KUMARI MAHUA DARIPA Vs. ANIRUDDHA GHORAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 1.3.2007 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in SC Case No.70/O/2001 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant against the respondent who was OP before the State Commission.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case are that the complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the appellant against the respondent and 2 others. Subsequently, the names of other two OPs were deleted vide State Commission's order dated 3.8.2005. As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant fell down from the roof of her house on 23.5.2000 and suffered haemorrhage in her brain. She was admitted in CMRI, Kolkata and was released on 6.6.2000. On 11.6.2000, she was taken to her native village from Kolkata and on 14.6.2000 she got fever with temperature rising to 102O F. Thereupon, one Dr. Somnath Roy examined her on 15.6.2000 at her residence and he advised urine test and prescribed Cifram-500. It is alleged that she swallowed the tablet but could not tolerate its effect because she was allergic to such a medicine and she vomited and did not take any further tablet. On 16.6.2000, Dr. Roy again prescribed the same medicine after verifying her urine test report stating that this was the correct medicine for her. Along with Cifram-500, the doctor gave another medicine for vomiting. On the next day, i.e., 17.6.2000, the complainant developed rashes in her mouth and face and it was at this stage that she was taken to Dr. Aniruddha Ghorai, the respondent/OP who was a renowned doctor with MD qualification in medicine. It is stated by the complainant that respondent heard her history and saw the documents placed before him and issued a prescription to her. The grievance of the complainant is that the respondent did not mention in the prescription the history of the patient and also omitted to put therein the record showing means of communication, therapy modality, means of medical control of therapy, means of clinical trial, mechanism sample, etc. Thus the respondent was found to be negligent in this regard. It is further alleged by the complainant that it was a legal duty of the doctor to watch the condition of the patient but after prescribing the medicine Tarivid-200 twice a day, he did not care to watch or take stock of the reaction which it had on the patient. According to the allegation, the complainant took this medicine and as a result, she started feeling pain in her body and also there was no sign of her fever subsiding. So much so that her condition became so serious that she was crying with pain. Thereupon, she was shown to another Dr. Satyajit Ghosh who after examining the patient expressed surprise as to how such a serous antibiotic medicine could be prescribed. The said Dr. Ghosh gave Decadrone injection to save the life of the patient and advised her to go to Dr. Debasis Chakraborty for better treatment and advice. In view of this, it is the case of the complainant that the OP / respondent doctor was found to prescribe such a medicine without applying his mind most carelessly and as a result of which the complainant's condition became so serious and this act on the part of the OP doctor must be taken as an instance of utter negligence. It is also the allegation of the complainant that as a result of application of the medicine Tarivid-200, the complainant ultimately lost sight of her right eye.

(3.) The OP/respondent No.1 contested the case by filing a written version denying all the material allegations in the complaint and contending inter alia that although the complainant alleged that she suffered acute pain after taking Tarivid-200 on 18.6.2000, she did not turn up before him on any date after the said prescription was issued by him to her nor she reported any such effect or development ever to the OP doctor. It was further submitted by the OP that it is not proved that Tarivid-200 was the source of suffering of allergy by the patient as alleged. According to him, it is well established from different authorities on medicine that Tarivid-200 is a drug which cannot be responsible for causing Steve Jonson's Syndrome, nor Dr. Satyajit Ghosh came forward to say that taking of the said medicine caused allergy in the patient. It was further submitted by the OP doctor that it is the latest drug for reducing fever of a patient. But while prescribing this medicine, he also advised the patient to have some pathological tests so that he could see such test reports and decide if he would reconsider the prescription. However, it was submitted that the patient never appeared before him, not to talk of showing any such test report to him. According to the OP doctor, the allegations made in the complaint were wild and unfounded and the complaint had been filed with an ulterior motive of making wrongful gain and hence pleaded for dismissal of the complaint with cost.