Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/204

BASANT KHANBILKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SWASTHYA HOSPITAL HEART AND MED. CARE CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

27 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 204 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 18.01.2016 passed in C.C.No.151/2015 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

VASANT KHANWALKAR,

S/O LATE ATMARAM KHANWALKAR,

R/O NEAR LAXMI HOTEL, SHINDE KI CHHAWNI,

LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                        … APPELLANT.

 

                        Versus

 

1. SWASTHYA HOSPITAL HEART AND

    MEDICAL CARE CENTRE,

    THROUGH MANAGER/DIRECTOR,

    SWASTHYA HOSPITAL HEART AND

    MEDICAL CARE CENTRE,

    JINSI NALA NUMBER-2, LASHKAR,

    GWALIOR (M.P.)

 

2. DR.RAJEEV AGRAWAL,

    SWASTHYA HOSPITAL HEART AND

    MEDICAL CARE CENTRE,

    JINSI NALA NUMBER-2, LASHKAR,

    GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                                      … RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                                 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondents.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 27.12.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:              

                   This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

 

-2-

Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.151/2015 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) are that the complainant’s wife Smt. Rajni Khanwalkar was under treatment of Dr. S. G. Indarpurkar. On instructions of Dr. S. G. Indarpurkar he got admitted his wife in opposite party no.1-hospital on 05.02.2015 where she was treated under the guidance of Dr. S. G. Indarpurkar. When her health condition deteriorates after being given a glucose bottle, treatment papers of earlier doctor Dr. S. G. Indarpurkar were asked for and examined by opposite party no.2 Dr. Rajeev Agrawal. It is alleged that due to wrong treatment of opposite party no.2, his wife died on 08.02.2015 at about 4.45 am.  The main allegation of the complainant is that despite making repeated requests the opposite parties, hospital & treating doctor did not provide him treatment papers of earlier Dr. S. G. Indarpurkar and the treatment papers, case sheet, reports of the opposite party hospital which as per Medical Council Act, 1956 and Indian Medical Council Regulations 2002 should have been provided within a period of 72 hours from the request made. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties seeking compensation.

 

-3-

3.                The opposite parties resisted the complaint stating that all the relevant medical treatment papers, case sheets, reports were timely provided to the complainant of which he has given receipt on 08.02.2015 itself. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission without considering the evidence available on record erroneously dismissed the complaint. The District Commission did not consider this aspect that original treatment papers of earlier doctor were not provided and on demand only photocopies of the same were provided. He argued that despite repeated requests and even after registered notice, the opposite parties did not provide medical treatment papers of his wife.  The

District Commission has committed grave error in dismissing the complaint. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the appeal be allowed.

6.                We have perused the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents filed by the parties. The complainant had filed his affidavit along with documents marked as C-1 to C-22. The opposite parties had filed affidavit of opposite party no.2 Dr. Rajeev Agrawal along with documents R-1 to 66, R-2 and R-3.

 

-4-

7.                It is an admitted fact that the complainant’s wife admitted in opposite party no.1-hospital on 05.02.2015 where the opposite party no.2-doctor treated her and during treatment on 08.02.2015 she died.  The main grievance of the complainant that despite repeated requests the opposite parties did not provide him the medical papers within a period of 72 hours as per Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Indian Medical Council Regulations 2002. C-20 is alleged application dated 14.02.2015 sent by registered post by which the complainant sought medical treatment papers of his wife deceased patient Smt. Ranjana Khanwalkar from the opposite party no.2. doctor.

8.                On the other hand, opposite parties have submitted that all the medical treatment papers of the deceased-patient have already been provided to the complainant.

9.                On going through the document C-20 at page 77 we find that the complainant sought all case sheets and treatment papers by registered letter dated 14.02.2015, whereas from the document R-1(36) at page 117 and R-3 at page 150 it is evident that the complainant has given receipts. On the said receipts, there is signature of the complainant stating that he has received death certificate and duplicate copy of all treatment papers of deceased-patient.

 

-5-

10.              The allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties did not provide him original treatment paper of earlier Dr. S. G. Indarpurkar is concerned, he has nowhere stated in his letter dated 14.02.2015 C-20 at page 77 sent by registered post to the opposite party no.2 Dr. Rajeev Agrawal that he also sought original treatment papers of earlier doctor, Dr. S. G. Indarpurkar, thus this allegation has no substance.     

11.              So far as the question of not providing the medical paper within a period 72 hours from the time of request as per Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Indian Medical Council Regulations 2002 is concerned, it is necessary to quote relevant provisions of Indian Medical Council Regulations 2002, Medical Council of India Notification dated 11^th March, 2002 which are as under:

1.3.2 If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorized attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within a period of 72 hours.

 

In Chapter 7 under the heading Misconduct

7.2 If he/she does not maintain the medical records of his/her indoor patients for a period of three years as per regulation 1.3 and refuses to provide the same within 72 hours when the patient or his/her authorized representative makes a request for it as per the regulation 1.3.2.

 

In Chapter 8 under the heading Punishment and Disciplinary Action

8.2. It is made clear that any complaint with regard to professional misconduct can be brought before the appropriate Medical Council for Disciplinary action. Upon receipt of any complaint of professional misconduct, the appropriate Medical Council would hold an enquiry and give opportunity to the registered medical practitioner to be heard in person

-6-

or by pleader. If the medical practitioner is found to be guilty of professional misconduct, the appropriate Medical Council may award such punishment as deemed necessary or may direct the removal altogether or for a specified period, from the register of the name of the delinquent registered practitioner. Deletion from the Register shall be widely publicized in local press as well as in the publications of different Medical Associations/Societies/Bodies.

 

12.              On bare perusal of above provisions, it is clear that if the doctor or hospital did not provide the medical papers of indoor patient to the patient or his/her authorized representative as sought under provision 1.3.2 within a period of 72 hours from the request made, it amounts to professional misconduct under Clause 7.2. If there is professional misconduct under Clause 7.2, then there is a provision under Clause 8.2 that the complaint regarding professional misconduct be made to the concerned Medical Council and the Medical Council upon receipt of any complaint of professional misconduct, would hold an enquiry and give opportunity to the registered medical practitioner to be heard in person or by pleader and will take appropriate action.

13.              Though in the present case, it is well established by the documents filed on record, that the complainant had received all the treatment papers along with death certificate, therefore, the opposite parties cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service. Even otherwise, if the complainant has any grievance with regard to professional misconduct on

 

-7-

part of opposite parties, he can approach the appropriate authority as aforesaid.

14.              In view of the above discussion, we find that the District Commission has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint.  The grievance of the complainant had already been redressed. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

15.              In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

                 (A. K. Tiwari)                (Dr. Srikant Pandey)    

              Acting President                        Member