West Bengal

Bankura

CC/100/2013

Surama Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suman Chakraborty and Three Others - Opp.Party(s)

Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

10 Oct 2023

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 100/2013

          Date of Filing: 20.11.2013

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.                                    

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

For the O.P. 1 & 2: Ld. G.P., Bankura     For O.P. 3: Ld. Advocate Kunal Kanti Ghosh

Complainant 

Surama Ghosh, w/o Late Mantu Ghosh, r/o Pratappur, Palashbani, Onda, Bankura

Opposite Party

1.Suman Chakraborty (S. Chakraboroty), Medical Officer, BSMCH, Bankura, Department of Opthalmology, Bankura 2. MSVP, BSMCH, Bankura   3.Dr. Anup Mondal, Asst. Professor, BSMCH, Bankura    4. Secretary, W.B. Health & Family Welfare, Kolkata

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT        

                                                                                                                                                   

Order No.64

Dated:10-10-2023

Both parties file hazira through advocate.

The case is fixed for further argument on maintanibility point.

It is a long pending case and so the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder after rejecting the prayer for adjournment on behalf of O.P. No.3.

The Complainant’s case is that she started feeling some uneasiness in vision of her left eye particularly during night in the first half of May, 2013 and accordingly she consulted at O.P.D. of BSMCH, Bankura where Dr. Rakhi Banerjee on 13/05/2013 advised for certain investigation and application of eye drop and thereafter on 21/06/2013 she visited in the Department of Opthalmology of BSMCH, Bankura and consulted O.P. No.3 Dr. Anup Mondal who advised for Opthalmological examination and surgery of left eye and thereafter she visited the said hospital in O.P.D. Opthalmology and consulted O.P. No.1 as O.P. No.3 was not available and she was admitted in the said hospital for surgery of left eye which was done on 18/07/2013 and discharged on the following day without any vision over the operated left eye although the operating surgeon/O.P. No.1 assured that the vision would be regained gradually. Thereafter the Complainant on 31/07/2013 consulted available Dr. of the said hospital regarding complications in her left eye with loss of vision but on 07/08/2013 the Complainant could not get any relief from the Dr./Hospital Authority as they referred the case to Regional Institute of Opthalmology,  Deprtment of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of W.B. for further treatment and better management. With this allegation the Complainant has lodged the instant complaint claiming adequate compensation from the O.P. Doctors/Hospital Authority.

                                                                                                                                                                                         Contd……p/2

                                                                                                       Page: 2

O.P. No.1/Dr. S. Chakraborty filed a joint written statement along with O.P.2/BSMCH, Bankura and O.P. No.3 also contested the case by filing a separate written version. O.P. No.4 did not file any written version. All the contesting O.P.s have taken the plea in their written version denying any medical negligence and deficiency in service particularly taking the plea of maintainability of the case.

-: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents on both sides the Commission decides to take the maintainability issue at the first instance. Admittedly BSMCH is purely a state sponsored district Govt. hospital where the Complainant underwent eye surgery at the instance of O.P. doctors/Hospital Authority. It is also an admitted fact that all the medical services and investigations rendered by the O.P. Hospital/Doctors to the victim patient are of free of charges and the Complainant at the time of hearing could not produce any scrap of paper in support of payment of any sort of charges/fees levied by the said Hospital.

It is now well settled by the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in the case of India Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha reported in AIR 1996 SC 550 and re-affirmed in a subsequent decision dated: 07/12/2021 in Nivedita Singh Vs.Asha Bharati & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.103/12 that such medical service from the Govt. Hospital free of charges is not service within the definition of Service in the Consumer Protection Act and as such the Complainant being the recipient of such free medical service is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act.

 The Commission is therefore of the confirm view that the medical services rendered by the O.P. Dr./Hospital and received by the victim patient is fully a gratuitous service free of all charges and as such such service does not come within the purview of the definition of service under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently the Complainant being the beneficiary thereof cannot be treated as a consumer and has therefore no locus standi to file the instant complaint. 

                                                                                                                                                                                        Contd……p/3

                                                                                                         Page: 3                                                                                                                    

Accordingly the instant case is not maintainable on that sole legal ground and the Commission should not detain further to decide the merit of the case as the maintainability issue strides at the root of the jurisdiction of this Commission to proceed further on the merit of the case.

For the reasons stated above the case miserably fails.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but all without cost.

The Complainant is however at liberty to pursue Civil remedy before the competent Court of Law in accordance with law to which Section-14 of Limitation Act shall apply.

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 

 ____________________                 _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT            HON’BLE MEMBER