AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant, Ramesh Chandra''s wife Pushpa Devi since deceased (hereinafter called as "patient") aged about 21years was under regular treatment from OP-2 / District Women Hospital, Gorakhpur, during her first pregnancy. The doctor at OP-2, told the patient, that everything was normal. On 29.06.2005, at 7.00 am she got admitted in OP-2 and delivered a female baby, who was very weak. Thereafter Pushpa Devi died on same day at 12.20 p.m. due to loss of blood. Hence, alleging carelessness in the treatment of the patient and not conducting any investigations, which led to severe blood loss and death of the patient, the complainant filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur for the compensation of Rs. 15 lacs.
The District Forum dismissed the complaint and the State Commission, Lucknow UP, dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, on the ground that the deceased patient was not a consumer. The OP was a government hospital; the services were free of charge.
Aggrieved by the impugned order of State Commission, the complainant preferred this revision petition.
We have heard both the parties. The counsel for petitioner was present, whereas on behalf of the OP-2 Mr. A.P. Tripathi, Chief Pharmacist from OP hospital has appeared and submitted the written arguments in Hindi.
There is a delay of eight days in filing this revision petition. We have condoned this short delay after perusing the application for condonation of delay. The counsel for petitioner argued that though the District Women Hospital, Gorakhpur being a government hospital, charges of the treatment were taken from some patients; therefore, the complainant/petitioner is a consumer, irrespective of the fact if any charges of treatment were paid or not paid by the consumer. The complainant paid Rs. 35/- at the time of delivery and there was no receipt issued for the said amount.
The counsel relied upon the landmark judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of IMA Vs. V.P. Shantha 3 (1995) CPJ 1 SC and referred page no. 55 (10), which is reproduced as below: "Services rendered at a Government hospital/ health centre/dispensary where services are rendered on payment of charges and also rendered free of charges to other persons availing such services would be fall within the ambit of expression ''service'' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charges to persons who do not pay for such services. Free service would also be ''service'' and the recipient a ''consumer'' under the Act."
It is further submitted that if the deficiency in the service of the Government hospitals is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, it will lead to hardships, to be faced by the patients, thus no patient will get proper relief, therefore, consumer fora should take liberal approach in such cases wherein, in the instant case, the Government hospital is apparently found deficient in service towards patient''s treatment.
On behalf of the OP, Mr. Tripathi submitted written arguments only. He did not argue the matter. We have perused the medical record available on the file, it is a very scanty one. The patient attended OP-2 hospital regularly, during her pregnancy for check-up and underwent routine laboratory tests. The death certificate showed the cause of death as PPH (Post-Partum Haemorrhage). There is no record pertaining to delivery, time of delivery, who was the person who had conducted it, the name of doctor or the staff available at that time, the condition of child, and mother, after delivery. There are no details about PPH and its management etc.
We are quite surprised to note, the horrible conduct and condition of District Women Hospital, at Gorkhapur. It is very unfortunate and disgusting to note that, the patient approached the hospital in the morning for delivery and after delivery, she was declared dead, within a span of five hours. For the delivery of primi-gravida woman, the hospital should provide proper care and attention, during delivery, to avoid complications like PPH. The medical record is shabby, without any details. It is very clear that, the staff at OP hospital were unable to provide blood transfusion and handle the emergency situation.
In the common parlance, the patients in a government hospital are to be treated, free of cost, but as a matter of fact, the x-rays or other pathological tests that are required to be performed, are not done in the government hospital, but the patients themselves get those done, from outside/private clinics. As has earlier been mentioned, the medicines are not provided free, which they need to buy from outside from dispensaries which is not free of cost. So, ''free of cost'' service is not actually ''free of cost''.
Even after 67 years'' of Independence, our country is yet to recognize and realize healthcare, as a fundamental human right and as an entitlement for all its citizens and residents. It appears that, there was lack of humane approach to the delivery of the patient. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Paschim Bengal Khet Majdoor Samiti Vs. State of Bengal held that, it is the duty of State Government and Central Government to provide medical facility to all persons. But, in this instant case, the OP-2 is a government hospital, thus the services are ''free of cost'', hence putting reliance upon the V.P.Shanta''s Case , the complainant is not a Consumer, hence he cannot seek his redressal through the consumer fora.
Therefore, we dismiss the revision petition and give liberty to the complainant to seek redressal from other authorities like Civil Court and the appropriate Professional Regulatory body (MCI).