NARAYAN CHOWDHURY Vs. RITA PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against an order dated 25.9.1996 of the Calcutta District Forum holding that the case against the opposite parties No.1 and 2, namely, two doctors attached to a Nursing Home named North Land Nursing Home (opposite party No.3) was not maintainable, as their services were not hired for consideration. In this case the complainant, Mrs. Rita Poddar is a doctor attached to Bijoygarh State Medical Hospital as Medical Officer and her husband Dr. S. C. Podder is also a Medical Officer attached to the R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. The petitioner's case is that her first child was born with congenital albinism and when she conceived again she took special care to have prenatal diagnosis and for this purpose had consulted with opposite party No.1, Dr. Chowdhury. On the advice of Dr. Chowdhury he consulted Dr. Kamal Bakshi of the All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. Earlier she had on the advice of Dr. Chowdhury an Ultrasonography test at the R. G. Kar Medical College Hospital. Ultimately with full precaution she was admitted for delivery in the North Land Nursing Home, 133 Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta 4, under the treatment of Dr. Chowdhury. Opposite party No.2 Dr. D. R. Bose was working as the Assistant to Dr. Chowdhury. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,529 /- to the Nursing Home under a receipt. It has been alleged that at the Nursing Home when she was under labour pain she was not given proper medical aid by Dr. Chowdhury and Dr. Bose under whose care she was and that the Staff Nurse of the Nursing Home also failed to inform the Doctors to appraise them of the actual condition of the patient. Ultimately the patient had to undergo a caesarean operation under one Dr. Pal and a dead male child was brought by him from her womb. The complainant has accused the aforesaid doctors and also the Nursing Home for this disaster as according to her they showed utmost negligence in her treatment when their attention was most necessary.

(2.) The opposite parties Nos.1, 2 and 3 have appeared and filed written objections denying the accusation against them. A preliminary objection has been raised by opposite parties No.1 and 2 that the medical service rendered by them were free of charge and they demanded no fees from the complainant who herself was a doctor and whose husband was also a doctor. As no mention of the payment of fees to the doctors was made in the petition of complaint, the complainant subsequently filed affidavits claiming that she had paid fees to them. A preliminary issue was accordingly raised by the District Forum as to whether any fees were paid to opposite parties No.1 and 2. Oral evidence was also taken of the two doctors and the Nursing Home. The District Forum after shifting the evidence and on an analysis of the whole case held that no fees were paid by the aforesaid two doctors and that as such the case was not maintainable against them. The Forum, however, held that the case was against the Nursing Home was maintainable and proceeded accordingly. The present appeal is against the said finding of the District Forum.

(3.) The learned Forum has mentioned in its order that the complainant had filed no mention of the payment of fees to the doctors in her petition of complaint. Subsequent, attempt to adduce evidence an affidavit on this point was practically a new story introduced and that it was not permissible. The Forum further sifted the evidence and accepted the version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that they did not demand any fees from the complainant as she and both her husband were Medical Officers working in Hospitals and payment of fees against such doctors was against medical ethics. The point for determination is whether the Forum's decision is a correct one.