State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Banibrata Chandra vs Sri Safijul Beg on 14 February, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO.FA/674/2010 DATE OF FILING:08/12/10 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:14/02/12 APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT : : Dr. Banibrata Chandra Surgeon (Orthopaedics & Traumatology) Medical Officer Jhargram S. D. Hospital P.O. & P.S. Jhargram District-Paschim Medinipur RESPONDENT/OP : Sri Safijul beg S/o-Sri Abdul Rashid Beg Vill.Bandarboni P.O.Dahijuri, P.S.Binpur District-Paschim Medinipur BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee, President. HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. S. Majumder. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri S. Coari. FOR THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER : Mr. Prabir Basu Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT/OP : : O R D E R :
No.14/14.02.12 HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by Ld. District Forum in complainant case no.99/2007 allowing the complaint and directing the OP to compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for negligence and deficiency in service in the matter of treatment of complainant.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that on 13.03.07 he sustained severe injury in his leg and he attended the chamber of the OP who although advised hospitalization in writing, but advised him verbally to come after three days. Meanwhile he contacted a quack doctor on 16.03.07. Thereafter on 17.03.07 the complainant again visited the chamber of the OP who advised immediate hospitalization and accordingly he got himself admitted in the Jhargram S.D. Hospital where underwent operation of the injured leg. But even thereafter the condition of his leg deteriorated and he insisted on his discharge from the said hospital. Accordingly, the complainant was discharged from hospital on 20.03.07. Thereafter the condition of the complainant did not improve and he went to General Nursing Home at Mangla Bag, Cuttack where imputation was done as gangrene had already developed. Under the circumstances the complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum claiming compensation.
The Ld. District Forum after considering the materials on records passed the order impugned.
After that the respondent/complainant is not contesting the appeal. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that without the opinion of expert it cannot be said that there was medical negligence on the part of the appellant. It is submitted that on 13.03.07 when the complainant visited the chamber of the OP, the doctor advised him hospitalization, but the complainant went to a quack doctor and did not abide by the instruction of the OP. It is submitted that the Ld. District Forum did not follow the settled principles of law with regard to the medical negligence and was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decisions reported in 2003 CTJ 775 (CP) (NCDRC) [Shikha versus Dr. Ashoka Jindal], 2004 CTJ 175 (CP) (NCDRC) [K. S. Bhatia versus Jeevan Hospital and Anr.], 2009 CTJ 352 (Supreme Court) (CP) [Martin F. Dsouza versus Mohd. Ishfaq], 2009 CTJ 581 (Supreme Court) (CP) [Dr. C.P. Sreekumar, M.S. (Ortho) versus S. Ramanujam].
We have heard the submission of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant and also perused the papers on record. It is clear that on the first date i.e., 13.03.07 when the complainant visited the chamber of the OP he was advised hospitalization. But instead of going to the hospital he consulted a quack doctor who according to the evidence of the complainant did not explore any injury in the leg. Since the complainant did not follow advice of the appellant regarding hospitalization and at his own risk consulted a quack doctor, we are of the considered view that there was negligence on the part of the complainant himself. By that time further complications developed, he subsequently got himself admitted in the Jhargram Hospital where single incision faciotomy operation was done to release the compartment syndrome. But as the condition of the complainant did not improve even after that operation, he underwent amputation of his leg at Cuttack.
As to the question of expert opinion it is the settled position of law that expert opinion in every case is not necessary and its necessity depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. The contention of the complainant that there was medical negligence on the part of the appellant cannot be accepted because of the fact that he ignored the advice of the appellant dt.13.03.07 regarding hospitalization. It is apparent on the face of the record that on 13.03.07 there was no compartment syndrome.
But because of the time taken for consultation with the quack doctor, the condition of the patient deteriorated.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case we are of the view that the expert opinion in such a case is not necessary because of the fact that there was negligence on the part of the complainant himself. Under such circumstances we find that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief on the ground of alleged medical negligence. In the result the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed ex parte. The impugned judgment is set aside. The complaint filed before the Ld. District Forum is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
MEMBER(SC) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT