DR. AMIYA KUMAR BERA Vs. SANJOY KUMAR GOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts of the present case are that Bapi Gope, a minor child of the respondent no 1/the complainant/Sanjoy Kumar Gope (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant ') was a student of 3rd standard suddenly fell down on 28/11/2002 when he was participating in long-jump event during a school sports programme. The complainant brought his son to New General Hospital Behramore and got admitted under supervision of the appellant/the opposite party/Dr. Amiya Kumar Bera (hereinafter referred to as 'the opposite party ') The complainant as per advice of the opposite party got conducted investigation of his son such as X-ray etc. and thereafter the opposite party opined that the left leg of the son of the complainant got fractured. The opposite party without any operation put plaster was put on leg and the son of the complainant discharged from the hospital at the instance of the opposite party on 21/12/2002. The complainant was asked to pay Rs.500.00 as major Operation Theater (OT) charges. The complainant initially opposed to pay Rs.500.00 as no such operation was conducted but the hospital authority detained the son of the complainant in the hospital. Thereafter, the complainant finding no alternate paid Rs.500.00 towards major O.T. charges and got his son discharged his son / from the hospital on 22/12/2002. The opposite party instructed the complainant to bring his son for follow up on 22/1/2003 and the opposite party examined son of the complainant. The complainant also attended the opposite party on 5/3/2003 and the opposite party asked the complainant to bring his son in his private chamber where son of the complainant could be treated properly. The complainant has taken his son to the private clinic of the opposite party on 4/4/2003 where son of the complainant was treated by the opposite party. The opposite party charged his professional fee and advised the complainant to take assistance of a physiotherapist. The opposite party during treatment advised the complainant to get admitted his son in the hospital and accordingly son of the complainant was got admitted in the hospital on 30/4/2003. There was no improvement in the condition of his son and thereafter the complainant being ex-employee of defence department brought to his son to Command Hospital, Kolkata and got admitted his son on 3/5/2003 who was discharged from the Command Hospital on 23/5/2003. The complainant was provided with summary note wherein it was mentioned that 'MALUNITED Fracture, subtrochanteric Lt. Femur (OPTD) '. The authority of Command Hospital also certified that earlier left leg of the son of the complainant was not operated and was operated in the Command Hospital for first time. The opposite party was negligent in treating the son of the complainant and illegally charged alleged operation theater fee and there was deficiency in service in attending son of the complainant. The opposite party did wrong diagnose and gave wrong medicines were to son of the complainant only to grab the money. The minor son of the complainant due to medical negligence on the part of the opposite party has become partially handicapped and suffered mental shock due. The complainant being aggrieved filed present consumer complaint bearing C.C. No. 07/2004 titled as Sanjoy Kumar Gope V Dr. Amiya Kumar Bera before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murhshidabad, Berahmpore (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum ') wherein prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000.00 due to medical negligence by giving wrong treatment to the son of the complainant as a result of which, the son of the complainant has become partially handicapped and his brilliant student career has been ruined.

(2.) The opposite party opposed the complaint and filed its written objections. The opposite party stated that the complainant does not have any locus standi to file present complaint. The complaint does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party being Medical Officer of Behrampore General Hospital attended the patient Bapi Gope i.e. son of the complainant as an indoor patient and after considering his age and expectation of formation of calcium and remodeling advised for plastering after setting the fracture as much as possible. The son of the complainant was anaesthetized and as per norms of the Government Rs.500.00 was charged under head of major OT as per normal procedure against proper receipt by the authorized person of the hospital but not forcibly as alleged by the complainant. The broken bone of the son of the complainant was adjusted as much as possible on the fracture table in Operation Theater. The son of the complainant was discharged after treatment as detailed in the bed head ticket of the patient and as such there was no question of concealment of any treatment and practice. The son of the complainant after discharged was treated as outdoor patient. The son of the complainant might be admitted at Command Hospital, Calcutta and treated by said hospital but all these facts of admission and treatment do not prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party never advised/endorsed in bed head ticket or discharge certificate that the patient i.e. son of the complainant was undergone a operation. The son of the complainant was not given wrong treatment and medicines as alleged by the complainant. The most femoral fractures in children can and should be treated by closed method and rarely requires need for open reduction. A malunited fracture can be healed with the fragments in a non-anatomic position. The children are having a great power of remodeling. The opposite party adopted correct method of treatment and there was no negligence on his part. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation as claimed and the complaint be dismissed.

(3.) The opposite parties no. 2 and no.3 i.e. State of West Bengal and Superintendent of New General Hospital were impleaded as necessary parties vide order dtd. 23/3/2006 but despite service the opposite parties no.2 and 3 did not put in appearance and did not file written version.