State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Dr. Geeta Malu Regd. No.57444 R.M.O. vs Sayeed Ali Gulam Ali, on 25 October, 2013
1 F.A. No. 763-10
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSALCOMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
Date of filing: 22.12.2010
Date of Order: 25.10.2013
FIRST APPEAL NO.:763 OF 2010
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 715 OF 2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AURANGABAD.
1. Dr. Geeta Malu Regd. No.57444 R.M.O.
Canotment General Hospital, Aurangabad.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board, Aurangabad. ... Appellants
VERSUS
Sayeed Ali Gulam Ali,
R/o. Bunglow No.19, Chavani,
Aurangabad. ... Respondent
Coram : Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.
Present: Adv. V.Y. Gangtire, for appellant. Respondent in person.
- :: JUDGMENT :: -
(Delivered on 25th October, 2013) Per Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. Dr. Geeta Mali Cantonment General Hospital, Aurangabad and the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board Aurangabad challenges in this appeal judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad on 30.09.2010 in consumer complaint No.715/2009.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:
Sayyed Ali Gulam Ali, resident of Cantonment Aurangabad had approached to Cantonment General Hospital on 13.09.2009 at 10.30 p.m. His daughter Rehana was pregnant and for the purpose of delivery he took her to Cantonment Hospital. At that time there were no doctors available. One nurse by name Smt. Gaikwad checked the patient and informed the 2 complainant that as patients B/P is very high & bleeding also started therefore she must be shifted immediately to Government hospital which is at the distance of 1 km from the cantonment hospital. It is also informed by said nurse that doctors of cantonment hospital are not available; therefore it will be better if complainant took her daughter to Government hospital. Therefore complainant took her daughter to another hospital. But it is stated by complainant that though cantonment hospital is for the service of the patients they denied the medical service on false and frivolous ground. There was nothing serious as his daughter gave birth to child by normal delivery. Therefore complainant approached to Forum and demanded the expenses of Rs.3200/- which he was required to spent in another hospital.
4. Appellants appeared before Forum and resisted the complaint. It is submitted that Dr. Geeta Malu who is Gynecologist that she was on leave for two days. Therefore she was not available in the hospital and another doctor Shri. Dhamne who is General surgeon, he was also out of station and therefore it was not possible to treat the patient who was in serious condition.
Therefore the nurse rightly advised complainant to take his daughter to Government hospital which is hardly 1 km. away from the cantonment hospital. Therefore there is no any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
5. After hearing both the parties District Forum directed appellants to pay Rs.3200/- with Rs.5000/- mental agony and Rs.1000/- for the cost.
6. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original opponents came in appeal. Adv. V.Y. Gangtire, appeared for appellant. Respondent appeared in person. It is submitted by Adv. Gangtire that complainant came with his daughter for delivery. But after checking her nurse Smt. Gaikwad found that patient's blood pressure was very high and she was suffering from bleeding as it was risk in the cases of pregnancy nurse rightly advised her to go to Government hospital. It is further submitted by Adv.Gangtire that Dr. Geeta Malu who was Gynecologist was on leave and Dr. Dhamne was out of station. Therefore with a view to avoid further complications nurse rightly directed 3 F.A. No. 763-10 complainant to take his daughter to Government Medical Hospital which is near from cantonment hospital. It is submitted by Adv. Gangtire that as per Sec. 338 of Cantonment Act, 2006 which is as follows:
338. Protection of action of Board, etc.- No suit or prosecution shall be entertained in any Court against the Board or against the Chief Executive Officer, the Officer commanding a station, Defence Estates Officer, Principal Director, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, Director General, Defence Estate, or against any member of a Board, or against any officer or employee of a Board, for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done, under this Act or ay rule or bye-law made there under."
7. It is therefore submitted by Adv. Gangtire that the act committed by doctors or the staff nurse was done in good faith and to avoid further injury which was possible to be caused to the daughter of complainant. They have rightly directed him to go to Govt. Medical hospital. Therefore there is no deficiency in service as such committed by the appellants. District Forum ignored the said fact while allowing the complaint, hence appeal be allowed.
8. Respondent submitted that previously also he took his elder daughter to the said hospital, but said hospital denied to admit her and asked the complainant to go to another hospital. Same incident was repeated in the case of younger daughter of the complainant. It is bounded duty of the hospital to serve the patient who comes to the hospital, but said hospital and doctors denied to treat the patient who was in serious condition. Therefore there is deficiency in service. District Forum rightly allowed the complaint and granted compensation. Hence appeal be dismissed.
7. We heard both the parties and perused the record. It is contended by complainant that he took his daughter to cantonment hospital. But complainant did not mention in his complaint that what charges he deposited for the said treatment. It seems that not a single pia was paid by the complainant for the treatment. In our view complainant is not consumer as per definition of consumer prescribed in Consumer Protection Act. No 4 consideration was paid by the complainant for availing any service. Even otherwise it has come on record that Dr. Geeta Malu who is Gynecologist was on leave for two days, therefore there is no question of giving deficient service by her. It is also come on record that Dr. Dhamne was out of station and was at Jalna. Therefore it was not possible for him to come immediately for treating the daughter of complainant. If there were chances of normal delivery of the daughter of complainant, then staff nurse would have got admitted her, but as the daughter of complainant was suffering from high blood pressure and bleeding it was utmost necessary to refer the patient to another hospital to save her life. In our view by directing complainant to approach another hospital is no deficiency in service. It is also not case of complainant that his daughter could not give birth to her child at normal delivery. In our view, District Forum did not consider the facts and evidence in right perspective while allowing the complaint. The order of Forum has no foundation. We therefore do not want to upheld the said order. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The judgment and order passed by the District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
(K. B. Gawali) (Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S.M. Shembole) Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar