SAYEED ALI GULAM ALI vs DR. GEETA MALU

The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 13.9.2009, at 10.30 p.m., the complainant took his daughter (patient) to the Cantonment General Hospital at Aurangabad, as she was suffering from delivery pains. Due to absence of doctor, the nurse, Smt. S. T. Gaikwad, checked her and told the complainant that blood pressure (BP) of patient was very high. At that time, complainant requested the nurse to call the doctor by telephone. Even after telephonic call to Dr. Geeta Malu (OP-1), she was not willing to come to the hospital, but OP-1 advised the Complainant to go to medical college hospital as the BP of his daughter was very high and there was bleeding and disconnected the telephone. Thereafter, the nurse gave a letter and advised them to go the medical college hospital. Complainant, further alleged that all the residents of Chavni, were frequently sent back by the doctor on the pretext of one or other reason. Though, the hospital was for Chavni people, it was not catering treatment facilities, because both the OP-1 and 3 were engaged in private practice in their respective hospitals in the city. Hence, the complainant, filed a complaint and sought compensation of Rs.3200/- towards expenses which he had incurred at other hospital and proper compensation for mental and physical torture caused to them.

The District Forum allowed the complaint partly and the opposite parties 1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs.3200/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards mental and physical torture, along with Rs.1000/- as expenses to the complainant.

Being aggrieved, the opposite parties filed appeal before the State Commission. The appeal was allowed by the State Commission and the order of District Forum was set aside. Hence, the complainant filed this revision.

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Smitakshi Talukdar vehemently argued that the Cantonment hospital denied the treatment to the patient. The patient was regularly under observation of Dr. Geeta Malu (OP-1) during Antenatal Care (ANC) period. On 13.9.2009, at about 10.30 p.m., patient had emergency labor pains, who was taken to OP hospital but no doctor was available in the hospital. Hence, the patient was referred to private hospital.

The rival arguments on behalf of OPs by the learned counsel Mr. Sunil Satyarthi, that the nurse, Smt. Gaikwad, checked the patient and found that the BP was very high and the patient was suffering from bleeding. Hence, it was a risk and accordingly, she has advised her to go to medical college hospital. The OP-2/CEO stated that Dr. Geeta Malu, a Gynecologist was on leave and Dr. Dhamne, was out of station. Therefore, referral at that time to medical college hospital, was a correct decision. Learned counsel for the OPs further submitted that the doctors or the nurse performed their duty in good faith to avoid possible injury to the patient. Hence, there was no deficiency in service. The counsel for the OPs further submitted that, no charges were taken for the treatment of the patient. Therefore, the patient was not a consumer. If there was a chance of normal delivery, in such a case, the staff nurse would have admitted her but the patient was at high risk. Therefore, the patient was advised to go to the Government hospital. We are not satisfied with the arguments.

Further, the counsel for the OPs brought our attention to Section 338 of Cantonment Act, which is reproduced as below: 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 Estate 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 any rule or by law made thereunder." As per Section Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy.

We have perused the medical records and the extract of attendance register. ANC Card of OP/hospital revealed that the patient was under follow-up of OP-1. Her blood pressure on 8. 7.2009 and 7.8.2009 was 130/90. The handwritten letter dated 13.9.2009 issued by the staff nurse was on the letter head of Dr. Geeta Malu and Dr. Vinod Dhamne. It is reproduced as follows: "Re. for medical hospital

Pt''s name Shenar W/o Rehan

Primi

BP 190/110

Vigor blood cloting

Time 10.30

Dr. RMO UT at Stestion

Inform in Pt''s problem

Attend Boy Staff

Gaikwad SK.

Sd/-"

Bare reading of this document throws ample light on the affairs of Cantonment General Hospital. There are exogenous spelling mistakes of English writing. Thus, such letter appears to be written by an unqualified person like hospital attendant or aya. There is tampering at the place of date and at signature. Therefore, we are of the considered view that no one was present in the hospital when patient went there. Thereafter, the patient was admitted at the Firdaus Hospital, her BP was 130/80 mmHg. Hence, the submission of OPs about high BP and high risk, pales into insignificance. It is very pertinent that, the Complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum for claiming just Rs.3,200/- the expenses incurred in the Firdaus Hospital; the intention of the Complainant was not to extract money or any unlawful gain, it was bona fide. He has not made any exaggerated or imaginary claim. Even, there was no enmity between complainant and the OP doctors. We have perused the attendance register. ''CL'' was marked against Dr. Geeta Malu for dates 12 th & 13 th September, 2009, but there is tampering.

Further, the complainant had placed several prescriptions of Yashodha Chest Hospital and Maternity Home, which clearly revealed that OP-1 was actively engaged in private practice in Aurangabad. The OP-1 regularly attends the patients for consultation and for conducting deliveries, as a routine.

Since, this case is hanging in fire from 2009, for a very paltry amount of Rs.3,200/-, it is pertinent to note that the District Forum awarded total compensation of Rs.3,200/-, but, the OP being in dominant position, preferred an appeal before the State Commission. It was allowed and therefore, the poor petitioner/complainant was compelled to file this revision. It was only due to dereliction in duty and deficiency in service by the OPs that the complainant had to fight for his bona fide claim. We do not find any enmity between the complainant and the doctor, to initiate such litigation. It is clear that, the hospital staff is involved in referring poor patients intentionally to the private nursing homes, for the best reasons known to them. Thus, the General Hospitals remain devoid of doctors/staff nurses during emergency and for the needy patients. Due to such unethical practices there is loss to government exchequer.

As discussed above, about 6 years have lapsed, for this complaint. Very scanty/paltry amount of Rs.3,200/- is involved in this case. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the contentions of OPs, in view of the decision of Hon''ble Apex court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and Another, IV (2012) CPJ 5(SC) , where the Court observed; " 2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers'' skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category ."

The Apex Court further held;

"10 . xxxxx

xxxxx

12 . We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

13 . Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs.25,950/- for a claim of Rs.15,000/-,apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins ."

Above quoted judgment is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We feel very sorry for the attitude of the OPs in this case. However, question of law raised in this petition is kept open, to be decided in an appropriate case where the stakes are high and the amount involved is substantial.

The intention of Government is to provide the health services through their hospitals/clinics for the benefits of poor and needy patients. Due to unethical attitude of doctors, there is severe exploitation of patients. The poor patients are deprived of essential medical services, if the doctors in Government Hospital remain engaged in their private hospitals or clinics. The noble purpose of government, in implementing health policies will be defeated. In our opinion, why the government exchequer should suffer due to such irresponsible and lethargic approach of the OPs herein. Hence, the revision petition is allowed. We restore the order of District Forum in toto, and impose Rs.5,00,000/- as costs upon the OPs which is to be deposited with Consumer Welfare Fund in the name of "Pay and Accounts Officer-Ministry of Consumer Affairs'', New Delhi, within a period of sixty days. The Cantonment Board and authority can recover the costs from the salary of errant doctors, CEO and staff, as per law.