The brief facts of the complainant case, is that, the complainant is a business man and he suffered abdomen colic / pain. That on 03/11/2015 the complainant registered his name as a patient under the O.P. No 1 and O.P No 1 took charge of Rs. 2/- (two) from the complainant. After examining the O.P No. 2, complainant admitted under O.P. No. 1 vide Registration No. 19530 dated 03/11/2015. After admission O.P No. 2 advised to the complainant to examine his whole abdomen through ultrasonography of Birpara S.G. Hospital. After ultrasonography prepared a report and that report the O.P No. 1 stated that the complainant has “Few Microliths (1-2 mm) noted in upper X Mid polar regions”. After examining the report by the engaged doctor the O.P. No. 2 started treatment of the complainant. After 4-5 days complainant noticed that his abdominal colic / pain unbearable and the complainant regularly stated that fact before the O.P. No. 2 but O.P No. 2 did not pay any heed to the complainant. On 08/11/2015 O.Ps referred the complainant from Birpara S.G. Hospital to Sanjivine for re-examining his whole abdomen. Complainant surprised that after seeing the report of Sanjivine dated 08/11/2015 in which the said diagnostic unit clearly reported that “An appendix is distended from the abdomen of the complainant”. As a result the complainant suffered in unbearable pain in his abdomen and at the same time O.Ps discharge the complaint without further treatment. On 09/11/2015 complainant finding no other alternatives he admitted Falakata Nursing Home under Dr. U.K. Halder for his treatment and on 11/11/2015 the said nursing home as well as Dr. U.K. Halder discharged the complainant but in that period of time the said nursing home concerned did not conduct any operation because in that period of time the appendix was “lump” and Dr. U.K. Halder prescribed some medicine and advised the complainant to get himself again admitted at the said nursing home after laps of ½ months. During that period the complainant took said medicine which was prescribed by the Dr. U.K. Halder. On 18/03/2016 the complainant examined his abdomen through USG from DEVI DIAGONOSTIC CENTER, COOCHBEHAR and SUN DIAGONOSTIC CENTER, FALAKATA. Both diagnostic centers reported an appendicitis was detected in the abdomen of the complainant. Ultimately on 19/12/2016 the complainant again got admitted at Falakata Nursing Home under Dr. M. Barman for the purpose of operation of appendix and on 20/12/2016 Dr. M. Barman conducted an operation and the appendix was removed and ultimately on 25/12/2016 the complainant was discharged from the Falakata Nursing Home. On 03/11/2015 to 08/11/2015 the complainant was treated by the O.Ps wrongly. There is a deficiency in service from the part of the O.Ps. Due to whimsical acts of the O.Ps the complainant is passing his days with a havoc mental agony and harassment and suffering monitory loss and the complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- for his harassment and mental agony and also Rs. 50,000/- for his litigation costs and also Rs. 40,000/- for his negligence in service.
Both the O.Ps have filed their written version separately. O.P No. 1 in his written version denies all the allegations made by the complainant against him. He stated that on 03/11/2015 total 434 number patients were treated as outdoor patient under O.P No.1 being serial number of the tickets 93494 to 93927 and the registered of the State General Hospital Birpara does not reflect any name of the complainant. So the question of taking charges of Rs. 2/- from the complainant has described is to be proved by the complainant. He further stated that on that date the complainant was brought before the emergency department with a complaint of heavy stomach pain and accordingly the attending doctors then and there admitted the complainant as an indoor patient under bed head ticket bearing No. 9539 without receiving any money and just after admission the patient was given proper treatment. The attending doctors advise for USG and on that very day the USG was done as the said examination was not made in anti stomach and it was emergent in nature for which the stomach might be fall as a result that report showed otherwise. The patient was provided with proper treatment and as the patient was gave proper response on 06/11/2015 he was discharged. There was no deficiency in service from the part of the O.P No. 1. There is no cause of action. He has prayed for dismissal of the case .
O.P No. 2 in his written version as denied all the allegations and stated similarly as stated by O.P No. 1 that the patient was admitted in emergency. No fees was taken. Proper treatment was done and as he gave the response of the treatment he was discharged on 06/11/2015. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the O.P No. 2. He has also prayed for dismissed of the case.
In this context, the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of the case.
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 there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Complainant files evidence-on-affidavit and written argument along with documents and the O.Ps also files written version, evidence-on-affidavit and written argument along with documents in support of their case.
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.
Point No. 1 :- According to the complaint the complainant as treated at the Govt. Hospital of O.P No. 1 by O.P No. 2 and according to him he has paid Rs. 2/- for registration of his name in the record of O.P No. 1. On the other hand both the O.Ps stated that the complainant was admitted in the emergency department and he did not pay any money for registration. Here the complainant did not file the outdoor ticket or the payment receipt of Rs. 2/- if he admitted in the emergency department in the Govt. Hospital no registration was required and the entire treatment was done free of cost. If we accept the case of the complainant that he has paid Rs. 2/- for registered his name in the record of O.Ps then we find registration cost does not amount to the fees for the doctor or treatment. The O.Ps stated in the outdoor registered the name of the complainant is not there which means he was not treated at outdoor and admittedly his treatment was done in emergency department and thereafter as a indoor patient under O.P No. 2 . No cost for treatment of fees of the doctor paid by the complainant in the Govt. Hospital or Govt. doctor. So in that case the complainant is not the consumer according to the act as his treatment was done free of cost. So we find that this is not maintainable and as the complainant is not the consumer.
Point No. 2:- It is seen from this case record as well as the evidence of the complainant that the complainant resides and the office of the O.Ps situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case as per section 34(d) of the C.P. Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 3 & 4:- In this case the O.Ps stated that the complainant was admitted with severe abdominal pain and he was treated by the O.P No. 2 and after two or three days he was discharged as he recovered from the above pain. But the complainant stated that the O.P No. 2 did not treat him properly that after two days of his discharged he again suffer said abdominal pain and went to O.P No. 2 who refer him to Sanivani for USG and in that USG the appendix was enlarged and then he was treated at Falakata Nursing Home by Dr. U.K. Halder and then the operation was done by Dr. M. Barman and the complainant was cure. We find that the treatment of O.P No. 2 was not wrong. The complainant was not misguided by the O.P No. 2. We do not find any deficiency in service from the part of the O.P No. 2. That a part as the complainant is not the consumer according to the act and he is not entitled to get any benefit from this case and the case is liable to be dismissed. .
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 on contest without costs as the complainant is not the consumer according to the Consumer Protection Act.
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
