ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Hon‘ble Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President;
Dr. R.N. Panigrahi, Member; Smt. J. Patnaik, Member
GOVINDA CHANDRA MOHANTY—Complainant
versus
DIRECTOR MEDICAL & HEALTH SERVICES, SAIL, ROURKELA & ORS.—Opp. Parties
C.D. Case No. 165 of 1991—Decided on 3.8.1992
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(o) - MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - FREE MEDICAL SERVICE - SERVICE RENDERED BY DOCTORS AND STAFF OF HOSPITAL - SCOPE OF SCRUTINY BY REDRESSAL AGENCY UNDER THE ACT - MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant's son, Gyana, died due to alleged negligence in treatment at Impat General Hospital. Complainant alleged that doctors failed to properly diagnose and treat Gyana's illness, leading to his death. Opposite parties, the Director of Medical and Health Services and the Managing Director of Rourkela Steel Plant, denied negligence and stated that all necessary treatment was provided to Gyana.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the free medical service rendered by the opposite parties did not come within the purview of service as envisaged under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the service rendered by the doctors and other employees of the hospital was within the scope of scrutiny by the redressal agency under the Act.
Issues: Whether the free medical service rendered by the opposite parties was a service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the service rendered by the doctors and staff of the hospital was within the scope of scrutiny by the redressal agency under the Act, as they were paid to render the service and were not rendering it gratuitously.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, holding that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Act.
Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President — Death of son on account of negligence in treatment is grievance of complainant.
2. Gyana, son of complaint, was a student in Personal Manager and Labour law of Sambalpur University. He suffered from fever on 15.5.1990. He was entitled to free medical treatment in Impat General Hospital for which he was taken by the complainant for treatment at about 7.15 p.m. on 15.5.1990. Later on, he was admitted to hospital as an indoor patient on 17.5.1990 for better treatment. Gyana, however, expired in the hospital in the afternoon on 19.5.1990.
3. Case of complainant is that he took his son to the out-patient-department of the hospital on 15.5.1990. The doctor on duty without examining the patient instead of advising pathological test prescribed medicines for Malaria. Next day without investigation, the doctor asked him to continue the same medicines. When complainant requested to examine the patient properly, the doctor on duty assured that fever would come down within 30 to 36 hours. When there was no improvement, in the evening of 17.5.1990 Gyana was admitted to hospital as an indoor patient for better treatment. He was admitted in the M.M. Unit. Neither the doctors nor the staff bothered to diagnose the disease and the patient was asked to continue the same medicines. On account of this negligence patient developed complications and vomited blood twice. However, no doctor attended to him and he was given medicines by inexperienced trainee nurses which was intimated by Gyana to the complaint on morning of 18.5.1990. That day also there was no diagnosis and medicines were prescribed by guesswork in a most casual manner. Due to want of proper diagnosis and reasonable degree of care or precaution of the doctors on duty and the medical staff, Gyana expired in the afternoon on 19.5.1990.
4. Opposite Party No. 1, the Director of Medical and Health Services, has stated his case. Opposite Party No. 2, the Managing Director of Rourkela Steel Plant, has adopted the case stated by opposite party No. 1. It is their case that on 15.5.1990 Gyana attended Casualty of hospital. He attended out-patient department of the hospital on 16.5.1990 and 17.5.1990. At about 6.45 p.m. on 17.5.1990 he was admitted the Mala Medical Ward and was given necessary treatment. On 18.5.1990 he was shifted to the cabin of the Ward and on 19.5.1990 he was taken to the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital. In spite of all efforts by the treating doctors including senior specialists and Deputy Director, Medical and Health Services, he expired on 19.5.1990 at 6.10 p.m. Details of the treatment has been described. It is stated that on 15.5.1990 Dr. C.R. Roy, Casualty Medical Officer who examined Gyana recorded the disease to be Pyrexia in the register which is usually recorded in the Medical Department Book, supplied to all patients entitled to free medical treatment in Company’s hospital. He was examined, given medicines by the doctor on duty on 16.5.1990 in the out-patient department. When he care to the Male Out-patient Department he was examined by Dr. N.K. Naik, he complained of fever with chill for the last three days. Dr. Naik provisionally diagnosed that the patient was suffering from Malaria and Viral fever and advised admission in the Ward. Examinations were made by different doctors and medicines were given to him during the period from 17.5.1990 evening till 19.5.1990 at 6.10 p.m. when he expired. These facts were recorded in the bed-head ticket. On 17.5.1990 itself blood examination for T.C., D.C., M.P., and Haemoglobin was done and the patient was examined at length by the attending doctor who provided the required medicines for the patient. When the patient vomited twice on 18.5.1990, he was attended to by Dr. S.R. Padbee, Senior Specialist, Dr. S.R. Satpathy, Specialist-in-Charge of Medicine, and Dr. S.S. Chand, Deputy Director of Medical and Health Services, alongwith other attending doctors. Various clinical tests an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.