RAKESH RANJAN SINHA vs S.K. DAS

COMPLAINANT is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 17.6.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 26/2002 by District Forum, Khagaria whereby and whereunder dismissed the complaint petition.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant filed the case before the District Forum against O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 the two doctors alleging therein that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have given wrong pathological report and treated him wrongly which deteriorated in his ailment. On the basis of this allegation complainant claimed Rs. 1,21,000/- as compensation against both the O.Ps. The allegation of the complainant was that on 2.2.2003 he was feeling headache and pain hence he went to the private clinic of Dr. S.K. Das at Khagaria (O.P. No. 1) for his treatment who started his treatment and supplied some medicine from his clinic and also advised him for some pathological test and sent him for those tests to O.P. No. 2 who had Bhola Patho Clinic at Khagaria. His blood was collected by O.P. No. 2 and report was given to him on 4.2.2002 for which he paid the fees to both the O.Ps. On 4.2.2002 after perusal of the pathological report O.P. No. 1 declared that complainant was suffering from hepatitis B. O.P. No. 1 kept the complainant in his clinic for treatment since 4.2.2002 to 7.2.2002 and during this period he was administered several types of medicine by O.P. No. 1 in his clinic but his condition deteriorated. On 7.2.2002 at 4 p.m. when his condition was serious his attendant took him out from the said clinic and brought to Patna after hiring a vehicle. In the way at Begusarai the condition of the complainant deteriorated then at Begusarai his attendant brought him to the clinic of Dr. Binay Kumar who immediately started treating him. There also his pathological tests were done and after perusal of the report Dr. D.P. Singh of Begusarai declared that he was not a patient of hepatitis B but was suffering from gas trouble. He gave him some medicine. On 8.2.2002 his condition became normal and he returned back to his home along with his attendant.

The contention of the complainant is the due to wrong treatment and wrong pathological report he was wrongly treated and administered wrong medicine. Both O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were negligent in their duty and it caused him serious physical, mental and economic torture and harassment and he was on verge of death. The complainant in support of the above contention relied on the prescription of Dr. Binay Kumar and report of Dr. D.P. Singh both of Begusarai and submitted that earlier pathological report and line of treatment adopted by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were wrong and it caused him immense loss, both physical and mental.

O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the District Forum and filed written statement. Their contention is that the entire allegation of the complainant is false, fabricated with an intention to extract money from them. The pathological report produced on behalf of the complainant is false and fabricated. It is true that O.P. No. 1 has treated the complainant and has also advised for pathological test but it is false to say that the report of O.P. No. 2 was wrong and wrong medicine was administered by O.P. No. 1 which deteriorated in the condition of the complainant. O.P. No. 1 has not sent him to Binod Kumar O.P. No. 2 for pathological test. There is nothing mentioned in the prescription of O.P. No. 1 that he has referred him for pathological test to O.P. No. 2. The complainant himself went to the doctor and got himself pathologically tested. At no point of time O.P. No. 1 has told the complainant or his attendant that he was suffering from hepatitis B nor he was administered any medicine for his disease. The O.P. No. 1 further contended that complainant was never admitted in his clinic because he has got no clinic. He treated the patient in his outdoor clinic where no patient is admitted for any ailment. At the time of examination by O.P. No. 1 on 3.2.2002 the complainant was found intoxicated. This fact is mentioned in the prescription of the complainant along with his blood pressure. Since he was alcoholic, therefore, he was advised for Bile salt, bile pigment and bilirubin and another test and in the meantime he was given first aid medicine. He was given anti-gastric tablets. On 4.2.2002 he again examined the complainant and found that his eye was yellow and this fact was mentioned in his prescription and he was advised for saline water and other medicine. He was never given any medicine used to be given to the patient of hepatitis B. After 4.2.2002 the complainant never turned up before O.P. No. 1. It was further submitted that the medicine recommended by O.P. No. 1 are similar in the brand name as advised by Dr. Binay Kumar of Begusarai as detailed in the written statement. Both of them have never administered any medicine to the complainant used to be given to the patient of hepatitis B. As such the deterioration in his condition as alleged due to the medicine prescribed by O.P. No. 1 is false and fabricated. The treatment of hepatitis B is not done at Khagaria and when any such patient is found he is referred to Patna or other places where the treatment is available. It was further contended that O.P. No. 1 is a respectable and renowned doctor of Khagaria and the entire allegation made against him is false and fabricated. O.P. No. 2 Dr. Binod Kumar also filed written statement. His contention is that allegation made against him by the complainant is false and fabricated. He is not a doctor attached with Bhola Patho Clinic of Khagaria. The pathological report of this clinic is not under the signature of O.P. No. 2 but with ulterior motive the complainant has implicated him alleging that he is a doctor of the pathological clinic and the report was submitted by him. The District Forum after considering the contention of the complainant and O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and considering the materials available on record held that complainant has failed to make out any case of negligence against both the O.Ps. The complainant has further failed to prove that the blood report prepared and sent by O.P. No. 2. The District Forum further held that there appears to be overwriting and interpolation in the pathological report produced on behalf of the complainant. The word positive in the report is overwritten and no reliance can be placed on this report as prima facie it appears to be forged and fabricated and accordingly dismissed the complaint petition.

THE learned appellant''s lawyer submitted before us that the impugned order of the District Forum is bad in law and fit to be set aside. THE pathological report prepared by respondent No. 2 has not been considered by the District Forum as it clearly mentions hepatitis B and there is no overwriting or manipulation in this report. THE finding arrived that fraud has been committed in the pathological report is mere conjecture of the District Forum and not based on any valid material on record. It was further alleged that the pathological report produced on behalf of the complainant is under the signature of respondent No. 2 and on this basis respondent No. 1 has administered him wrong medicine of hepatitis B which deteriorated in his condition. In reply the respondent''s lawyer submitted that from the naked eye the report produced on behalf of the complainant of Bhola Patho Clinic of Khagaria dated 4.2.2002 shows that in the column astralia and antigen word positive has been mentioned after blading the earlier writing, therefore, the report itself appears to be defrauded and the District Forum has rightly held that a fraud has been committed in this report in order to substantiate the allegation made by the complainant. The respondent''s lawyer further submitted that respondent No. 1 has prescribed medicine to the complainant first on 3.2.2002 and has advised him for some pathological test as detailed in the prescription dated 3.2.2002. He has not mentioned that he should go to Bhola Patho Clinic for test nor he has advised for astralia or antigen test. The medicine prescribed by respondent No. 1 on 4.2.2002 after perusal of the report does not include any medicine used for hepatitis B. If the report of Bhola Patho Clinic had shown positive indicating that complainant was suffering from hepatitis B in that case in normal circumstance he should have referred him to Patna for proper and better treatment without administering in any medicine but on that date i.e., 4.2.2002 when the report was brought before him positive word was not mentioned in the report. It has been subsequently inserted after blading the earlier word used in this column which is clear from the naked eye. The medicines prescribed by him on 4.2.2002 are similar as prescribed by Dr. Binay Kumar of Begusarai as is clear from his prescription dated 7.2.2002. This shows that till this date word positive was not mentioned in the pathological report of Bhola Patho Clinic dated 4.2.2002 otherwise Dr. Binay Kumar would have also referred him for proper treatment to Patna. The report of Saito Patho Clinic dated 7.2.2002 of Begusarai mentions astralia and antigen negative. Dr. Binay Kumar who has seen the complainant on 7.2.2002 has prescribed him some medicine which are used for gastric patient as is advised by respondent No. 1 and on that date he has advised him for pathological test including astralia and antigen test and thereafter he went to Saito Patho Clinic on the same day. Therefore, it is clear that on this date the complainant has not produced any pathological report before Dr. Binay Kumar showing that his earlier blood report shown positive of astralia and antigen test. This fact has been subsequently manufactured in order to create evidence in this case. On behalf of the complainant-appellant only one affidavit has been filed. The photo copy is enclosed with the memo of appeal. Those are by Birendra Kumar Choudhary and Sushil Choudhary who have stated that respondent No. 2 is the owner of Bhola Patho Clinic of Khagaria and on the advice of respondent No. 1 the complainant was brought to the pathological clinic of respondent No. 2 where Dr. Binay Kumar himself took blood and examined and gave the report. Besides this no evidence of any expert has been filed on behalf of the complainant in support of his allegation. There is no supporting evidence of expert or any medical book or journal to support the contention that the medicines used by respondent No. 1 as prescribed in his prescription dated 3.2.2002 and 4.2.2002 are used for hepatitis B and they were responsible for the alleged deterioration in his condition. Except the allegation made by the complainant that these medicines are used for hepatitis B and it caused deterioration in his condition. There is nothing on record to substantiate this contention of the complainant. We have carefully scrutinized the prescription both of respondent No. 1 and of Dr. Binay Kumar of Begusarai and found that most of the medicines used are similar and common and none of the medicines are used for the patient of hepatitis B. This supports the contention of respondent No. 1 that diagnosis made by him were the same as of Dr. Binay Kumar who has examined the patient after about 4 days on 7.2.2002. In the fact and circumstances, we are of the view that complainant-appellant has failed to substantiate the allegation of negligence and deficiency in medical duty against both the respondents and has also failed to produce any evidence or opinion in support of his contention. We are in agreement with this finding of the District Forum that the pathological report of Bhola Patho Clinic dated 4.2.2002 appears to be overwriting where the word "positive" has been mentioned. The earlier writing in this column is blurred. This creates doubt because it does not bear the signature of the doctor when it was very essential for the doctor to put his signature. If he has made any amendment in his report much the less while he was writing positive to show that the patient was suffering from hepatitis B. In absence of these facts no reliance can be placed on this pathological report over which the entire case of the complainant is based. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order of the District Forum and it does not require our interference.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.