LAMA

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 2425 OF 2016

 

(Against the Order dated 20/05/2016 in Appeal No. 498/2015 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)

1. JAIRAM SAHU

S/O. LATE SAMARU SAHU, R/O. RADHIKA NAGAR, BHILAI, TEHSIL AND

DISTRICT-DURG,

CHHATTISGARH

………..Petitioner(s)

Versus  

1. CHANDULAL CHANDRAKAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & ANR.

THROUGH DIRECTOR, G.E. ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR, CHOWK, BHILAI TEHSIL AND

DISTRICT-DURG

CHHATTISGARH

2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,

THROUGH MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE 1ST FLOOR,SHIVNATH COMPLEX, G.E. ROAD, SUPELA, BHILAI, TEHSIL AND

DISTRICT-DURG,

CHHATTISGARH

………..Respondent(s)
BEFORE:  

  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER

  HON’BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :  

Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate

For the Respondent :
Dated : 25 May 2017

ORDER

          This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Chhattisgarh dated 20.05.2016 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent/opposite party, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed consumer complaint in the District Forum concerned alleging that his sister-in-law Smt. Purnima Devi was admitted for treatment in opposite party hospital on 24.1.2014. As patient was critical she was kept for treatment in ICU from 24.1.2014 to 29.1.2014 when she was discharged although she was unwell. Smt. Purnima Devi died on 30.1.2014. According to the petitioner/complainant during her treatment Smt. Purnima Devi was administered expired medicines procured from the pharmacy of the opposite party hospital.
3. The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed the written statement controverting the allegations of using expired medicines for the treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi. Opposite party pleaded that Smt. Purnima Devi was brought to the opposite party hospital on the night of 24.1.2014 in a critical condition. She was, therefore, admitted in ICU and her treatment was started immediately. On 29.1.204 a family member of the deceased Smt. Purnima Devi got her discharged against medical advice. According to the opposite party, best possible treatment was given to Smt. Purnima Devi and no expired medicine was given nor any expired disposable was used during treatment.
4. Learned District Forum on consideration of pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party as under:-
 
“a. Opposite Party no.1 institution/hospital, to pay Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) as compensation for mental agony and compensation under all accounts to the complainant.
b. Opposite Party no.1 institution/hospital, also to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the above amount from the complaint date 05/12/2014 till the payment date to the complainant.
c. Opposite party no.1 institution/hospital, to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant).”
 
5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent/opposite party approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission Chhattisgarh vide impugned order allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
6. Learned Shri Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the plea that the order is based upon erroneous appreciation of the facts. Expanding on the argument learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through copy of sales summary report allegedly given by the opposite party alongwith the bill of treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi and submitted that on perusal of the said sales summary report it is obvious that some of the disposables used in the treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi and some of the injectables/medicines given to her were already expired. It is contended that State Commission has totally ignored the aforesaid sales summary report as such the impugned order is not sustainable.
7. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record. On perusal of record we find that the opposite party has also produced in evidence the computerized sales summary report of the medicines and disposables used for the treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi. As per the sales summary report produced by the complainant no expired medicine or disposables was used in the treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi. Thus, the question which required determination by the Fora below was as to which of the sales summary report was correct.
8. On perusal of the order of the State Commission we find that in order to resolve that controversy the State Commission has relied upon the letter addressed to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Office, District Durg (C.G.). The content of the letter is reproduced as under:-
“Office Deputy Director, Food and Drug Department
Santara Badi, Station Road, Above Parakh Agency, District-Durg
(C.G.)
Number/Medicine/Asp/2014/1055 Durg Date 17/10/2014
 
For,
  Chief Medical and Health Office,
  District Office,
  District Durg (C.G.)
  Subject:- In respect to the complaint in relation to Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Nehru Nagar
Sir,
  With reference to the above subject it is stated that the complainant Sh. Jairam Sahu S/o Late Samaru Sahu, Radhika Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) complaint is received, in which they have stated that the death of patient Poornima Devi, was due to expired medicines given to her. In relation to the above on inspection of the institution it is found that the form enclosed by the complainant is a sales summary sheet. A billing summary sheet is submitted by a hospital for billing work and is released by the Accounts department. The correct sales summary sheet of the patient that has been submitted with the form in this office, a copy is submitted for your perusal. The sales summary sheet Sh. Jairam Sahu submitted by complainant in the office is not signed. (Photocopy enclosed).
  Patient Smt. Poornima Devi was taken from the hospital on LAMA (Leave Against Medical Advice) on his complete responsibility. A photocopy of written consent of the relatives of the patient for LAMA is enclosed.
  From the time of admission of the said patient till the time she was taken from the hospital the sales record (supply sheet of ICCU) was checked and did not find the records of medicines of expiry dates. (Photocopy enclosed)
  All the current sales bills medicines related to the sales summary sheet enclosed with the above complaint, which are from the different batch of related medicines, were checked. It was found that the medicines in all the bills are as listed and the purchase bill of expiry date is not there. (Photocopy enclosed).
  Therefore, on checking the sale and purchase bill it seems patient Smt. Poornima Devi was not given medicines of expiry dates.
 
Enclosed: As per above
Total pages 51                                   
                                                            Drug Inspector
                                                  Food and Drug Department
                                                            District-Durg (C.G.)”
 
9. On bare reading of this document, it is clear that the inquiry into above noted plea of the petitioner was done by the Drug Inspector and as per his inquiry Poornima Devi was not given any medicines of expiry dates. 
10. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in the complaint has taken a plea that the hospital authority on 29.1.2014 suddenly discharged the patient Smt. Purnima Devi although she was not fit for discharge. Aforesaid plea of the complainant is falsified by the record which contains a duly signed statement of one Mukesh (family member of Smt. Purnima Devi) stating that he has got the patient discharged against medical advice on his responsibility. Even in the discharge document issued by the hospital authorities it is recorded, “LAMA” which means left against medical advice. From this it is clear that the petitioner is not a truthful person. As such the State Commission was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the basis of enquiry report of the Drug Inspector, Food & Drug Department, Durg, Chhattishgarh.
11. In view of the discussion above, we do not find fault with the order of the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of the revisional powers. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: