DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./100/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
07.04.2021 13.04.2021 30.07.2024
Complainant/s:- | RANJAN ROY, S/o Debaprasad Roy of Rahara, Ramkrishna Pally, Khardah, P.O. – Rahara, P.S. – Khardah, District – North 24 Parganas, PIN – 700118. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - The Superintendent, Sree Balaram Seva Mandir State General Hospital, Khardah, P.S. – Khardah, Kolkata – 700 056.
- Dr. Narayan Dhar Chowdhury Attached with Sree Balaram Seva Mandir State General Hospital, Khardah, P.S. – Khardah, Kolkata – 700 056.
|
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to pay Rs. 19,00,000/-, litigation cost amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and other reliefs.
He alleged that on 15/01/2019 he was suffering with abdominal pain and attended before the O.P No. 2 who is a doctor under O.P No. 1. As per advise of O.P No. 2 Complainant was admitted before O.P no. 1 on 27/04/2019. His appendix operation was done there on 29/04/2019 but he was not relived from the abdominal pain. He repeatedly told the O.P No. 2 about his pain but he did not pay any heed. Thereafter he continued his treatment at Zenith Super-specialty Hospital.
Doctor of said hospital told that Complainant was not treated by O.P No. 2 with due care and skill and due to the unprofessional act of O.P No. 2 perforation took place in gastrointestinal tract of Complainant and Complainant was not examined by the O.P No. 2 properly and effectively after the aforesaid surgeon.
Accordingly Complainant found the negligence on the part of O.P No. 1 and 2. Hence, the Complainant filed this case.
O.P No. 1 and 2 appeared in this record and file W/V and denied the entire allegations and further contended that there is no proof of negligence in the management of the patient i.e. Complainant during his treatment before O.P No. 1.
They prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decisions with Reasons:-
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. Perused the petition of complaint, W/V filed by the O.Ps, affidavit-in-chief filed by Complainant, BNA filed by the Complainant and documents filed by the Complainant.
On perusal of copy of documents on record dated 26/04/2019 we find that it is admitted position that Complainant got admission before O.P No. 1. On 27/04/2019 for OT. So it can be presumed that operation was done before the O.P No. 1 and 2.
Complainant alleged negligence against the O.P No. 1 and 2.
Contd. To page no. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./100/2021
On perusal of documents on record we find that O.P No. 1 is a government hospital and O.P No. 2 is a doctor and he was working in the government hospital i.e. O.P No. 1.
Complainant could not file any document in support of the fact that money was taken from him for rendering the aforesaid medical service to the Complainant.
In this context we have carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Indian Medical Association Vs. V. P. Santha & Ors.) dated 13/11/1995.
We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision observed “Service rendered at a Government hospital / health centre / dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service – is outside the purview of the expression ‘service’ as defined in Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital / nursing home would not alter the position.”
We have stated earlier that O.P No. 1 is a Government hospital and O.P No. 2 is a doctor who is serving under O.P No. 1 and Complainant did not pay any money in respect of his operation before O.P No. 1 and 2.
Accordingly we find that aforesaid decision is applicable in the present case.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and regard being had to the submission of Ld. Advocate for the Complainant we are of the firmed view that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court present Complainant is not the consumer as per the definition of consumer mentioned in the C.P. Act, 2019.
Accordingly Complainant is not entitled to any relief as per his prayer.
In the result, present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered:-
That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/100/2021 is dismissed ex-parte but without any order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
