RABINARAYAN SAHOO Vs. B JAYARAM PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revision petitioner Shri Rabinarayan Sahoo was the complainant before the District Forum Khurda, Bhubaneshwar where he had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents, (1) Dr. B. Jayaram Patra, (2) Saroj Kanta Mohanty, (3) Secretary, Heath and Family Welfare Department, (4) Director of Health & Family Welfare Deptt. The District Forum held deficiency of service and directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. The Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the First Appeal No. 502/2001 on 28.8.2002 of O.P. No. 1 and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. Brief facts of the case are :

(2.) The petitioner's mother Kuntala Sahoo was admitted as an indoor patient in the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on 14.9.1999 for removal of Gall Bladder Stone. Respondent No. 1 treated the patient and administered various medicines for the complaint of severe pain in the abdomen. After preliminary investigations were done in order to do the surgery for removal of Gall Bladder Stone and he operated on her on 22.9.1999 alongwith respondent No. 2 after finding her case was fit for operation. After the operation, unfortunately, the patient died on 22.9.1999. It is complainant's case that the operation was defective and that there was lack of proper care in treating the patient by the physician. Respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 who also assisted in the surgery. The surgery was conducted after taking consent of the party. Necessary tests were conducted. The District Forum held respondent No. 1 negligent in conducting the operation because the patient died. Further reasons stated by the District Forum are non-supply of death report of the patient coupled with non-production of the bed-head tickets and they held respondent No. 1 was laible to pay Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency of service.

(3.) Dr. B. Jayaram Patra, the present respondent while pleading that there was no negligence on his part in treating the patient took several other grounds in defence but the main stand he took was that the complainant got his mother treated in Capital Hospital which is a Government Hospital and for the treatment given no consideration was paid by the complainant to the hospital or to him. The State Commission allowed the appeal on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act since the free services do not fall under the purview of the Act.