IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes.

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The dispute relates to 2014, we are in 2019.

In brief, the allegations made by the complainant, a patient suffering from piles, were that the opposite party (doctor) was negligent in not carrying out any clinical examination, in not prescribing any diagnostic tests / investigations, in treating superficially in a callous manner, which all resulted in deterioration of the complainant’s medical condition; and the complainant sought compensation of Rs.10,14,400/- (inclusive of Rs.5,00,000/- for “pain, shocks, mental trauma” and Rs.3,00,000/- for “deficiency in service”).

2. The District Forum vide its Order dated 20.01.2016 had dismissed the complaint:

..................As per discharge summary patient presented Large Nacrotic abscess heavy pain in the perennial area seen by doctors of Tripura who given antibiotics without examining the local area according to the patient. From the evidence of the complainant it is found that allegation against O.P. No. 1 is that without examination local area he prescribed antibiotics. Then it developed into surgical case and the petitioner had to go to Kolkata and spent a huge amount. In Kolkata Report of discharge summary nothing stated about the damage due to late treatment. Nothing comes out from the prescription and evidence given by the complainant to support that the complainant was wrongly treated by O.P. No. 1. Tripura Medical Council on careful examination reported that O.P. No. 1 treated adequately as a careful doctor. That report is however challenged and as per decision of the Hon’ble High court fresh enquiry is to be conducted and opportunity is to be given to the petitioner patient for hearing. It is true that doctor Shyamal Sarkar was negligent when he did not notice the effected area but this negligence did not cause any damage to Tandra Das. After 8 days when the pain did not subside then she visited another doctor and that doctor advised her for surgical intervention. After surgical intervention she was cured. Surgeon is also available in Tripura and there is nothing in the record that such surgery was not possible in Tripura. Negligence is careless state of mind which may amounts to indifference. It is careless conduct without reference to any duty to take care. Tortious liability arise from breach of duty primarily fixed by law. Negligence and tort involves violence consequence firstly by breach of legal duty to exercise due care secondly breach of duty thirdly consequential damage. Here petitioner failed to produce any sufficient evidence to support that O.P. No. 1 Dr. Shyamal Sarkar was not under legal duty to exercise due care to see the effected area and by his failure he committed no breach of duty. Petitioner side also failed to support that due to such breach of duty petitioner suffered consequential damage. Dr. Shyamal Sarkar prescribed some antibiotics hoping that the abscess might subside and pain might be removed. When the pain was not removed and petitioner had been suffering she did not visit the doctor again but went to another doctor after 8 days. That doctor then referred her to surgeon. For this 8 days delay in treatment she did not suffer any damage. There is no medical opinion to support that the prescribed antibiotics caused any damage to the effected area & there is no medical opinion to support that the antibiotics were wrongly prescribed and were not supportive in the treatment. So we are of the view that there was no medical negligence by doctor Shyamal Sarkar and he is not under any liability to pay any compensation. The petition has no merit. Both points are decided accordingly.

In view of the above findings above the prayer filed u/s 12 of the act is dismissed............

(Findings and decision of Point No. 1 and 2 in the District Forum’s Order)

3. The State Commission vide its Order dated 08.03.2017 had dismissed the appeal on limitation:

9. Perused the condonation petition. From the whole condonation petiti