SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Mr. Justice Suhas C. Sen, President; Dr. (Mrs.) R. Thamarajakshi,
Mr. Justice C.L. Chaudhry & Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra, Members
SUBHASHIS DHAR & ORS.—Appellants
versus
SMT. SANJUKTA SENGUPTA & ORS.—Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 2 and 3 of 1997—Decided on 28.7.1999

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Applicants :Mr. Anip Sachthey for Ms. Sandhya Rajpal, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 in both:Mr. Bijon Ghosh and Mr. Prabir Basu, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 2-10 in F. A. 2/97 and 2 to 9 in FA 3/97: Nemo.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 - Medical negligence - Complainant suffering Bronchial problem and breathing trouble took treatment from appellants but her condition deteriorated - Her condition improved when she consulted other doctors - State Commission accepted complainants claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs against each of two appellants - Appeal - No medical evidence tendered by complainant and case was disposed of on basis of certificates given by persons who were not medical men - Neither in discharge certificate given by Hospital nor in prescription of the Doctor there was any suggestion that treatment given to petitioner by appellant was wrong - Appellant could not have been held guilty of giving wrong treatment - Even if appellants were assumed to have erred in their judgment, it could not be held straightway that there was medical negligence - Complainant could not be said to have proved her case of deficiency of service against appellants - Impugned order of State Commission was liable to be set aside. (Paras 13 to 17)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       IMPORTANT POINT

       Doctor should not be held guilty of going wrong treatment without some medical evidence to that effect.

ORDER

Mr. Justice Suhas C. Sen, President—Dr. Subhasis Dhar and Dr. Sanjoy Ghosh, both Medical Officers of Damodar Valley Corporation have come up in appeal against the order of the State Commission, West Bengal, directing the two Doctors to pay Rs. 2 lakhs each to the complainant. The first grievance of the appellants is that the order of the State Commission was passed ex parte against them, they were not served with any notice. It has been recorded in the order of the State Commission that Dr. Subhasis Dhar and Dr. Sanjoy Ghosh did not attend the Commission either in person or through their authorised representatives. In fact, notices were proposed to be issued to show cause why further penalty would not be imposed against them for not appearing before the Commission.

2. The appellants’ case before us is that the husband of the complainant was an Engineer working at Chandrapura Thermal Power Station operated by Damodar Valley Corporation. The complainant, Smt. Sanjukta Sengupta, started staying with her husband at the power station since 1983. In 1983 itself she developed certain bronchial problems which kept on increasing. She had breathing trouble and she consulted Dr. Samarendra Nath Bagchi. From the year 1985 the bronchial problem started increasing. On the advice of Dr. Bagchi she came to Dr. Subhasis Dhar the appellant No. 1 for treatment. In the year 1987 the complainant’s condition deteriorated. She left Chandrapura and came to Calcutta for further treatment. While at Calcutta her problems ceased and Dr. M.R. Chetri, when she consulted, opined that until and unless she came to Dr. Chetri in the aggravated and in a state of distress a proper medical assessment could not be made. Secondly, Dr. Chetri wanted the proper medical report of the treatment which was being given by Dr. Subhasis Dhar. Dr. Chetri also suggested that as her condition had improved in Calcutta she should leave Chandrapura where her condition had deteriorated because of the environmental pollution. The complainant immediately after her return to Chandrapura in the year 1987 requested Dr. Dhar to furnish a report in detail regarding her problem and treatment which could be shown to Dr. Chetri for his expert opinion. The allegation of the complainant was that in spite of all efforts and repeated requests Dr. Dhar did not prepare such report even up to 1993.

3. In the year 1991 the complainant started suffering acutely. All her bronchial problems increased. Dr. Dhar assured her that she was receiving proper treatment and it would not be necessary to go to an expert. The only medicine prescribed by Dr. Dhar for the treatment of the complainant’s condition was ‘Sedonel’.

4. In November, 1991, the complainant became seriously ill for which she was admitted to a hospital when Dr. Dhar for the first time changed some of the medicines, but Sedonel was continued to be given. After 12 days under Dr. Dhar’s treatment an X-ray was called for. It was at that stage the husband of the complainant took her to Calcutta and contacted Dr. Purnendu Sen who suggested a new prescription and also stated that the type of problem faced by the complainant was being caused by environmental pollution. After some time the complainant went back to Chandrapura. Her husband met Dr. Dhar and showed him the two prescriptions of Dr. Chetri and Dr. Sen and pointed out that Dr. Dhar was taking a view contrary to the view taken by the two eminent Doctors of Calcutta. At that Dr. Dhar became furious and did not pay any heed or attention to the prescription given by Dr. Sen. At that stage the complainant’s husband was transferred from Chandrapura to the headoffice at Calcutta, but in a very short span of time because of a conspiracy he was again transferred to Mejia Thermal Power Station of DVC. In the middle of August, 1993, the complainant became seriously ill and developed breathing problem. She consulted Dr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Appellant No. 2 at 12 O’clock in the night. The husband of the comp































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top