DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 137 of   2017 

 

Smt. Supriya Malakar alias Supriya Das,

W/O.-Sri Biswajit Das, D/O.-Sri Narayan Ch. Malakar,

Resident of Milanchakra, Road No.2, Srinagar,

P.S. A.D. Nagar, Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura. …...…..…......Complainant.

 

 

        -VERSUS-

 

 

1. Santosh Saha,

Proprietor of Mediland Diagnostic Centre,

Old R.M.S. Chowmuhani, 

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

2. Dr. S. Chakraborty,

Mediland Diagnostic Centre, 

Old R.M.S. Chowmuhani, 

Agartala, West Tripura. .................Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C o u n s e l

 

For the Complainant : Sri Purushatam Roy Barman,

  Sri Kawsik Nath,

  Smt. Aradhita Debbarma,

  Advocates.

  

For the O.Ps : Sri Sankar Bhattacharjee,

   Smt Juthika Naukham,

  Advocates.

  

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  12.09.2018.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by Supriya Malakar U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that she was advised by Dr. Sapna Datta, MBBS for USG(Ultrasonography) of whole abdomen. Complainant went to the Mediland Diagnostic Centre owned by O.P. Santosh Saha for USG. She paid Rs.1,000/- charge of USG and Ultra Sonography was done there over abdomen. In the report right ovary was shown enlarged. On the basis of the report, Dr. Sapna Datta advised for operation of right ovary. On 06.06.17 she went to Apollo Hospital and USG was done there. In the USG report right ovary was not visualized. Left ovary was in enlarged condition. Apollo Hospital in the discharge certificate written that right ovary was absent. O.P. had given wrong report as it contradicted with the report of Apollo Hospital. O.P. No.2 conducted the USG and given wrong report. Petitioner suffered because of this wrong report and prayed for compensation Rs.2 lacs and cost Rs.25,000/- total Rs.2,25,000/- and also further amount of Rs.1 lac for mental agony.

 

2. Opposite party, Mediland Diagnostic Centre filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that O.P. is not aware about the USG done in the Apollo Hospital. O.P. did not give any defective report at all. O.P. No.2 has sufficient experience for conducting the USG since long and he has also completed the  competency for doing the test. There was no deficiency of service by O.P. and the claim is liable to be dismissed. 

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the USG test done in the laboratory of O.P. was wrong and caused harassment of the petitioner?

(II) Whether petitioner suffered and she is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced the photocopy of Legal Notice, photocopy of Division of Ultrasound, Ultrasound Report of whole Abdomen, photocopy of Discharge Certificate. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the complainant, Supriya Malakar.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the copy of Ultrasound Evaluation test certificate, copy of Membership Certificate Sonological Society of India, copy of deed of partnership.  

O.P. also produced statement on affidavit of one witness namely Dr. Sagnik Chakraborty.

 

6. On the basis of all the evidences on record we shall no determine the above points. 

 

Findings and decisions:

7. The first question is related to the Ultrasound Evaluation test. The contention of the petitioner is that it was wrongly done and wrong report was given by O.P. doctor Sagnik Chakraborty. We have gone through the report and found that in the report right ovary is shown enlarged and left ovary is normal. We have also gone through the Ultrasound report of the Apollo Hospital. In that report right ovary not visualized. The contention of the petitioner stands on this report of Apollo Hospital. But this report of the Apollo Hospital is not final. The concerned doctor Dr. Muralidharan and Dr. Venkatasubramanian did not appear to support the report. Right Ovarian Cyst was seen in the discharge summary issued by Sarkar Clinic & Nursing Home.

 

8. Petitioner in her evidence repeated the complaint petition. She stated that the USG report of relevant nursing home was defective incorrect and it misguided her. The service was at all inadequate. She only stated that she suffered physically, mentally, financially. But she did not explain how she suffered physically, mentally and financially. 

 

9. O.P. Dr. Sagnik Chakraborty repeated the written statement  in his statement on affidavit. In the cross examination he stated that he did the ultrasonography and found the right ovary on 05.01.17. Ultrasonography film not preserved as it was supplied to the patient. 

 

10. O.P. produced the copy of Competency based Ultrasound Evaluation Test Certificate, copy of membership  Certificate Sonological Society of India. We have gone through the certificates and found that O.P. Sagnik Chakraborty had the requisites qualification for conducting the ultrasonography. The skill of the doctors and technicians differs. Court could be slow in attributing negligence on the part of doctors or technicians if he has performed his duties to the best of his abilities, due care and caution. Opinion may differ. The examiner had the requisites qualification to conduct the ultrasonography. It can not be said that the ultrasonography report of Apollo Hospital is final and the ultrasonography report of Mediland is defective as because it did not tally with the report of Apollo Hospital. How the petitioner suffered because of wrong diagnosis not clarified in this case. The negligence of the examiner also not established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The evidence on record thus failed to prove the medical negligence of O.P. Dr. Sagnik Chakraborty. 

 

11. In view of our findings over the two points it is established that medical negligence not proved. It is finally decided that the ultrasonography of Mediland was not wrong and wrong report was not given instantly without proper skill and care. Both the points are decided accordingly against the petitioner. As a result the case of the petitioner is dismissed.   

     

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA