attended the victim- wife, opined that the condition of the wife of the complainant was very serious and there is little chance of her survival.  She was therefore kept under ventilation and underwent a surgery.  Her kidney was totally damaged and dialysis was done on and from 8/5/2013 to 15/5/2013 but unfortunately she died at about 9.30 p.m. on 15/5/2013.  On basis of the complaint, lodged by the complainant, a police case vide Daspur P.S. Case no.131/2013 dated 14/06/2013 u/s 304 of I.P.C. was registered against O.P. no.2-Dr. Tonmay Mondal and after investigation police submitted charge sheet against O.P. no.2.  It is alleged that there was negligence on the part of the O.Ps in treating the wife of the complainant and due to such medical negligence,  Srabanti Jana died.  It is claimed that the O.Ps are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- for bills and cost of treatment of his wife. 

         Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.Ps to pay an award of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.    

              Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written version.  

             Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that Srabanti Jana, the wife of the complainant, was admitted in the nursing home of the O.Ps for delivery of her pregnancy.  After examining her, O.P. no.2 performed caesarean operation and a healthy baby was born without any problem at about 7 p.m. on that day.  Her urinary output decreased with fever but she was all along telling that she had no problems.  Her urinary output did not improve even after better

Contd…………………..P/3

 

 

( 3 )

management and as such she was referred to S.S.K.M. Hospital for necessary treatment.  Nursing home personals also accompanied her to S.S.K.M. Hospital and got her admitted there.  It is stated that the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 had no negligence during the course of treatment and they gave sincere service to the patient.  Her operation was done successfully but she was attacked with acute annuria which is not related with caesarean operation.  The O.Ps therefore claimed dismissal of the complaint.

            To prove his case, the complainant Ranjit Jana has examined himself as PW-1 and he has also examined other witnesses namely Dr. Jotirmoy Samanta, Dr. Debdulal Mukhapadhyay, Dilip Kumar Maity, Dr. Girish Chandra Bera & Dr. Sumit Ranjan Pramanik as PW-2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 respectively.  The documents, relied upon by the complainant, have been marked exhibit 1 to 3 series respectively.  On the other hand, O.Ps have examined two witness namely Balaram Sau & Dr. Tanmoy Mondal and during the evidence of OPW-1 Balaram Sau, few documents were marked as exhibit A- series.

           

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer under the provision of C.P. Act?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons         

                Point nos. 1 & 2.

                In paragraph 1 & 3 of their written version, O.Ps have questioned maintainability of this case on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer of the O.Ps within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii)  of the C.P. Act.  The present case has been filed by the complainant Ranjit Jana alleging deficiency in service by the O.Ps  regarding medical treatment of his wife Shrabanti Jana,  since deceased, at the nursing home of O.P. no.1.  Nowhere in his petition of complaint, the complainant has claimed that for such treatment of his deceased wife in the said nursing home, he had to pay any sort of money or charges. Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) defines consumer  as the person who hires or avails any services for  consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes beneficiary of such services.  Service  as defines in Sec.2 (1) (o) of C.P. Act.,  means of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other

Contd…………………..P/4

 

 

( 4 )

energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.  We have already stated that nowhere in his petition of complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that for such service of medical treatment he paid any charges for treatment of his wife. On the contrary, we find that during his cross-examination PW-1 Ranjit Jana has admitted that Nursing Home authority provided him with ambulance and they did not take any money towards ambulance fair, Nursing Home fees for operation, bed charge and   medicine. It thus appears that it is none but the complainant himself has admitted in his cross-examination that the medical service rendered by the O.Ps. towards the treatment  of the wife of the complainant was free of charge.  It is well settled that ‘service’ rendered free of charge by a Medical Practitioner and nursing home, where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients  who are given free service, is outside the purview of the expression service as defined in Sec.2(1)(o) of the Act.  So in view of the above settled principal of law, the present complainant, who availed medical services for his deceased wife under  the O.Ps. free of charges, is not a consumer as defined in Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C. P. Act. and as such,  it is held that the present case is not maintainable.

                              Both the points are accordingly decided against the complainant.

             Point nos.3 & 4.

                In view of our above findings  under point nos.1 & 2, the question of deficiency in service does not arise and the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs, as prayed for.

                             All the points are accordingly decided against the complainant. 

                             In the result, the complaint case fails.   

                                              Hence, it is,

                                              Ordered,

                         that the complaint case no.56/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                              Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

             Dictated & corrected by me

                    Sd/-B. Pramanik.        Sd/-P. K. Singha      Sd/- S. Sarkar               Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                            President                    Member                Member                       President 

                                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur