State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Superintendent, Shibarampur Bhusan ... vs Smt. Anima Mondal, Hazariapara, ... on 23 May, 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/164/2010 (Arising out of order dated 18/02/2010 in CC Case No.77 of 2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore) DATE OF FILING:01/04/2010 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:23/05/2012 APPELLANT : Superintendent Shibarampur Bhusan Chandra Halder Memorial Seva Sadan Biren Roy Road (West) P.O. & Vill. Jote Shibarampur P.S.Maheshtala, Kolkata-700141 Represented by Mr. Paritosh Majhi RESPONDENTS : 1) Smt. Anima Mondal Vill. & P.O. Jote Shibarampur Hazariapara P.S.Maheshtala, Kolkata-700141 2) The Proprietor Shibarampur Blue Print C/o- Shibarampur Bhusan Chandra Halder Memorial Seva Sadan P.S.Maheshtala, Kolkata-700141 (The name of Respondent No.2 was deleted vide order no.7 dated 03.02.11) 3) Smt. Minati Naskar C/o-Sri Dhiren Naskar Vill.Sampa Mirza Nagar P.O.Sarkar Pool P.S.Maheshtala, Kolkata-700143 4) Smt. Mithu Mondal Working for gain as a nurse at Shibarampur Bhusan Chandra Halder Memorial Seva Sadan Biren Roy Road (West) P.O. & Vill. Jote Shibarampur P.S.Maheshtala, Kolkata-700141 5) Dr. S. K. De Shibarampur Bhusan Chandra Halder Memorial Seva Sadan Biren Roy Road (West) P.O. & Vill. Jote Shibarampur P.S.Maheshtala, Kolkata-700141 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Sri S. Coari HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Sujoy Kumar Basu Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. Bholanath Ghosh Ld. Advocate Dr. S. K. Dey Ld. Advocate Mr. M. H. Chowdhury Ld. Advocate Mr. Apares Pal Ld. Advocate Mr. Dikshabrata Chowdhury Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
No.14/23.05.2012 HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Forum, Alipore in case no.CC 77 of 2008 allowing the complaint case against OP No.1, 2 and 4 directing OP No.1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to the complainant and the OP No.4 to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant. The Learned District Forum also directed each of the OP No.1, 2 and 4 to pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. The Learned District Forum, however, dismissed the complaint case against OP No.3 and OP No.5.
The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that she was admitted in the Nursing Home named Shibarampur Bhusan Chandra Halder Memorial Seva Sadan with pregnancy for treatment under Dr. S. K. De, the OP No.5. She remained admitted in the said Nursing Home from 01.11.07 to 08.11.07. At the time of discharge the doctor prescribed some injections and for taking some medicines as mentioned in the discharge certificate dated 09.11.07. The OP No.3, the nurse of the said Nursing Home was entrusted to administer the injections on the complainant at her residence. The husband of the complainant purchased three injections on 16.11.07 from OP No.2 (Chemist and Druggist) attached to the said Nursing Home.
At the time of purchase the husband of the complainant requested the pharmacist to give the right injection as prescribed by the doctor in the discharge certificate dated 09.11.07.
Smt. Minati Naskar, the respondent no.3 came to the house of the complainant and administered one such injection out of three. After the said injection was administered, the condition of the patient became serious and there was profuse bleeding. The complainant was readmitted in the said Nursing Home on 18.11.07 with all medical prescriptions and injections. In the Nursing Home the said injection was again administered for the second time by another nurse, respondent no.4, as a result of which the condition of the complainant deteriorated on 18.11.07. The bleeding was not controlled. On the next date, that is, on 19.11.07 the doctor on seeing the condition of the patient verified the purchased medicine with the prescription dated 09.11.07 and found that incorrect injections were administered on the complainant. The complainant came to know that the pharmacist sold incorrect injections to the husband of the complainant on 16.11.07.
On 20.11.07 after USG was done, it was found that the child in womb was dead. The complainant developed pregnancy after 14 years of her marriage and due to incorrect injections the complainant became childless forever and there was no scope of future pregnancy.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of discharge the doctor advised the complainant for taking medicine, injections and to take complete bed rest. It is contended that she remained admitted in the Nursing Home from 01.11.07 to 08.11.07 and on 09.11.07 she was discharged. It is submitted that on 16.11.07 the husband of the complainant purchased the injections and one nurse of the Nursing Home on request of the complainant went to her residence and administered the injection. It is submitted that for the act done by the said nurse, that is, OP No.3, the appellant cannot be held responsible. It is contended that the Nursing Home arranged for her treatment and there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. It is submitted that after her discharge on 09.11.07 and till her readmission on 18.11.07 there is no evidence to show where and by whom she was treated. It is submitted that she did not consult the doctor during that period. It is submitted that the Nursing Home authority, that is, the appellant is not responsible for the acts done by the sister/nurse outside the Nursing Home. It is contended that at the time of readmission the discharge certificate was not produced by the complainant and, as such, there was contributory negligence on the part of the complainant. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decisions reported in 1996 (2) CPR 180 [Maya Bagchi vs. Dr. Samir Sen Gupta and Anr.]; 1997 (3) CPR 220 [Dr. Jyothi Vivek & Ors. vs. Vijayasree Eye Hospital & Ors.].
The Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1/complainant submits that the complainant got admitted for pregnancy and she conceived after 14 years of marriage. It is submitted that the husband of the complainant purchased the medicine from Blue Print and according to the advice of the doctor the nurse administered the injection at the residence of the complainant. It is contended that after readmission on 18.11.07 no specific treatment was done and the nurse attached to the Nursing Home administered the second injection without comparing the same with the prescription. It is submitted that the discharge certificate was filed at the time of readmission. It is submitted that because of the wrong injection, the baby died in the womb. It is submitted that after readmission there was wrong treatment in the Nursing Home and the second injection was pushed without verification with the same prescription. The Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1/complainant has referred to the decision of the Honble National Commission in original petition no.233 of 1996 (Smt. Indrani Bhattacharjee vs. Chief Medical Officer, Farakka Super Thermal Power Projects and Ors.).
We have heard the submission made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Admittedly, the complainant remained admitted in the Nursing Home from 01.11.07 to 08.11.07. On 09.11.07 she was discharged with some advice. It is also an admitted fact that the husband of the complainant purchased medicine from the Blue Print and it is the contention of the complainant that subsequently it was detected that wrong injection was sold by Blue Print to the husband of the complainant although the prescription was shown to the said shop.
It is admitted that the nurse, OP No.3 went to the house of the complainant and administered the first injection. It appears from the evidence on record that after the first injection was administered her condition deteriorated and there was profuse bleeding. As a result, she was brought to the Nursing Home and readmitted on 18.11.07. Now it is the contention of the complainant that the doctor prescribed three injections out of which one was administered at the residence of the complainant and the second such injection was administered after she was readmitted in the Nursing Home on 18.11.07. It is in evidence that the second such injection was administered when the complainant remained readmitted in the Nursing Home. Therefore, it was the duty of the Nursing Home and the nurse to see that the right injection as per prescription was administered on the complainant. But this was not done. It is in evidence that the nurse attached to the Nursing Home administered the second injection without verifying it with the prescription. Needless to say that the discharge certificate was issued by the Nursing Home and there was mention of the same in the records of the Nursing Home.
But injection was administered without verification with the papers. This is, therefore, a glaring deficiency in service.
The Learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to the decisions as mentioned above. In these two cases the patient was non-cooperative and did not follow the advice. In the instant case there was nothing to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the complainant.
The Learned District Forum allowed the complaint against OP No.1, 2 and 4 for deficiency in service on their part. In this appeal the OP No.2 of the complaint, that is, the proprietor, Shibarampur Blue Print was the respondent no.2. But his name was deleted vide order dated 03.02.11 on the ground that Blue Print, that is, respondent no.2 herein, admittedly, complied with the order passed by the Learned District Forum. The name of respondent no.2 was thus deleted from the Memo of Appeal on full satisfaction of the award.
In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. We affirm impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned District Forum.
MEMBER(SC) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT