FAKIR MOHAN BHUYAN vs G.C.POTHAL

THE complainant in this case has prayed for redressal of his grievances alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in the treatment of his son, in the Sriram Chandra Bhanja Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. According to the complainant''s case, his son aged about 17 years (Paramananda Bhuyan) who was a student reading in Class-X was admitted in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital on 26.8.1993 under opposite parties 1 and 2, who are doctors serving in the said Hospital. It is alleged that opposite party No. 1 demanded a sum of Rs.500/-.(Rupees five hundred) for treatment of his son. THE complainant expressing his inability for payment of the aforesaid amount, paid him Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) borrowing the same from some of his friends or relations. THE opposite party No. 1 demanded the balance amount of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) to be paid to him within two days and as the same amount was not paid, he got the son of the complainant discharged from the Hospital on 30.8.1993 through one of his junior doctors. THE discharge of the patient was against the consent and inspite of protest of the complainant. It is further alleged that after being discharged, the complainant''s son was brought to the Barabati Stadium Campus with the help of some persons where his condition deteriorated. It is stated thereafter that one Dr. M.K. Das was consulted who was of the opinion that the discharge of the patient from the Hospital was improper. He advised them to take the patient again to the Hospital immediately, for treatment. THE complainant thereafter took his son to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital by 7p.m. on 31.8.1993 and he was taken to the Casualty Ward as the Out Door was not open men. THE Doctor in-charge of the Casualty after examining the patient declared him to be dead. THE complainant has alleged that this amounts to gross deficiency of service on the part of the doctor who got the patient discharged before he was fully cured. THE rest of the allegations as narrated in the complaint petition relate to how the matter was highlighted in the news papers and as to how some agitations took place for the carelessness of the doctors.

IN the objections filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 separately, their common stand is mat there has been no deficiency in service in the matter of treatment of the complainant''s son and that the complainant is not a consumer. Their case is that the patient was sent to the Surgical Ward apprehending that some surgical operation maybe necessary as the patient was complaining acute pain in his abdomen. After admission in the Surgical Ward, the doctors there diagnosed that no surgical operation was necessary as the patient in all probabilities was suffering from enteritis fever which was the reason for his pain in the stomach and conservative treatment was given to the patient where after he recovered with dramatic suddenness. It is their case that it is the complainant who was anxious to take the patient from the Hospital saying that they have no place to reside at Cuttack and it becomes utterly difficult on their part to attend the patient in the Hospital any more. By the time the patient was discharged, he was not in critical condition nor the doctor left it necessary for his continuance in the Hospital. It has also been incidentally mentioned in the show cause that there has always been demand for beds in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital and therefore, the discharge of a patient at times becomes necessary for accommodating more serious patients coming to the Hospital. The preliminary question for determination is as to whether the complainant could be a consumer within the meaning of the Act. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1996 (I) AICJ 1 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 550, Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Ors., have clearly indicated that in the Government Hospitals every patient is treated free of charge and therefore, the services rendered in such Hospital cannot be said to be service rendered for consideration. The only distinguishing feature in this case is, as complained by the complainant in the complaint petition and argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant that a sum of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) was paid to the doctor with a promise to pay him the balance Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) more as per his demand. There is obviously no documentary proof in support of the aforesaid allegation. Assuming that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) was paid to opposite party No. 1, the payment was unwarranted and the demand if any by the doctor was illegal. By making payment for a patient admitted to a Government Hospital where every patient is entitled to be treated free of charge does not bring the person so paying to be a consumer within the definition of the Act. We therefore refrain from recording any finding as to whether or not the aforesaid amount as alleged by the complainant was paid to opposite party No. 1.

The net result is that such a case is not entertainable before any Forum or Commission established under the Consumer Protection Act. That being the position, we dispose of this case as not maintainable. It is however open to the complainant to take recourse to any other Forum/ Court for appropriate redressal, if he is so advised. Case disposed of.