State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. K. Patra vs Sri Ghanashyam Das (Ruidas) on 31 May, 2013
DRAFT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO.FA/492/2012 (Arising out of order dated 17/05/12 in Case No.CC/14/2007 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura) DATE OF FILING:14/08/12 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:31/05/13 APPELLANT : Dr. K. Patra 7/3, Ramnath Biswas Lane Flat No.12, 2nd floor P.S. Amherst Street Kolkata-700 009 RESPONDENT : Sri Ghanashyam Das (Ruidas) S/o-Late Nemai Das (Ruidas) Vill. Konpa P.O.Madan Mohanpur P.S. Kotulpur, District-Bankura PROFORMA RESPONDENT : Life Medical Stores Sri Krishnendu Kundu Prop. of Life Medical Stores (Opposite of Kotulpur High School) P.O. & P.S. Kotulpur District-Bankura BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Sri S. Coari HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Kushal Sinha Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. S. K. Das Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Bankura in complaint case no.14 of 2007 allowing the complaint against OP No.2A and dismissing the same against OP No.2B. The OP No.2A was directed to pay the compensation of Rs.9 lakh (Nine Lakh) and Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) as litigation cost to the victim Bijoy Das alias Ruidas within 90 days from the date of judgment failing which the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of judgment till realization.
The case of the respondent/complainant, in short, is that his brother, Bijoy Das alias Ruidas was a healthy boy and a good football player in the locality. From the year 2001 during rainy season Bijoy alias Ruidas started facing skin problem like scabies under both the knees and felt itching sensation and it continued for the whole rainy season. After the rainy season was over it automatically dried up, but the black spot of the affected area remained. The complainants brother visited the chamber of OP No.2A who examined him and prescribed medicines and further advised him to come on 12/04/13 and told that it was not a serious problem and if prescribed medicines are taken the infection will be cured very soon. On 12/04/03 the OP No.2A changed the prescribed medicines and advised to come on 10/05/03. The complainants brother visited the chamber of OP No.2A twenty times. The complainant is not in a position to produce all the prescriptions from 09/08/03 to 09/04/05 as the OP No.2A took away two prescriptions from the complainant at the time of inspection by an officer from the office of C.M.O.H., Bankura. On 07/05/05 the complainant along with his brother visited the chamber of OP No.2A and after seeing the serious condition he suggested some new medicines including one, namely, DAPSON 100mg and advised him to come on 11/06/05. On that date the doctor advised to continue Dapson 100mg and added some new medicines with the advice to come on 09/07/05. The OP No.2A never advised the complainants brother for any pathological test or any other test. As the strong medicines were prescribed the infection had spread all over the body causing serious other physical problems such as headache, stomach problem, lower vision of the eyes etc. The health condition of the complainants brother, that is, the patient deteriorated in such a bad manner that the whole body became dark and blood started oozing out from every part of the body. Fever started and the complainants brother became completely bedridden and he was detached from his professional work. The condition of the complainants brother was communicated to OP No.2A, but in vain. A letter was written to the BDO on 18/08/05 to investigate into the matter. An officer from the office of C.M.O.H., Bankura visited the chamber of OP No.2A to enquire into the matter. At that time the complainant and his family members were also present there. During enquiry the OP No.2A became furious and started shouting and altercations followed.
All on a sudden the OP No.2A snatched away two prescriptions from the complainants hand and told that he will not return those prescriptions to the complainant. On seeing that there was no improvement in the health condition of the complainants brother, the complainant took his brother to Dr. S. C. Pal on 22/06/05 who after examining the patient prescribed some medicines and advised him to come on 27/06/05. The doctor also advised some pathological tests. It was advised by Dr. Pal that the disease needed more modernized pathological testing which were not available at Bankura. Thereafter on 13th July, 2005 the complainant took his brother to Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital (C.N.M.C.H.). The patient was admitted there and it was told that the disease was due to drug reaction. The patient was discharged on 16/07/05. In the prescriptions dated 03/08/05, 10/08/05, 31/08/05 and 21/09/05 the doctor of C.N.M.C.H. mentioned that the reaction was due to DAPSON.
The complainant had to spend huge amount of money for the treatment of his brother. In the discharge certificate it was specifically mentioned Dapson reaction. The drug RCIN is meant for the treatment of leprosy or TB or AIDS. The complainant has prayed for Rs.9 lakh (Nine Lakh) for wrong medical treatment and expenses for medical treatment and the sufferings experienced by the patient and also the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) for physical and mental agony.
The OP No.2A, that is, the appellant herein filed W.V. before the Learned District Forum contending, inter alia, that on 15/03/03 the OP No.2A treated the complainants brother for his signs of ISC, that is, Lichen Simplex. The allegation of snatching away the prescriptions in presence of an officer of the office of C.M.O.H. was false and concocted. On 07/05/05 the patient was brought to his chamber and the OP No.2A found that the patient Bijoy Das alias Ruidas had signs of some hypo pigmented patches 7 to 8 in number with sensory-anomaly and the OP No.2A diagnosed it as a case of MB Leprosy and prescribed Rcin 450 and Dapson 100 and other necessary medicines. The next visit was on 11/06/05 when the patient was advised to continue the same.
On 11/06/05 the patient was advised to come on 09/07/05, but on that date the patient did not turn up and reported some of his sufferings which seemed to OP No.2A as reaction and, as such, the OP No.2A advised to omit all drugs. After 11/06/05 the patient never turned up before him. It is a fact that there was an enquiry on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant, but the story of snatching away the prescriptions from the complainant was false and fabricated. The C.M.O.H. on enquiry was satisfied that no wrong was practised upon the brother of the complainant and the C.M.O.H. was further satisfied that there was no wrong diagnosis or treatment and did not take steps against OP No.2A. The OP No.2A prescribed medicines in a very calculated way and it was correct diagnosis.
The diagnosis of leprosy clinically is also approved by WHO. The OP No.2A did not yield to the brother of the complainant who demanded huge amount of money from the OP No.2A. There was no negligence or fault on the part of the OP No.2A.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the report on enquiry it was opined by the C.M.O.H., Bankura that there was no wrong diagnosis or treatment made by the appellant. It is contended that the respondent/complainant did not submit the report of C.M.O.H. in the matter which, if produced, would have proved that the appellant herein was not responsible for the sufferings of the respondent/complainant. It is contended that the respondent came to the appellant with skin problem and the appellant prescribed some medicines with the advice to come on a subsequent date, but the respondent did not turn up. It is submitted that the alleged snatching away of the prescriptions by the appellant from the respondent is false. It is contended that no document was produced by the respondent to prove that there was drug reaction. It is submitted that Dr. S. C. Pal was not examined by the respondent/complainant.
It is submitted that the Learned District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint and passing the impugned order.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Learned District Forum discussed all the points in details and there was elaborate discussion on the relevant points. It is contended that there was wrong diagnosis and wrong treatment made by the appellant. It is submitted that the Learned District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant visited the chamber of the appellant in connection with his skin disease. In Paragraph-6 of the W.V. the appellant herein averred that on examination he found that the patient Bijoy Das alias Ruidas had signs of some hypo pigmented patches 7 to 8 in number with sensory-anomaly. The appellant diagnosed it as a case of MB Leprosy and prescribed Rcin 450 and Dapson 100 and other necessary medicines. On perusal of the prescription dated 07/05/05 issued by the appellant we find that some medicines were prescribed including Dapson 100 and Rcin 450. The patient was directed to report on 11/06/05. On 11/06/05 the appellant advised the patient to repeat all the previous medicines and further prescribed another medicine with the direction to come next on 09/07/05. It is the case of the complainant that his brother could not turn up and he reported the matter to the doctor on 09/07/05. On hearing the complainant, that is, the elder brother of the patient the appellant advised omit all drugs with the further direction to come next on 20/08/05. Nowhere in the W.V. it was contended that the appellant directed the patient to undergo certain tests before coming to the final diagnosis that it was a case of MB Leprosy.
It is the settled position of law as laid down by the Honble National Commission in the decision reported in 2011 (3) CPR 86 (NC) [Dr. Mangla L. Paradkar & Anr. Vs. Shailendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh] that treatment must be based on diagnosis and not on assumption. The Hon'ble National Commission in another decision reported in 2013 (1) CPR 244 (NC) [Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital Vs. Smt. A. Subbalakshmi & Anr.] held that no patient can be treated in a casual manner. Since no scientific investigations were directed by the appellant before final diagnosis, the prescriptions of medicines for the treatment of leprosy clearly show negligence and deficiency in service as well.
Secondly, it appears that the complainant took his brother to Bankura Sammilani Medical College & Hospital and Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital. From the treatment sheets of different dates and the discharge certificate dated 16/07/05 issued by the Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital it is clear that the patient was suffering from Dapson reaction. In reply to question no.12 the complainant has stated that since 07/05/05 his brother started taking Dapson 100mg. In reply to question no.13 the complainant has stated that on 17/06/05 fever started and it came seriously with many other bad symptoms on and from 20/06/05. The Learned District Forum considered all the aspects and rightly held that the victim suffered skin disease in aggravated form due to wrong diagnosis and wrong treatment with Dapson 100mg without following the norms of treatment.
As regards the amount of compensation of Rs.9 lakh (Nine Lakh) as prayed for by the complainant and awarded by the Learned District Forum it is the settled position of law that the amount of compensation must be commensurate with the quantum of loss suffered. The complainant in answer to question no.24 has stated that since 15/03/03 till the filing of the case before Learned District Forum, he incurred expenses for costs of medicine, travelling costs, ambulance costs, lodging and fooding costs at Kolkata each time etc., for wrong treatment, for physical and mental agony and lack of normal life of his brother which occurred due to wrong treatment by OP No.2A. But the documents regarding the actual expenses incurred have not been furnished. The particulars of his occupation and monthly income have not been averred in the complaint.
Having regard to the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs.9 lakh (Nine Lakh) to Rs.3 lakh (Three Lakh).
The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is directed to pay Rs.3 lakh (Three Lakh) as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) to the victim Bijoy Das alias Ruidas within 45 days from the date of passing this order failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.
The impugned judgment stands modified to the extent stated above.
MEMBER(SC) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT