JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      The petitioner/complainant was admitted in the ICU of Salgaokar Medical Research Centre (opposite party No.1) on 04-08-2012 on account of unabated severe headache. He was discharged from the aforesaid hospital on 06-08-2012. The case of the complainant as set out in his complaint is that opposite party No.2-Dr. Rajesh Jhaverani, Medical Superintendent of opposite party No.1, before the petitioner/complainant was discharged from the hospital, told his wife that it would be best to admit the complainant in the Institute of Psychiatry & Human Behaviour and he would arrange an ambulance for taking him to the said institute. According to the complainant the opposite party No.2 also asked his wife not to tell the complainant that he was to be admitted in Institute of Psychiatry & Human Behaviour (IPHB). It was further alleged in the complaint that when the car headed towards Panaji, his wife, on the inquiry made by him, told him that he was to be taken to Goa Medical College for important medical tests. When the complainant made an inquiry in this regard from opposite party No.2 he was told that he was required to undergo certain tests at the aforesaid hospital. Thus, the case of the complainant in nutshell is that the opposite party No.2 had advised his wife and son to admit him at IPHB. According to the complainant when the car in which he was being taken turned towards IPHB, he realised where he was being taken and got the car stopped and tried to come out but two police officials and the inmates of the car pushed him back in the car and brought him to IPHB from where he escaped after some time. Alleging deficiency in the services rendered to him and adoption of unfair trade practices by opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-.

           The District Forum, took the view that there was no evidence of any unfair trade practice by the opposite parties and, therefore, dismissed the complaint at the admission stage.

2.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. It was noted by the State Commission that the complainant had no grievance against the opposite parties as far as the treatment in the hospital was concerned. The State Commission also took the view that mere advice to the son and the wife of the complainant to get him admitted in another hospital, even if the said hospital was IPHB would not amount to medical negligence.

          Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his appeal by the State Commission, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

3       During the course of hearing we asked the complainant as to whether there was any written advice given by opposite party No.2 or any other doctor working with opposite party No.1 advising his admission at IPHB. Admitting that there was no such written advice the complainant/petitioner stated that his wife had filed an affidavit to this effect. In our view, it would not be safe to proceed with the complaint on the basis of the alleged oral advice when the discharge card, which the complainant himself has placed on record, does not have any indicator of such an advice. As per the discharge card, the ailment of the complainant was taken as migraine headache and he was advised Indrall-10mg and Sibelium-5mg tablets.

4.      Moreover, even if we proceed on the basis that opposite party No.2 had advised checkup of the complainant at IPHB that by itself wold not amount either to negligence in rendering medical services to him or adoption of any unfair trade practice. Had the complainant actually been taken to IPHB, he would have been examined there by the doctors working in the said hospital. In the event of the doctors not finding any cause for his admission in the said hospital, they would have discharged him after primary checkup. There is no evidence of the opposite parties having any financial connection with IPHB and, therefore, we cannot accept the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties were in league with the said hospital and had he been taken there he would have unnecessarily been kept atleast for one week.

5.      It was contended by the complainant that no psychiatrist was consulted by opposite party No.2 before advising his admission to IPHB. As noted earlier by us there is no written advice given by opposite party No.2 recommending admission of the complainant to the aforesaid hospital. Moreover, it would not be always necessary for the treating doctor to consult a psychiatrist before advising checkup at a specialised hospital dealing with cases of abnormal human behaviour. If at all any such advice was given that must be for the welfare of the complainant so that his psychiatric problem, if any, found during checkup at IPHB could be attended at a specialised hospital.

6.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no illegality or perversity in the view taken by the District Forum and the State Commission. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.