The brief facts of the complainant case, is that, the father of the complainant was a railway employee and the complainant and rest of the family members are eligible to obtain medical facility and benefit from the railway department. That on 10/12/2016 at about 5:30 p.m. the mother of the complainant became ill due to sudden pain in her chest. Thereafter, he had admitted in the railway hospital for five days at Alipurduar on 15/12/2016 her mother was referred to B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata and accordingly the complainant admitted her mother at B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata on 17/12/2016. The doctor of the B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata stated to the complainant that the condition is the patient is simple even not critical to bring the patient at B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata thereafter the patient in the admitted in the medical ward in the B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata. The junior doctor Joydip Majumder examined the patient and stated that nothing serious had been happen to the patient but the attending doctor did not properly visit and take care of her mother on the same day at about 5:00 p.m. when the complainant visited her mother at that time her mother complained about the process of their treatment and the said matter communicated to the on duty senior sister but they did not utter a single word. The Aya who was privately appointed informed that all the cough from the inside of the chest which caused a little pain as at the time of when exhaling the cough the required mechanical support was not provided to the patient. That the same day he complainant informed the on duty senior nurse to call a doctor in reply they stated that no doctor will visit that day as the day was Saturday. So at the evening shift no one doctor will attend the patient. Further they also informed the complainant that tomorrow i.e. 18/12/2016 no senior doctor will visit as they day was Sunday. The condition of the mother was deteriorating and after seeing that 18/12/2016 at about 5:00 p.m. the complainant again informed that on duty nurse about the condition of the patient and requested to them to shift the patient to I.C.U but the nurse stated that no doctor is available that it is a Sunday. But the condition of the mother was deteriorating and the nurse did not take any steps. The doctors of B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata did not take proper treatment the mother of the complainant. As a result on 19/12/2016 at about 12:45 the mother of the complainant was expired. Thereafter, the complainant and her brother preferred an application before the Medical Officer of the B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata on 15/02/20 to know the actual state of affairs which has been mentioned specifically and the hospital replied without disclosing the facts the doctors of the B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata had jointly responsible of his mother death that the gross negligence from the part of the doctors and the complainant had filed this case and praying for Rs. 16,50,000/- from the O.Ps as compensation due to the death of his mother.
The O.Ps have filed their written version and denying all the allegations against them. The O.Ps submits that his written version the case is not maintable here, no cause of action, it is barred by law, the allegations are false and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. According to the O.Ps the patient was admitted on 17/12/2016 in B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata with the complaint of fever, cough and was diagnosed as a case of COPD with lower respiratory tract infection along with compression and collapse of D-12 and L-1 vertebral bodies and immediately admitted indoor female ward and on that date all relevant investigations were done including blood test (biochemical and hematological), chest X-Ray , 2-D Echocardiography and sputum for AFB. The O.Ps vehemently denies the statement of the complainant that the doctors told them the condition was not serious. The O.Ps further stated that on 19/12/2016 the condition of the patient was deteriorated and all medical support was given to her immediately. The O.Ps have replied all the question of RTI. The O.Ps have complied the verdict of CIC accordingly. Accordingly the bed head ticket and other related documents by handed over to the RTI party. They further stated that the case is totally baseless and there is no deficiency in service from the O.Ps. The patient was treated according to the advise of the doctors. He has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Upon pleading of the parties the following issues are frame.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
- Is the case is barred by limitation according to C.P. Act, 2019?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of the case all these points are interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience. The case has been filed u/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant. Complainant has filed Identity Card of India Railway (Annexure – I), RELHS Card (Annexure – II & III), C.T. Scan Payment Receipt (Annexure – IV), Referred Memo of the Patient (Annexure – V), Case Progress Note (Annexure – VI), Letter of Additional Divisional Railway Manager (Annexure – VII), CIC Report (Annexure –VIII).
Point Nos. 1 & 2:- In this case according to the complaint the father of the complainant is the retired railway employee and according to the railway rule the father and his dependents are eligible for medical service from the railway hospital. Now the question is whether the medical service will render to the retired railway employee and his family members is a free of cost or not. According to the retired employee Liberalized Health Scheme (RELHS - 1997) the retired railway employee cover under RELHS - 1997 will be provided in all medical facilities as for service employees that means the medical treatment was done to the dependents of the ex-railway employees are free of cost (Annexure – II & III are medical certificates of the husband of the patient). If that we so then the patient who is the wife of the ex-railway employee was not the consumer according to 2(d) of C.P. Act, 2019. There is nowhere in the petition, evidence or argument stated by the complainant that the treatment in the medical hospital was done by making payments. So as per law no payment was made to the hospital for the treatment of the patient and accordingly the patient was not consumer and he is not entitled to get any relief from this case. Regarding jurisdiction we find that this Commission has the jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No. 3: According to the O.Ps the case is barred by limitation according to the C.P. Act, 2019 the case should be filed within the two years from the date of cause of action. In this case the patient was admitted on 17/12/2016 and he died on 19/12/2016 thereafter the complainant made several correspondence to the hospital authority and ultimately the cause of action was lastly on 01/02/2018 but this case has been filed on 24/02/2020 that means after expiry of two years the complainant did not file any petition regarding condonation of delay. So we find that the case is barred by limitation as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
O.P Nos. 4 & 5:- In this case we have already discussed the complaint. Complainant is not consumer and he has not entitled to get any benefit and the case is barred by limitation. We here discussed regarding the deficiency in service we find that the patient was admitted in the B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata as she was the patient of COPD. We also find that the doctors treated the patient all medical supports were done to her but she ultimately succumbed from his diseased. The complainant has stated something regarding the statement of the treating doctors but in support of that he did not file for adduce any evidence. The patient first admitted in the Alipurduar hospital wherefrom she was referred to B.R. Singh railway hospital, Kolkata where she was treated Annexure - VI is the treatment sheet from which it appears that the patient at first treated was Alipurduar hospital wherefrom she was referred regarding deficiency in service from the part of the O.Ps. So, we do not find any supportive materials in favour of the complainant. We find that the complainant will not get any relief from this case.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed with contest without cost.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
