The complainant’s case which is germane in the petition U/s 12 of C.P. Act and other relevant documents can be reproduced in a precise manner as herein under.
That the complainant Nirmal Chandra Das who was an employee of Shyamnagar Jute Mill was admitted in ESI Hospital, Gourhati under Bhadresswar PS for trauma in his right side hip joint which he sustained on 20.1.2011. On 25.1.2011 the complainant Nirmal Chandra Das was taken to X-ray department of the hospital. It is alleged that the X-ray apparatus fell down on the abdomen of the petitioner causing trauma over lower abdomen. He failed burning micturation and hematuria. Since then the petitioner is in the hospital for four months.
It is further allegation that the complainant was admitted on several occasion from 8.6.11 to 11.6.2011, from 29.8.11. to 3.9.2011 and 1711.11 to 22.11.2011 with the same problem. Accordingly, the complainant suffered with ailments during the year 2011. But he was not cured and still suffering.
Later the complainant was treated by ESI Hospital, Sealdah and still now the complainant is under treatment. It is specifically complaint that ‘due to negligence on the part of the X-ray Department of Gourhati ESI Hospital the petitioner has sustained all this ailments’ and sustained damages to his sexual abilities. The complainant sent notice to the O.P. hospital and thereafter having no remedy filed this case before this Forum under C.P. Act on 28.12.2012 with prayer embodied in para-15 of complaint.
The O.P. after getting summons has appeared before this Forum. O.P. has filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations in toto. O.P.’s defence is that ( Para-17 of W.V.) that complainant was admitted in ESI Hospital at Gourhati on 20.1.2011. They diagnosis trauma ‘lateral side of left hip joint’. Dr. K.N. Banerjee was on duty. Doctor prescribed X-ray hip Joint(left) on that date. On 25.1.2011 the patient was examined by Dr. Debasish Mukherjee, GDMO, Department of Surgery complaining of pain in supra public region by the patient. X-ray was done on that date. Dr. Subhra Chatterjee examined the patient and advised necessary medicine. There was no fracture seen in X-ray plate noted by Dr. Subhra Chatterjee.
It is also defense case that there has been no history of trauma following the X-ray apparatus fell down on the abdomen as per Bed Head Ticket but complaint of Dysuria and necessary medicine was advice. On 9.2.2011 the patient was referred to physician for examination. On 12.2.2011 the patient was examined by A.K.Sarkar, GDMO, Dept. of Medicine. The doctor also advised for necessary medicine. The USG which was done revealed that liver cyst and cyst on left kidney (as per bed head ticket). On 19.2.2011 the patient was examined by General Surgeon, Dr. S.Banerjee and patient was referred to Urology Department, ESI Hospital, Maniktala. On 16.4.2011 the patient was referred to Dr. S.Banerjee, General Surgeon. Thereafter the patient was referred to Charnok Hospital on 25.4.2011 by Subhra Chatterjee for better management of dysuria. The patient was again sent back to ESI Hospital, Sealdah on 28.4.2011.
Afterward the patient was again admitted in ESI Hospital on 8.6.2011 through emergency by ERMO, Dr. Debashis Mukherjee. Urethral dilation was done on 9.6.2011 by Dr. R.N. Ghosh, General Surgeon. The patient was discharged on 11.6.2011.
This complainant was again admitted on 17.11.2011 in Gourhati ESI Hospital for enlarged prostate with headache. He was given medicine on 18.11.2011 and was referred to ESI Hospital, Sealdah.
It is further case of the O.P. that there had been no such incident claimed by the patient Nirmal Chandra Das occurred on 25.1.2011. It is also version of the O.P. that the patient was admitted in ESI Hospital on 20.1.2011 with diagnosis trauma lateral side of left hip joint by ERMO, Dr. K.N.Banerjee.
The O.P. alleged that service of the government doctor does not come within the purview of C.P. Act. Hence, the case be dismissed with cost.
From the O.P’s case stand that O.P. took sufficient steps for treatment of the patient from 20.1.2011 to last 18.11.2011. The complainant treated not only in the ESI Hospital Gourhati but also different doctors of ESI Hospital Sealdah has treated the complainant in different occasion. Even the patient was sent to Charnak Hospital for treatment. The diseases as per para-17 is connected with Urology and Kidney not fracture of left side of the hip joint.
The complainant has filed documents mainly discharge certificate, injury report, insurance certificate, advocate’s letter and other documents.
The O.P. has also filed BHT, evidence on oath, discharge certificate and other certificate. O.P. Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Gourhati, filled affidavit in chief on oath.
Both side filed interrogatories. The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit.
The complainant has filed oral evidence of another witness Mahendra Rai, aged 75.
Point for determination:
- Whether the complainant admitted under O.P. for treatment trauma right side hip joint?
- Whether X-ray machine caused injury in his lower abdomen on 25.1.2011?
- Whether there was deficiency in treatment of O.P. during four months?
- If the service of the O.P. comes or do not comes within the purview of C.P. Act?
- Whether complainant succeeds in establishing his case of negligence of O.Ps.?
DECISION WITH REASON
Point no.1: It is admitted position that complainant took admission under O.P. for treatment in hip joint. But contradiction appears with left hip joint or right hip joint. But fact remains that the complainant took admission under O.P. for treatment. So, point No.1 go for the complainant.
Point No.4: It is settled position that service of the O.P. comes within the purview of C.P. Act.
Point No.2, 3 & 5 are taken together for the brevity and convenience of discussion as the three issues are involved with common fact and law.
The complainant in his oral evidence stated the fact of injury and history of taking admission under O.P. The complainant also stated that he took admission on several occasion and on 25.1.2011 when complainant was brought to X-ray hall for making X-ray over hip joint, the X-ray machine was fallen on lower abdomen causing injury. In the complaint there is no whisper regarding nature of injury sustained by him due to sudden fall of X-ray machine on his lower abdomen. But he stated that he was suffered from heamaturia and burning micturation. He also stated that he took prolonged treatment and repeated admission in the hospital caused by injury which was due to falling of X-ray machine in his lower abdomen. In support of his contention he has adduced oral evidence of another person Mahendra Rai, who was stated to be present with the complainant in the X-ray Department. He stated the incident took place. The X-ray machine failed down on his abdomen. The incident happened before this patient. He again stated X-ray room is used for admitted patient only.
But in the written complaint nor in the evidence in chief the complainant has made any whisper regarding the presence of Mahendra Rai at the time of X-ray. No papers of treatments of that patient has been filed by the complainant to establish truth fullness of his version that at the time of incident of fallen machine on his abdomen another patient Mahendra was with him. The complainant has filed Bead Head Ticket but the complainant is to adduce any sought of evidence for the presence of PW-2 at the time of occurrence.
The complainant has come before this Forum with the first story of falling part of machine on lower abdomen at the time of X-ray. So, burden of prove is upon the complainant to prove his fact for establishing the incident and fact of incident. Bed head ticket does not show any injury on the abdomen. It is very common that at the time of X-ray or any examination one relative of house must be present. In this case of our hand there is no disclosure of such fact of presence of any house mate son or daughter or wife with him in the hospital. The document filed by the complainant also does not show that any near relative or friend or colleague are present just before or after the alleged incident of falling of machine. It is general conduct of a man that herein the incident of such kind of machine falling other relative must come to the hospital for visit. But in the record of our hand there is no mention of presence of any relative or persons of the complainant’s family. This creates doubt regarding the veracity of the statement of the complainant which is not corroborated by any cogent, acceptable, reliable and eye witness.
The O.P. has adduced evidence on oath versus Oath. The O.P. Doctor denied the allegation. The totality evidence of O.P. that complainant took admission for treatment and they have taken all kind of measurement for treatment of the complainant. The doctor stated that since 25.1.2011, 27.1.2011, 9.2.2011, 12.2.2011, 19.2.2011, 16.4.2011, 25.4.2011, 28.4.2011, 8.6.2011, 17.11.2011, 18.11.2011 and thereafter many days the O.P. and the ESI Hospital, Sealdah took sufficient steps to alleviate the sufferings of the complainant, who primarily were suffering from urine problem and prostate problem along with cyst in kidney. The doctor evidence on oath as well as the bead head ticket if examined chronologically it would revealed that the hospital authority left no stone unturned for the adequate treatment of the complainant with the help of different expert doctor of ESI Hospital, Sealdah and Charnok Hospital one after another. The complainant himself contradicted by telling left hip joint pain or right hip joint pain, X-ray revealed no injury in the hip joint.
Emerging in the evidence adduced by both sides it is surfaced that complainant after illness was admitted under the O.P. doctor. O.P. doctor took every possible steps for treatment by keeping the patient admitted in hospital. The treatment extended for four months and O.P. took every possible steps for treatment of the complainant as per their diagnosis and as per USG report, X-ray report and other pathological report. The complainant at the time of argument failed to point out how and for what point of time the O.P. is responsible for deficiency in service and negligence of service or O.P. did not provide adequate medical facilities i.e. medicine, treatment, pathological test and other accessories as per parameters of treatment. It also appears from the evidence of O.P. that ESI Hospital employed expert and efficient doctor for the cause of the complainant to remove the suffering of the complainant without charging any money. The complainant being repeatedly asked to point out any negligence or deficiency in service or want of due care and attention of the O.P. in imparting fruitful treatment to the complainant.
Therefore, after a prolonged swimming over the every corner of the record, every line of the record, facts and circumstances brought out of the record and implied and express material in record and considering the application of mind and steps taken by the doctors this Forum is of strong conviction that material in record fails to inspire confidence in the mind of the Forum that the complainant has succeed to establish his case of deficiency in service of doctor, O.P. Accordingly, all the points are discussed and disposed of mentioned herein before.
The neat result of discussion is that the case fails on contest. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as per concerned act. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
