Ranjit Kumar Das vs MEDICAL OFFICER, E.S.I. HOSPITAL

THIS is a petition of complaint filed by one Ranjit Kr. Das against the E.S.I. Hospital, 55, Bagmari Road, Manicktala, Calcutta 700 054, claiming damages for medical negligence shown to his wife by the hospital concerned and the medical officer attending his wife. The petitioner''s case is that his wife was an employee of Westing House Sexby Farmer Ltd. of 17 Convent Road, Calcutta700 054, working in its Branch Office at 24, Canal South Road, Entally, Calcutta. On 3.7.93, she became suddenly ill having pain in her abdomen. She was a card holder of the E.S.I. Hospital and was entitled to medical assistance from the E.S.I. Hospital. He went to the E.S.I. Hospital at 55, Bagmari Road, Manicktala on 4.7.93 at about 6.30 a.m. It is alleged that the attending doctor examined her at about 11.30 a.m. and detected that the pain in the abdomen of the petitioner''s wife was acute. The hospital authorities, however, refused to admit her at the hospital as there was no bed available and at about 12.30 p.m. she was advised to seek medical assistance from any other E.S.I. Hospital. It has been alleged by the petitioner that his wife was refused admission in the other hospital also viz. E.S.I. Hospital, Grant Lane, Calcutta-700 073 and at 64, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta. Ultimately, she was admitted in Bliss Nursing Home where she died on 5.7.93.

THE petitioner has stated that his wife died at the young age of 34 years and if she were alive, she would have worked for 24 years more. THE petitioner is, accordingly, claiming an amount of Rs. 7,06,288/as compensation due to the untimely death of his wife. Ops 1 to 3 contested the case by filing a written statement. Their contention is that the treatment of the petitioner''s wife cannot be treated to be a service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They further stated that the petitioner''s wife came to the E.S.I. Hospital at Manicktala on 4.7.93 at 1.00 p.m. and not at 6.30 a.m. as averred in the petition. They have stated that they have treated the patient at the earliest opportunity and that as no bed was available for her admission, they advised her to seek admission in another E.S.I. Hospital.

The petitioner Ranjit Kr. Das examined himself as PW 1. He stated in his deposition that the doctor attended his wife at 11.30 a.m. and he kept him waiting from 6.30 a.m. He also denies that he came to the hospital late and that his wife was examined by the attending doctor in time.

THERE are no papers to support respective claims of the parties in this regard. On behalf of the opp. parties the attending Dr. Debasis Chowdhury is examined as opp. parties W-l. A duty chart has been filed on behalf of the opp. parties vide Memo No. EH/MN/1930 dt. 3.6.93 from which it appears that on 4.7.93 Dr. C. Das and Dr. D. Chowdhury were on duty from 8.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. So, even if the petitioner''s wife came to the hospital at an early hour of the day, she could meet the doctor only between 8.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. The evidence of Dr. Debasis Chowdhury shows that as per record of emergency register, he attended the patient at 1.00 p.m. on that date. From the documents filed, it cannot be definitely said that the patient came to the hospital at 6.30 a.m. and that she was intentionally kept waiting for about 6-7 hours. It should, however, be remembered that the patient was seriously ill and that she needed immediate medical attention. On the part of the ESI Hospital, a ticket for outdoor patient has been produced in which it has been recorded that the patient was complaining of acute pain in abdomen. It is strange that in spite of such a complaint, no step was taken to treat her with any medicine. From the deposition recorded we have no doubt that the patient was suffering from acute pain in abdomen seriously and that she needed immediate medical care. But the ODP ticket shows that the hospital regretted that as no bed was vacant the patient was to try other E.S.I./State Hospital for admission. It is not disputed that the patient had an E.S.I. Card. So, she had a right to get proper treatment in the hospital. We fail to understand why no treatment was given to her in spite of her precarious condition. A Government Hospital is meant for the amelioration of the suffering of a patient but in this case the E.S.I. Hospital where the patient had a card prepared for herself for treatment did not show any sympathy towards her. The patient''s subsequent experience is more tragic. She was taken to another E.S.I. Hospital at Rajarhat where she met the same fate i.e. she was refused admission for nonavailability of bed. The petitioner has also stated in his deposition that she was refused admission in the Calcutta Medical College. At the last resort, the patient was taken to Bliss Nursing Home at Rajarhat, Joremandir on 5.7.93. THERE, the doctor tried to save her by giving blood but she breathed her last before any medical aid could be rendered to her. It is an ironical fact that while all the State Hospitals refused to admit her for treatment, she approached a private Nursing Home where she could be admitted at her own cost. THERE also her body refused to accept the treatment and gradually she collapsed. A more sad commentary on the administration of our hospitals could not be made and it is a shame that in spite of our much vaunted advertisement about the facilities of a hospital and the anxiety of the Government to render help to the poor, a poor lady had to die without any treatment.

AS regards the objection that the service meant in such a case is not within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, we reject the contention as medical service is a service within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and as the petitioner''s wife in this case as an employee of the Westing House Sexby Farmer Ltd. was registered under the E.S.I. Scheme (her ticket No. being 3367 and her E.S.I. Insurance No. being 9567504), she was covered by the definition of service under the Consumer Protection Act. We are satisfied from the evidence produced before us that the petitioner''s wife Smt. Rina Das as an independent citizen of India expired helplessly without any medical aid although she was insured under the E.S.I. Scheme and she had approached the relevant E.S.I. Hospital for treatment at the most crucial point i.e. when she was on the verge of life and death. It is also abundantly clear that she was denied any medical help by the E.S.I. Hospitals. That her disease was an acute one is proved by the fact that she expired on the following day without getting any treatment. We wish the Hospital Authorities had taken some care for her treatment even if there was no bed available as hers was an emergency case. We find no words to condemn such an inhuman attitude on the part of a Public Hospital meant for poor employees and we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that death was caused to the unfortunate patient in this case by the sheer negligence of the Hospitals and its staff. The complainant as the surviving husband of the deceased patient is, therefore, entitled to get compensation from the Hospital Authorities. As regards the amount of compensation it is found that the patient was an unskilled employee and she died at the age of 34 years. Although no details of her earnings have been given in the petition of complaint, yet after taking a modest view of the earnings of an employee in these days we hold that she is entitled to about Rs. 2.00 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs) only as compensation even if her average earning is assessed at Rs. 700/per month. As regards the husband of the deceased, it appears that he is an unemployed and infirm person with minor children. Taking into consideration the entire circumstances we think that the compensation proposed above is justified. In this connection, we also condemn the practice of refusing an emergent patient by a hospital without rendering any treatment.

THIS case is, therefore, allowed in part. The Administrative Medical Officer, E.S.I. Hospital (MB Scheme), Bagmari Road, Manicktala through the Regional Director, E.S.I.C., 5 Grant Lane, Calcutta, is directed to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs) only to the petitioner for himself and for the children of the deceased wife.

THE Doctor who attended the deceased patient on 4.7.93 at 1.00 p.m. viz. Dr. Debasis Chowdhury is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/(Rupees five thousand) only to the petitioner. All the above amounts should be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order. Office is directed to send the copies of the order to all the parties. Complaint allowed. _______________