This appeal is directed against the final order of Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar dated 31/8/2017 in referenced to cc no. 98 of 2015. The fact of the case in nut shell is that one aged woman Renubala Chakrabarty since deceased received serious injury on chest, shoulder and hip due to her fall on the earth on 24/8/2015 at about 7.15 AM and she was taken to Dr. B Laguri, the Orthopaedics specialist at Coochbehar and said Dr. Laguri referred the patient Renubala Chakrabarty to Doctor Saha for treatment. Dr. Saha admitted the patient in his hospital, started treatment on the same day that is on 24/8/2018 at 12/15 PM. At about 2.50 PM, One junior Doctor Asutosh Chakrabarty administered an injection to the patient Renubala Chakrabarty to I.V. fluid and after the said injection, the condition of the patient was deteriorating and could not make responding to call and talk. The patient was lying without treatment in the hospital till 11.30 PM on that day without any care and at about 11.30 PM one stuff of the said hospital, came to give the patient life support and after half an hour it was declared that the patient had already expired. After the death, Dr. S Saha reported the patient party that the patient had Myocardial infraction for which she died due to cardio respiratory failure. Dr. Saha was paid rupees 17,000 for the treatment of the patient at his hospital.

The further case is that the treatment was done in a negligent manner and there was deficiency of service from their part. Proper diagnostics was not done. After the death of the patient , the patient party claimed immediately all treatment papers from the Op no. 1 and 2 but they intentionally did not deliver the said papers and intentionally harassed them. Ultimately on 30/9/2015 total 14 sheets of medical papers were handed over to the patient party. So for medical negligence and deficiency of service, the daughter of the deceased Renubala Chakrabarty, has filed this instant consumer complaint case.

The complaint was registered and was admitted in due course and notice of consumer complaint was served on OP no. 1 and OP no. 2, OP no. 2 is the hospital run by the OP no. 1 Both OP no. 1 and 2 jointly submitted the WV and denied all the material allegations and contended there was no negligent on their part regarding the treatment of Renubala Chakrabarty and there was no deficiency of service in rendering the administrative of the treatment of the patient.

The further case of the OP are that the deceased Renubala Chakrabarty was 83 years in age and was taken to his hospital in the critical condition and after initial examination and clinical check-up, the patient was provided emergency medical support and the condition of the patient was well explained to the patient party and full life saving system with monitering facilities was provided to the patient and necessary emergency treatment was done at utmost care. But unfortunately, the patient due to her precarious condition, has ultimately died and the OP was nothing to do to prevent the said death and the frivolous consumer complaint  should be dismissed.

After recording the evidence of both sides, and after considering relevant factors, the Ld. Forum has passed the impugned order where it was observed that there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no. 1 and 2 and for that reason, they were asked to pay the compensation.

Being aggrieved with the said order, this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum has failed to appreciate the factual propositions of the merit of the case and the judgment of the Ld. Forum suffer s from irregularity, with full of errors and liable to be dismissed. The appeal admitted on merit and the complainant R Chakraborty was served notice to contest the appeal. The respondent had refused to receive the notice and then the case was reassigned to this Bench for disposal of the appeal on merit. After reassignment of the case, to secure the appearance of the respondent, the appellant was asked to serve another notice upon the respondent Rekha Chakraborty who was informed about the existence of the appeal here and the notice of the appeal was communicated to her. But in spite of that, the respondent side did not contest the appeal. Accordingly the appeal was heard. At the time of registration of the appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission at Calcutta Bench, the memo of appeal was accompanied with condonation of delay petition. The Hon’ble Calcutta bench provisionally admitted the appeal pending the disposal of the condonation of delay petition. At the time of hearing the appeal, the condonation of delay petition is also heard.

Decision with reasons,

During the course of hearing argument, the appellant has submitted the written notes of argument and mentioned on the part of the appellant that patient Renubala Chakrabarty was brought to the hospital of OP no. 1 in a precarious condition who was refereed by Dr. Laguri and said Dr. Laguir was not made party to the case who has examined the patient initially and thereafter referred the patient to this doctor. OP no. 1.  So, in absence of Dr. Laguri, there was no possible chance  to adjudicate the dispute smoothly.  But Ld. Forum has failed to understand the exact position of law in spite of the fact that before the Ld. Forum this point was agitated on the part of the appellant but that matter was not discussed in the final order of the Ld. Forum.

It is further argued that the complainant has no locus standi to raise the consumer dispute as because she was not present at the time of treatment of the deceased Renubala at the hospital of Op no. 2 as the patient was brought to the Op no. 1  by her son Dilip Kumar Chakraborty and he was well aware about the condition of the patient and he knows very well that there was no deficiency of service on the part of Dr Saha and knowing this matter, he has obstained himself from submitting consumer dispute before the Ld. Forum and this Son Dilip Kumar Chakraborty was also not party to this case and his evidences also could not be collected to gather the knowledge of actual happening about the deficiency relating to the treatment of Renubala.

It is further submitted that OP no. 1 has diagnosed the patient on the basis of the history of the patient and ST segment levitation in ECG Troponin Test and considering urgency, the medicines Streptokinase for Myocardial infraction and best treatment was provided to the patient. There was no medical negligence on the part of Dr. Saha.

It is further argued that there is no medical expert opinion to hold whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the treating doctor or not. Ld. Forum has not obtained any medical opinion report before adjudicating the instant consumer disputes.

In this case, the complainant Rekha is daughter of deceased Renubala and she had every right to file a consumer complaint as one of the heir of the deceased. So, Ld. Forum has rightly observed that the complainant Rekha Chakraborty was empowered by the provision of CP Act, 1986 to raise the instant consumer disputes. In this case, the allegations levelled against Op no. 1 Dr Saha is that  he did not properly render good medical services to the patient and his junior one Ashutosh has administered an injection of high risk like streptokinase and thereafter left the patient uncared for considerable period and did not look after the patient. After the push of the injection the condition of the patient was gradually deteriorating. At last, the patient put into ventilation system at the time of last grasp. Ultimately the condition of the patient became fatal. Ld. Forum has observed that application of streptokinase in case of aged patient above 75 years is very risk one and generally this type of injections are applied if the patient had heart attack within 12 hours. Supportive evidence was not there on the part of the complainant side whether such application of injection caused the fatal to  the patient. No medical expert opinion has been obtained in this case. The Op in this case in their written version categorically mentioned that the patient was suffering in acute Myocardial infraction while she fell down on the floor and it was very much understood by Dr. Laguri on the very date on 24/8/2015 and he then and then referred the patient to Dr. Saha as Cardiologist. Ld. Forum in the judgment has categorically observed that application of Streptokinase in a case of myocardial infection is not at all prohibited. If it is diagnosed on the basis of the history of the patient and ST Segment elevation in ECG through Troponin Test was negative. Ld. Forum never observed in the judgment that there was negligent in treatment of the patient on the part of the OP no. 1 Dr. Subhas Saha. Ld. Forum has observed the negligence on the part of the Ops to that score that relevant medical papers was not handed over to the patient party immediate the death of the patient and for that reason, Ld. Forum hold that there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP no. 1 and 2. The alleged treatment was held in Hospital of Dr. Saha under his care in the afternoon of 24/8/2015 and she has expired within 12 hours from the time of admission. Before her death, some clinical tests was also held which indicate the process of treatment was continuing and there was no negligence on the part of the attending Doctors. Here in this case, the evidence of Laguri who for the first time examined the patient on the date of the incident was very much essential to adjudicate the instant consumer dispute but unfortunately Dr. Laguri was not made party to the case and his evidence also could not be collected to ascertain the truth. The medical papers was handed over to the patient party on 30/9/2015 and the allegation is that the Ops to this case has intentionally did not hand over the material documents in connection with the treatment of the patient as soon the dead body was handed over to the patient party and they have subsequently manufactured the said documents and for that reason, the same was handed over on 30/9/2015 that is after more than one month. There is no explanation on the part the Ops/appellant as to why such inordinate delay was there on their part in handing over the material documents to the patient party and for that reason, Ld. Forum has found that there was huge deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op no. 1 and 2. OP no. 1 and 2 in their written version has not clearly explained as to why they have delivered the relevant documents to the patient party after a long delay. Rather in their written version, they remained consciously silent towards the allegation levelled against them regarding the dilatory tactics of the Ops in handing over the material documents. So, after hearing the appellant side, and after going through the entire case records and after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case we find that there was no gross irregularity in the adjudicating process of the Ld. Forum. So no interference is needed towards the said adjudication.

Accordingly the appeal fails.

Hence, it is,

Ordered,

That the appeal be and the same is dismissed ex-parte without any cost. The final order of Ld. DCDRF Coochbehar dated 31/08/2017 in CC no. 98/ of 2015 is hereby affirmed.

Let the order be communicated to the concern Forum and also to be supplied to the parties free of cost.