District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Consumer Case No. 118 of 2006
Rajeshwar Kujur s/o late Silvester Kujur
R/o Sector VIII/C, St.33, Qr. No.-1230,
Bokaro Steel City. Dist.- Bokaro.
Versus
1. Dr. S.R. Chakarborty,
Sector IV/C, Qr. No.-2011, Bokaro Steel City.
Dist.- Bokaro.
2. Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro.
Before-
S.M.Alam, President
Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-: 26 May, 2009
Date of case filing-: 29 December, 2006.
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has filed this case against the
Opposite parties for grand of Rs. 2000000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.
2 Brief facts of the case is that on 17.11.2006 son of the complainant was admitted in Bokaro General Hospital and he was kept in ward 3 in the unit of Doctor Smt. C. Ekka but after an hour patient was shifted to 3B ward. After 1.5 hour after admission in the hospital the temperature of the patient was recorded 102 Degree and his condition was normal. On the same day Doctor advised some pathological test of the patient. The treatment was started after getting test report. On 18.11.2006 Blood Report was also received by the Doctor. There was no report of Malaria in the blood of the patient. Doctor started treating the patient and assured attendant of the patient that he will be cured. However on 18.11.2006 in the night patient stared vomiting and loose motion, the matter was reported to the Nurse, Nurse told the complainant that let the Doctor visit the patient and accordingly doctor advised to administer saline water to the patient. On 19.11.2006 the temperature of the patient was 102 Degree as earlier, the matter was brought to the notice of the attending Nurse and the Nurse advised him “Mathey par Pani Ka Patti Rakhiye”. The complainant requested the Nurse to call the Doctor; she told the complainant on account of Sunday, Doctor did not visit ward. On 19.11.2006 in the night the patient felt breathing problem, this matter was also conveyed to the attending Nurse, then the attending Nurse told the complainant that when the Doctor would visit in next morning, the matter will be brought to his notice. On 20.11.2006 in the morning the patient started hiccup. When the doctor came in the ward, then the complainant told him regarding the problem being faced by the patient. Doctor advised to provide water to stop hiccup. After some time, blood was dropping from the nose of the patient and his body became very cool, he immediately called the doctor, upon which the doctor told that the body remain cool in typhoid. When in the evening doctor visited the ward, he told the complainant that patient is alright and there is no matter of any worry. On 20.11.2006 at about 6:30 P.M. again the patient started taking fast breathing. The complainant informed the attending Nurse, then Nurse informed the doctor by Telephone but the treating doctor did not turn up and he sent a junior doctor and after examination, the junior doctor told the complainant that B P of the patient is very high and he recommended injection to control the BP. There was also no oxygen in the ward and after 25 minutes oxygen cylinder was brought and provided to the patient at about 7:45 P.M. in the night. The junior doctor informed the complainant that condition of the patient is serious upon which the complainant requested him to shift him to ICU. The junior doctor told the complainant he will talk to the senior doctor about this and he will act according to advice of the senior doctor. The mask was given to the patient which is operated through electricity but there was no facility of electric plug near the bed of the patient. At about 8:30 P.M. one injection was given to the patient, thereafter, the patient took hiccup and died. The doctor was informed accordingly. The doctor rushed to the patient and after going through the condition of the patient, he declared that the patient is no more. Therefore, it is apparent from the above discussed facts and circumstances that there was gross negligency and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties due to which his son died; hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
3 Upon issuance of the notices the opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement, stating therein that the complainant was a permanent employee of BSL and he got medical treatment of his son from BGH free of cost as his dependent. The complainant avail medical service from BGH without giving any service charge and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has also no cause of action to file this complaint under Consumer Protection Act as claimed as the complainant does not come within the provision of the Act. However the opposite parties admitted that son of the complainant namely Vinod Kujur was admitted on 17.11.2006 at 9:59 A.M. vide hospital No.9141/06 in BGH for proper treatment and care. The patient was thourouly examined by consultant doctor at 11:20 A.M. after admission. He was diagnosed as case of Viral Pyrexia (Viral Fever) and he was febrile at the time of admission. The patient was advised completed blood count, Widal test (typhoid) for enteric fever, optimal test for Malaria and other routine examination like fasting blood sugar and serum creatinine. After examination the patient was prescribed antic pyretics and antibiotics immediately after admission. However blood examination for malaria and enteric fever of the patient were negative and the blood sugar report was normal. The capsule ampicillin was withdrawn because of loose motion and another antibiotic was prescribed to the patient. The opposite parties denied the allegation of the complainant that the patient was not attendant by any doctor on 19.11.2006, the fact is that the patient was examined by the doctor on duty and he was found to be stable and medicines were given and continued as per instructions of the consultant doctor. On 20.11.2006 the patient was examined by doctor and he was found stable. Both the senior and junior doctors examined patient on 20.11.2006, the patient was having rapid breathing and his blood pressure was slightly raised. Since the patient was having rapid breathing and BP was found slightly raised he was immediately given oxygen and injection. He was also given relevant injection to reduce his blood pressure. The opposite parties denied that injection was given to the patient at 8:30 P.M. However on 20.11.2006 at about 9P.M. the condition of the patient suddenly deteriorated due to sudden development of “myocarditis” which is a complication of viral pyrexia. The patient was immediately transferred in ICU but unfortunately the patient collapsed at 9:05 P.M. The opposite party further stated that the doctor and Nurse of BGH have given utmost care and treatment available in the hospital to the patient and the opposite parties have not committed any negligency in the treatment of son of the complainant. Thus under above mention facts the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as because there is no any deficiency or negligency on their part and the present consumer complaint is fit to be dismissed.
4 Both parties were heard. The entire case records and documents filed on behalf of both the parties have been perused. It is observed that the complainant being a permanent employee of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City used to get free medical treatment and service for himself and his dependants including his son in the Company’s Bokaro General Hospital. It is found that no payment was made by the complainant for his son’s treatment at B.G.H. Bokaro under the company’s rule. This fact bars the jurisdiction of this Forum from its purview under the Consumer Protection Act.
5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case no merit is found in the complaint case and the same is dismissed accordingly hereby.
Member (lady) Member President