West Bengal

Bankura

CC/125/2013

Indranath Maji - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. S. Sarkar - Opp.Party(s)

Tapan Dey

25 Jan 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 125/2013

                                                     Date of Filing:   18/12/2013                                             

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Tapan De

For the O.P.:  Ld. Advocate Banamali Choudhuri / Ld. Advocate Ardhendu Sekhar Ghosh

Complainant  

Sri Indranath Maji,  S/o Late Bimal Chandra Maji, R/o Aradanga, Dist- Bankura

Opposite Party 

Dr. S. Sarkar, Mediscan (Ultra Sound Medical Diagnostic), 442/3 Rabindra Sarani, Near Sadar Police Station, Dist. Bankura

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

Order No.74

Dated:25-01-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument. The Prayer for adjournment on behalf of the O.P. is considered but rejected.

After hearing argument from the Complainant the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that his wife Tanusree Maji visited Dr. Parimal Pal for confirmation of her pregnancy who advised Ultra Sono Graphy (USG) and accordingly the same was done by O.P./Dr. on 01/04/2013 at HARDIK Nursing Home, Bankura with the report that cardiac pulsation could not be observed and Intrauterine early pregnancy. Further USG was done on 06/04/2013 by O.P. No.1 at the same Nursing Home and this time it was reported that it is a case of missed abortion. On further visit O.P./Dr. offered abortion tablet but she did not take it for obvious reasons. Thereafter the Complainnt’s wife was examined by Dr. Anirban Mondal who after thorough examination opined that it is not a case of mis-conception and prescribed medicines and the USG report dated: 24/07/2013 and thereafter on 02/10/2013 done as per advice of Dr. Anirban Mondal was in favour of normal pregnancy. Ultimately on 22/11/2013 the Complainant’s wife was admitted at Cure Hospital due to labour pain and she gave birth to a female baby on 25/11/2013 by LUCS. The Complainant being dissatisfied with the opinion in the USG report at the instance of O.P./Dr. has approached this Commission for adequate compensation.                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                                        Contd……p/2

Page: 2

O.P. contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that as cardiac pulsation was not observed on USG report dated: 01/04/2013 and 06/04/2013 such impression was expressed as missed abortion and there is nothing wrong with such opinion.

                                                                                     -: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents from both sides and on perusal of Affidavit-in-Chief of the Complainant the Commission finds that the Complainant’s wife was initially under treatment and check up under O.P./Dr. who after consulting USG report twice done at his own instance could not find cardiac pulsation and accordingly opinion was given as a case of missed abortion. O.P./Dr. could not get any scope for treatment of the Complainant’s wife following the above impression and opinion and as such the Complainant’s wife has not suffered any harm or injury to her general health and state of pregnancy. Mere an impression/opinion if not acted upon by a treating Doctor cannot be considered as an act of medical negligence and deficiency in service even after such impression or opinion proves wrong subsequently. No contrary medical opinion is forthcoming on record which can justify that without observance of cardiac pulsation on USG report normal pregnancy can be inferred.

For the reasons stated above the Complainant’s case fails for want of merit.                                                                                                                                                             

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.

 

 ____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER