State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Debjyoti Sinha vs Smt. Sampa Chakraborty on 12 May, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/261/2016 ( Date of Filing : 29 Mar 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/02/2016 in Case No. CC/301/2010 of District North 24 Parganas) 1. Dr. Debjyoti Sinha S/o Lt. Sudhangshu Shekhar Sinha, B-11/158, Deodar Avenue, P.O. & P.S.- Kalyani, Pin-741 235, Dist. Nadia. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Sampa Chakraborty W/o Sri Panchanan Chakraborty, Debipur, P.O. Chandpara Bazar, P.S. Gaighata, Dist. North 24 Pgs. 2. Gobardanga Rural Hospital Vill. - Gaipur, P.O. Gobardanga, P.S. Habra, Dist. North 24 Pgs. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH MEMBER PRESENT: None appears ......for the Appellant None appears ......for the Respondent Dated : 12 May 2023 Final Order / Judgement
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANONIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') arising out of the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District North 24 Parganas, Barasat ( in short, 'the Learned Forum') in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/301/2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the Consumer Complaint.
Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned in the Consumer Complaint are that the son of the complainant who was poisoned and was taken to the respondent No. 2 hospital and at that relevant point of time, the appellant Doctor was on duty but the appellant Doctor did not come forward to treat the son of the respondent No. 1 / complainant and after repeated request for attending the patient, Famtac tablet and plenty of water were prescribed without having examined the patient physically and ultimately the patient was referred to Habra State General Hospital by the Doctor who resumed his duty at 2.00 p.m. But on the way, the patient succumbed to death.
The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 entered appearance in this case and contested the case by filing written version separately denying and disputing the case of the complainant.
The specific case of the opposite party No. 1 is that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. After duty hours of Dr. Sinha was over, his reliever Dr. A.K. Ghosh resumed duty who treated the patient and considering the condition of the patient transferred and / or referred the patient to Habra State General Hospital by hospital ambulance. As such, there was no negligence on the part of the hospital and its staff members.
Further case of the opposite party No. 1 is that the patient was duly administered the required medicines and rendered best possible treatment and was referred to Habra State General Hospital by hospital ambulance. Dr. A.K. Ghosh, one of the doctors of the opposite party No. 1 hospital tried his best to save the life of the patient. Hence, allegation of negligence or deficiency in service does not stand against the hospital authorities. So, the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed. The specific case of the opposite party No. 2 Doctor / appellant is that on 15.07.2010 two doctors had been scheduled to engage for indoor and outdoor patients and accordingly two doctors were present on duty for indoor and outdoor duty. When the patient, Palash Chakraborty came to the emergency room along with (one) Ripon Biswas to the opposite party No. 1 hospital at the relevant point of time, the opposite party No. 1 was engaged to examine the indoor patients. Immediately one GDA Sanjay Dey, who was engaged on 15.07.2010 as staff of emergency called the opposite party No. 2 to attend the emergency patient. Forthwith opposite party No. 2 came to the emergency room and took the patient, Palash Chakraborty in emergency bed for proper examination. Opposite party No. 2 Doctor asked the patient in detail regarding the happening of the facts. In reply, the patient, Palash Chakraborty disclosed the opposite party No. 2 that some persons forcibly administered beer blending with poison.
Further case of the opposite party No. 2 is that on being asked the patient, Palash Chakraborty was not able to speak. What type of poison had been administered with the beer which was very much required for identification of the poison for proper treatment. But the said poison was unidentified. As such, the opposite party No. 2 Doctor advised another employee Rama Ghosh Chowdhury who was scheduled to engage on duty on 15.07.2010 for serving plenty of water along with Famtac tablet to the patient as it vomits and at that relevant point of time there was no other scope to apply necessary medicines upon the patient for safety as because the nomenclature or type of the poison had not been identified and not properly known to the opposite party No. 2 Doctor.
Further case of the opposite party No. 2 Doctor is that the patient was very much conscious at that time.
For the safety and security of the patient, the opposite party No. 2 Doctor did not allow other medicines under surmise and conjecture.
Further case of the opposite party No. 2 Doctor is that during / in course of passage of time shifting duty of the Doctors had been over and next shift Doctor had come to take over the charge of the next shift from 2.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. scheduled to be held. As such, the opposite party No. 2 handed over the patient to Dr. Ashoke Ghosh. So, the complaint case should be dismissed.
The District Forum on and appreciation of the materials on record has allowed the Consumer Complaint vide order dated 29.02.2016 in the above manner.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 2 Doctor has preferred this appeal.
On the date of final hearing of this appeal none appears on call of this Commission. As such, hearing of arguments was concluded.
Upon perusal of the materials on record including evidence both ( oral and documentary) it appears to us that the son of the respondent No. 1 / complainant was poisoned and he was brought to the respondent No. 2 hospital for treatment.
It is also an admitted position that at the relevant point of time the appellant Doctor was on duty at the opposite party No. 1 hospital when the son of the respondent No. 1 was taken to the hospital at 1.30 p.m. It is also an admitted position that Famtac tablet and plenty of water were prescribed to the patient.
Now, we shall have to consider as to whether the patient was properly attended by the Doctor on duty i.e. the appellant and whether the appellant discharged his duty properly or not.
We have gone through the documents filed by the parties. We have also perused the evidence adduced by the parties and brief notes of arguments filed by both the parties before this Commission. The evidence of all witnesses including their cross examinations and the documents exhibited in this case reveals that Dr. Sinha, the opposite party No. 2 left the hospital at 2.00 p.m. and Dr. Ghosh came to the hospital and took charge of the patient. Dr. Debjyoti Sinha was on duty on 15.07.2010 who refused to treat the son of the complainant on the plea that he would not get his scheduled train to return to his residence. The opposite party No. 2 declined to attend the patient when physical condition of the son of the complainant was deteriorating. It also reveals that when Rama Ghosh Chowdhury went to opposite party No. 2 / appellant then the opposite party No. 2 / appellant told Rama Ghosh Chowdhury to prepare an outdoor card and at that time the appellant applied Famtac tablet and advised the patient to drink plenty of water with an expectation that the patient likely to vomit by taking of water which may neutralize the unknown poison so that the patient may recover from the expected danger. On the contrary, the condition of the patient namely Palash Chakraborty was deteriorating. The evidence of the complainant including his replies reveals that blood was coming out from the mouth of the son of the complainant and Dr. Ghosh referred him to Habra State General Hospital and on the way to Habra State General Hospital, the patient, Palash Chakraborty passed away. The evidence of PW 2 Rama Ghosh Chowdhury including her replies reveals that on 15.07.2010 she was on duty in the hospital from 1.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and one Palash Chakraborty was brought in the hospital at about 1.30 p.m. and Dr. Sinha, the appellant was in the hospital but treatment was started at 2.00 p.m. by Dr. A.K. Ghosh and she requested the appellant to attend the patient when the condition of the patient was not so serious and the appellant told her to supply antacid but did not attend the patient. The PW 2 Rama Ghosh Chowdhury has stoutly denied the suggestion of the appellant that Dr. Sinha treated the patient. The evidence of Dr. Swapan Kumar Ghosh discloses that after issuance of admission ticket at emergency the medicines are supplied as per prescription of the attending Doctor.
In extreme emergency cases, the patient is given treatment before issuance of admission ticket. The evidence of Bankim Chandra Adhikary reveals that he was given charge of enquiry regarding medical negligence of Dr. Sinha (Appellant) who has stated that on the basis of statement given by the witnesses, he submitted his report. Dr. A.K. Ghosh was examined. In his examination, he has stated that it is not possible for him to produce the hospital papers. He failed to detect the nature of poison by smelling the scent but it was unknown poison. He does not know whether Dr. Sinha ( Appellant) treated the patient or not. But he heard that the patient was not treated prior to his treatment. Therefore, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the complainants and other witnesses, it appears to us that there was medical negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 2 in treating the son of the complainant when he was admitted in the opposite party No. 1 hospital.
On careful perusal of the evidence on record it appears to us that the appellant was on duty on 15.07.2010 while the patient was brought to the hospital at 1.30 p.m. Therefore, we think that the appellant Doctor was under bounden duty and moral obligation to perform his duty by rendering proper services towards the patient during his duty hours. But the appellant did not bother to visit the son of the complainant though he was on duty. We think that as the appellant did not attend the son of the complainant, the son of the complainant got no treatment for a long time. So, it was nothing but dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite party No. 2 / appellant. The appellant has taken defence that he treated the son of the complainant by asking his staff to administer Famtac tab. and plenty of water as per accepted procedure in a case of poisoning. This plea of defence proves that the appellant / opposite party No. 2 Doctor did not examine the patient and the son of the complainant was casually and blindly treated by the opposite party No. 2 Doctor without having examined physically. So, the defence taken by the opposite party No. 2 is not tenable and acceptable. Practically, such submission has no legs to stand upon.
Under these facts and circumstances and on perusal of the materials on record it appears to us that the complainant has been able to prove that there was medical negligence on the part of the appellant. The District Forum has properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order which does not call for any interference and the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
The impugned order and judgment dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/301/2010 is hereby confirmed.
There will be no order as to costs.
The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH] MEMBER