PER DR. S.K. KAKADE, HON’BLE  PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.                This is  a complaint filed by the Complainants Mrs.Lata Wd/o Rajesh Kuril, & Anil, Sunil and Bharat all the sons of deceased Mr.Ramesh Kuril, all residents of Ravidasnagar, Yerkheda, Kamtee, Tah.& Distt. Nagpur against Dr.Ratan Roy, residing at Roy Hospital, Surgical and Laparoscopic Research Centre, Kamtee, Tah.& Distt.Nagpur, who is the sole Opposite Party. This is the complaint alleging medical negligence by the Opposite Party doctor while treating the deceased by name Mr.Lalit Ramesh Kuril aged 21 years, who was the son of Complainant No.1 Smt.Lata and brother of Complainant Nos.2,3 & 4 Anil & Sunil & Bharat. Aggrieved by the death of Lalit due to Dog bite, his mother alongwith three brothers have filed this complaint case.

2.             The brief facts of this complaint are as follows..

                 The deceased Lalit, aged 21 years was bitten by  stray dog on 29/12/2013 at about 4 p.m. He was immediately taken to Dr.Ratan Roy’s Hospital which was nearby for treatment. The dog was belonging to the locality where Lalit was residing and apparently, the dog was sick and not owned by anybody. It, being a Sunday, Dr.Roy was not present in the Hospital. The lady doctor on duty prescribed treatment and started with anti rabies injection from the same day. She advised course of five injections-Rabipur and also regular follow-up. Further patient was advised to keep watch on the dog for at least 10 days and report back if the dog dies. Deceased Lalit, according to the advise, visited the hospital of the Opposite Party on 1^st January,2014, 6^th January,2014, 10^th January,2014 and 13^th January,2014 and received injection Rabipur and the dressing of the wound was done each time. In the follow-up treatment, it was particularly noted that Dr.Roy was present and was personally giving the treatment. The family members of Lalit observed that lalit had a fever on 25^th January,2014 and he was behaving abnormally. Hence he was taken to the hospital of the Opposite Party where, the doctor examined him and advised to take the patient to Government Medical College, Nagpur for further diagnosis and treatment of Rabies.

3.                Accordingly, Lalit was admitted in a ward of Government Medical College, Nagpur (for the sake of brevity hereinafter called as GMC).  However, while admitting, the Casualty Medical Officer (for the sake of brevity hereinafter called as CMO) noted that it was a Cass III dog bite which Lalit had sustained. He also noted that there is no history of giving anti rabies immunoglobulin vaccine. Thereafter, Lalit became serious and died on 27/1/2014. The dead body was handed over to the relatives without performing Post-mortem examination, informing the relatives that there is a possibility of spreading of rabies if the post mortem examination is conducted.

4.                After going through the noting written by CMO of GMC, Nagpur in which, it was noted that it was a Class III bite and Lalit did not receive anti rabies immunoglobulin vaccine, it was alleged that as this anti rabies vaccine was not given to Lalit, his rabies could not be prevented and as a result, he died due to negligence of Dr.Roy. Seeking compensation for the death of Lalit, the Complainants have filed this complaint against Dr.Ratan Roy.   

5.                It is noted from the record that though the complaint was filed in the year 2015, from 21^st December,2018, nobody appeared on behalf of the complainants barring on 8^th of August,2019, on which date, Adv.Joshi had appeared for the Complainants. The Opposite party was represented, however, remained absent when the complaint was taken up for final hearing. Considering the continuous absence of both the sides and the oldness of the matter, this appeal was reserved for final order on the basis of the documents filed on record and pleadings, evidence affidavits and the medical record filed by the parties.

6.                We have gone through the record before the Commission. The complainants have alleged negligence in the treatment of deceased Lalit for which they have sought compensation of Rs.80 lac along with interest thereon @18% per annum from the date of treatment of the deceased till realization of amount of compensation, further alongwith Rs.1 lac for mental agony and torture and Rs.50,000/- on account of medical expenses  for treatment. The complainants have claimed all these amounts with 18% interest per annum.

7.                After going through the rival pleadings in the record of both the parties, following points arises for determination..

Sr.No.                              issue                                                      Finding

1.       Whether the Complainants have proved that

they are Consumers of Opposite Party ?Yes

2.        Whether the Complainants have proved the

Negligence of Opposite Party Dr. Roy in treating

deceased Lalit ?No.

3.       Whether the Complainants are entitled for

Compensation ? No.

4.       What order ?                                                    As per final order..

  REASONING

As to Point No.1

8.                Along with the complaint, the complainants have filed prescriptions given by Dr.Roy Hospital as well as the medical record of the treatment. They have also filed the receipts of consultation fees.  Reference-page 15 to 20 of the complaint compilation. In view of the fees received by the Opposite Party, the relationship of Consumer and Service provider is established and hence the complainants are “Consumers” of the Opposite Party Dr.Ratan Roy. Hence the answer to the point No.1 is AFFIRMATIVE

As to Point N.2

9.      The complainants have also filed the record of treatment given by Government Medical College, Nagpur. Reference Page 24 to 42. On perusal of medical record, when the deceased was brought to the casualty of GMC, Nagpur on 25/1/2014, the CMO noted down the history and his observation that there was abnormal behavior along with fever with Chills with diagnosis as hydrophobia. The treatment was started on 25/1/2014 at 4.15 p.m. The patient Lalit was having fear for water. In due course of treatment, Lalit became serious and he died on  27/1/2014, at 5.45 a.m. in spite of taking resuscitative measures by doctors.

10.    The Opposite Party filed written statement opposing the complaint and replied to each and every paragraph of the complaint. According to the submissions in the written statement, the Opposite Party denied that deceased Lalit had sustained Class III dog bite injury which warranted anti rabies immunoglobulin vaccination.  The Opposite party Dr.Ratan Roy had personally examined and followed up the treatment given to the patient, and the injury, at that time, hardly could be classified as Class II bite, and, as per standard recognized medical practice, the opposite party doctor prescribed treatment and administered course of injection Rabipur as per schedule. The Opposite party Dr.Roy contended that CMO of GMC has recorded the finding without knowing the details and wrongly recording the dimensions of the teeth marks present on the thigh of Lalit, after one month of incidence.  Hence the Opposite party termed the note written by CMO of GMC that it was a Class III dog bite, as merely hypothetical.  The CMO of GMC also mentioned that there was continuous bleeding, but actually that was not the case.  Hence Dr.Roy denied that there was any negligence on his part in treating Lalit.

11.            During the course, the Opposite Party Dr.Roy applied for seeking expert opinion from Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. But this Commission had rejected that application on 29^th January,2020.

12.              The evidence affidavit, which is filed by the complainant, mentions the chronology of the events from dog bite to the death of Lalit, details of filing the complaint by the complainants with the police authorities and also to the Maharashtra Medical Council. There is no other expert opinion or medical literature supporting the contentions of the complainant to prove that Dr.Roy was negligent in giving treatment to Lalit, is filed on record.

13.              The evidence affidavit filed by the Opposite party Dr.Roy again mentions the course of treatment and also reiterates that the dog-bite was not Class III but it was Class II and there was only abrasion due to teeth on thigh of Lalit, since he was wearing Jeans Pant. Further, the OP has filed the order of Maharashtra Medical Council, Mumbai dated 13^th June,2019, which states that after carefully going through the documents, medical record, the treatment case papers, it came to the conclusion that the treatment rendered by the Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) was in conformity with the treatment protocol. The executive committee of Maharashtra Medical Council unanimously found that there was no medical negligence on the part of RMP and hence the complaint before it was dismissed and Dr.Ratan Roy was exonerated from the allegation made by the Complainants in complaint No.MMC/DC/30/2014.

14.              In view of the contentions in the documents filed by both the parties, it is noted that the complainants have not filed any document to prove that the Opposite Party Dr.Roy was negligent in providing treatment to deceased Lalit. Hence in our view the complainants have failed to prove the medical negligence by Dr.Roy in providing treatment to the deceased Lalit. Hence the answer to the point No.2 is in the NEGATIVE.

As to Point No.3 :

15.              In view of the above discussion we do not find that the complainants are entitled for any compensation and hence the point No.3 is answered in NEGATIVE.

As to Point No.4 :-

16.              As the medical negligence on the part of Opposite party is not proved, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order..

                                                      FINAL ORDER

1. The Consumer Complaint No.CC/15/78 stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
2. Copies of the order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.