-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.46 / 2018.
Date of filing: 25.07.2018.
Date of disposal: 30.05.2019.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President.
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: Dyanoba, S/o Vaijinath Panchal,
Age:32 years, Occ: Private Work,
R/o Village Sawali,
Tq:Aurad-B, ( Kamalnagar Taluq )
Dist.Bidar..
( By Sri. P.M.Deshpande,Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Health Officer,
Community Health Centre,
Kamalnagar, Tq.Aurad-B,
Dist.Bidar.
2) The District Health Officer,
D.H.O. (Old Hospital Building)
Old city, Bidar-585401.
(O.P.No.1 By Sri.Nagendra B.H., Adv.)
(O.P.No.2-Exparte )
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This is a complaint filed U/sec. 12 of the C.P.Act,1986, alleging medical negligence against the O.P.no.1. The gist of the complaint is as follows:
2. That, the complainant Dyanoba @Gyanoba Panchal, 29 years old and carpenter by profession had climbed a tree near his village to cut some branches for his carpentry needs on 05.01.2017, sometimes before 5.p.m.
He fell down from the tree and since the area under the tree was littered with glass pieces, few of them entered his left hand metacarpal ( palm) region. At about 5 p.m. with profuse bleeding and pain, he approached the O.P.no.1 after remitting a token amount of Rs. 2/- as registration charges. As per the complainant, the Medical Officer concerned did not make proper diagnosis, put a bandage, prescribed few medicines and advised him to go home. Since his medical problem was not cured, he had approached Kalyani Orthopaedic centre and Accident Hospital, Udgir Maharastra state on 21.01.2017(Annexures R & S ) wherein he was treaded and further as would be evidenet in Annexure-S the preliminary assessment was “Flexer tendrons cut”and he was advised repair. He was also later treated at the same hospital as would be evident from Annexure U & W. Later he was treated at Lane Hospital ( Annexure-X) on 03.03.2017 and ultimately got admitted on 14.03.2017 in the same hospital, where surgical procedures were adopted to repair his damage palm and was discharged on 08.03.2017. It is the assertion of the complainant that, he has lost his earning capacity, his hand being immobilised wherefore the claims compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- with other ancillary benefits. Corroborating his complaint averments evidence affidavit has been filed by him.
3. The O.P.no.1 entering into defence has filed written versions denying the allegations of deficiency of service and medical negligence. It is claimed that, the complainant was brought to the community health centre at about 5 p.m. and revealed that, he jumped down from the tree with a bottle in hand, which got broke and pieces entered in his palm. He was drunk and uncooperative and inspite, to arrest the haemorrhage hemostatic sutures were done, compressive bandages were put and to arrest further infections medicines were prescribed. The patient was advised to revisit next day and in alternative was advised to seek medical help in a higher specialist centre. The patient never heeded the advised, neglected further treatment and after lapse of great time went for further treatment. It is further claimed that, the operating surgeon has sent a communication dated 17.02.2017 (Annexure-R1) certifying the procedure of treatment was proper in the C.H.C. In the affidavit, the present incumbent at the C.H.C.(O.P.no.1) Dr. Ramesh, S/o Laxman Rao has further testified that, at the relevant time, one Dr.Vijayakumar Kauthale was the medical officer on contract basis and his submissions are based on the records available at the hospital. Any sort of negligence in treating the patient has been vehemently denied.
4. It appears, before approaching this Forum, the complainant has filed police complaint, approached news papers and also higher medical authorities, who after enquiry has given a clean chit to the O.P.no.1.
5. Both sides have filed documents listed at the end of this order trying fortifications of their respective stands. We are but perplexed by the C.T. scan images produced by the complainant vide Annexures D to Q. Excepting Annexures D to G, all other images pertain to different limbs of the body. We observe that, the complainant is engulfed in plaster of paris mould from the lower abdominal region down covering areas of spine, iliac arrest and gluetal region (bilateral) femoral region and also those of fibula and tibia up to the entire metatarsal region (b). Obviously the images so produced have no relevance to the injuries of the palm (L) and it is crystal clear that, the evidences are made up to buttress his case. We could have understood, if a medical negligence complaint was filed against Kalyani Hospital who examined the patient on 21.01.2017, but alas, the complainant has preferred to tickle a wrong cord in the harp.
6. Analysing the claims and counter claims of the rival parties and fixing our gaze on the documents being r elide uupon, we have to first attempt to rule as to whether the complaint is entertainable at all.
7. Notwithstanding anything demanded and opposed, we don’t find anything untoward in Annexures A & B produced by the complainant. What better treatment could have been given in a C.H.C. wherein the facilities, provisions and equipments available are of rudimentary nature.
Undoubtedly, as admitted by the O.P.no.1 he has paid a token registration fee of Rs.2/-. But, by that, he cannot be permitted to claim his status as a consumer. In the case I.M.A. V/s Shantha and another reported in 1996 AIR 550: 1995,SC (6) 651 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that, irrespective of paying a trivial amount as registration charges, a patient receiving free treatment in a Government Hopital, would be barred from claiming the status of consumer and maintain a medical negligence case. The decision has a binding effect on us as per Article 142 of the constitution of India and hence we are constrained to dismiss the case as not due.
::ORDER::
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There would be no orders as to cost or otherwise.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30th day of May 2019).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A- O.P.D. Slip
- Annexure.B– Prescription.
- Annexures.C,R,S.U.V & W- Prescriptions of Kalyani Hospital,Udgir
- Annexures.D to Q- C.T. Scan images of the complainant.
- Annexure.T- Police complaint
- Annexure.X- Diagnosis report of Lahane Hospital, Latur.
- Annexure.Y- Receipt of Shriram Pathology Laboratory,Latur.
- Annexure.Z- Discharge summary of Lahane Hospital,Latur.
- Annexure.Z1-Bill of Lahane Hospital.
- AnnexureZ2- (eight numbers) Bills
- AnnexureZ3- Notification of District Vigilante
- AnnexureZ4- Complaint of complainant dt.10.04.2017.
- AnnexureZ5- Observation sheet of Shri Sai Sannidhi, Physiotherapyp
Clinic
- AnnexureZ6- Complaint dt. 18.05.2018 to K.M.C
- AnnexureZ7- Office of copy of legal notice, dt.04.07.2018.
Document produced by the Opponent.
- Annexure.R.1- Communication to O.P.no.1, dt.19.02.2017 by Kalyani
Orthopedic centre and trauma hospital, Udgir.
- Annexure.R.2- Notice of Dist.Health and Family welfare office
dt.14.02.2017.
- Annexure.R.3- Notice dt.16.02.2017 of the Enquiry officer to O.P.no.1
- Annexure.R.4- Notice of enqury officer to O.P.no.1 dt.18.02.2017.
- AnnexureR. 5- Empowered (due) notice of the Enquiry officer
dt.06.04.2017
- Annexure.R6- Empowered (due) notice of the Enquiry officer
dt.22.04.2017.
- Annexure R7- Findings of the Enquiry Officer,dt.02.05.2017.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Dyanoba @ Gyanoba, S/o Vaijinath Panchal. (complainant).
Opponent/s.
- R.W.1- Ramesh, S/o Laxman Rao, Health Officer, Kamal Nagar,Dist.
Bidar.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
