Shibshree Banerjee vs Pearless Hospital And B.K. Roy Research Centre And Ors.

THE complainant -petitioner had admitted her mother in Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy Research Centre (hereinafter referred as O.P. No. 1) on 24.4.2003. The mother of the complainant was being treated by Dr. Pal (O.P. No. 3), but the complainant was not satisfied with the treatment. According to her, she wanted to take her mother from the hospital but the hospital refused to discharge her mother till payment was made. According to the complainant, her mother was ill treated as her legs and hands were tied. On 27.4.2003, the complainant again asked Dr. Pal for shifting her mother but he said that she could not be shifted but when she improves she can be taken away. She also complained that she found on middle portion of her right hand a bluish mark and her bed sheet was blood stained and a big injection machine was lying near. The complainant went to the police on 27.4.2003 and again on 28.4.2003 and filed complaint. According to the complainant, her mother died on account of deficiency in treatment by the Doctor, O.P. No. 3 of the hospital, O.P. No. 1.

THE complainant approached District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 1.75 lakh. The complaint was filed in September, 2003. The District Forum after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove that the opposite parties were negligent in treating her mother and she had not produced any expert medical evidence to suggest that the opposite parties were negligent while rendering service.

THE complainant challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission and the State Commission after considering in detail the material on record came to the conclusion that there is no iota of evidence to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant. The State Commission held that the patient was brought to the hospital at last stage in a very critical condition and the treatment given by the doctor did not fall short of the standard, which is expected from a doctor of average skill. This order is challenged before the Commission in revision. The petitioner appeared in person and we have heard her. The petitioner has placed before us the treatment record, which shows that the mother of the petitioner was admitted after urgent admission was advised. The treatment papers reflect the detailed treatment given day -to -day to the mother of the complainant after admission. No deficiency as such has been pointed out in the treatment to the mother of the complainant who ultimately fell unconscious and died. The death certificate shows Cardio Respiratory failure in a case of pulmonary tuberculosis with severe malnutrition. The mother of the petitioner died on 28.4.2003.

THE petitioner had written a letter to O.P. No. 2 that Doctor A.K. Pal had not given any assurance to her regarding improvement of condition of her mother as such, she wanted to take away her mother. It appears that the complainant was not prepared to pay the dues and resorted to police reports, which were filed by her on 27.4.2003 and 28.4.2003. Report of ASI, S. Samaddar, which is filed by the petitioner shows that the Peerless Hospital had told the petitioner that she would be allowed to take her mother provided she pays Rs. 30,000, which was the bill due but the petitioner was not in a position to pay the said amount and the petitioner was of the view that besides Rs. 100 deposited at the time of admission a further sum of Rs. 5,000 would suffice. Later, the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 16,000 within 4 months and the balance of Rs. 13,000 could not be paid by her. It appears that on account of the non -payment of the bill, the petitioner started making allegations, which have not been substantiated by her. At any rate, no medical negligence has been proved, nor any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The conclusion arrived at by both the Fora below is well founded and does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders of the District Forum and State Commission. The revision is accordingly summarily rejected with no order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.