S. Coari, Ld. Member:
The present Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dt. 12.10.09 passed by Purulia District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 12 of 2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest without any order as to cost.
The case of the Complainant/Appellant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant in the capacity of an employee under South Eastern Railway, Adra, met with an accident on 27.04.05 and sustained injury on his left wrist. Initially the complainant got first aid from Sadar Hospital, Purulia, on 28.4.05 and subsequently he was admitted in Male Surgical Ward of South Eastern Railway Hospital, Adra. According to the Complainant, though there was sufficient pain in the left wrist of the complainant, but the attending doctor ignoring such state of affairs conducted P.O.P. pluster in the injured hand of the complainant thereby also ignoring the fact that there was swelling in the fractured limb of the complainant. According to the Complainant, there was no relief to the complainant and as there was subsisting pain and swelling in the fractured limb of the complainant, the complainant got himself examined by an orthopaedic surgeon namely Dr. P.D.Trivedi of Purulia, who detected that there was existence of fracture in the left wrist of the complainant, which clearly indicated that the OP No. 2, i.e. the concerned Railway Hospital, was negligent in performing proper duty. Subsequently the complainant was referred to South Eastern Railway Hospital, Garden Reach, Kolkata, where the opined post immobilization fracture and advised for extensive physiotherapy. According to the complainant, due to negligent acts and omissions on the part of the Ops the complainant has suffered physical discomfort and harassment and hence, the petition of complaint for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,75,000/- along with litigation cost.
The Ops contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the petition of complaint was not maintainable on the ground that the complainant was not a Consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the Ops, the hospital and the physician attached to Adra Railway Hospital did not effect any manipulation in the injured limb of the complainant as that would have aggravated the situation considering the age of the complainant. According to the Ops, proper medical treatment and guidance was given to the complainant by the OP/Hospital and the concerned physician and in the absence of any negligence at the instance of the Ops the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainant was not a Consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and in the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops, as claimed by the complainant, the complainant was not entitled to get any relief as per prayer of the petition of complaint and accordingly dismissed the petition of complaint on contest without any order as to cost as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS
At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant to the effect that the Ld. District Forum having utterly failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs and the legal proposition involved has arrived at a wrong and improper decision, which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, the concerned Railway Hospital is not only meant for railway employees, but it is also open to public in general and as such, any negligence or improper act at the instance of the concerned hospital and the physicians and/or the other medical staff attached to it would certainly give rise to the affected and aggrieved person to institute a consumer complaint and that in such a case the aggrieved person will definitely be adjudged to be a Consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. While criticizing the impugned judgment the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted before us that in this case though there are materials on record for a presumption that Dr. Arya, the concerned medical officer attached to the Railway Hospital at Adra, conducted plastering on the injured arm of the complainant thereby totally ignoring the pain and swelling of the affected limb of the complainant, which automatically tantamounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the Ld. Advocate, the Ld. District Forum having ignored such state of affairs has committed gross illegality and on this score alone the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgment and find that in this case the Complainant/Appellant has put forward a case to the effect that the complainant after sustaining an injury in his left wrist initially got first aid at Purulia Sadar Hospital and thereafter the complainant being a railway employee got himself admitted and treated at Adra Railway Hospital where the concerned doctor ignoring his pain and swelling in the injured arm got it plastered causing great inconvenience and subsisting pain in the hand of the complainant. The complainant got himself examined by an orthopaedic surgeon at Purulia who had opined negligence at the instance of the doctor of the Railway Hospital and that the complainant was subsequently referred to Railway Hospital at Kolkata, where there was an advice for physiotherapy. According to the complainant, the acts and omissions at the instance of the Railway Hospital at Adra and the attending physician were due to negligence and deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint. The Ops, on the other hand, have tried to put up a case to the effect that the complainant was not a Consumer and the complainant having failed to substantiate his allegations so far as it relates to deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and find that in this case the Ld. District Forum was justified in holding that the complainant being a railway employee and the medical facilities and/or the services rendered to the complainant by the said Railway Hospital and its attending doctor certainly was free of cost and under such circumstances, the complainant cannot be designated to be a Consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. As regards alleged deficiency in service at the instance of the Railway Hospital and its attending doctor, we find that the complainant has very much banked upon the opinion of another orthopedic surgeon namely Dr. P.D.Trivedi, but, unfortunately, as it has been observed by the Ld. District Forum, no document and/or evidence was forthcoming before the Ld. District Forum in support of such contention so put forward on behalf of the complainant and in our opinion, the Ld. District Forum was also justified in not accepting the case of the complainant in this regard. On the other hand, we find that it has become evident from the materials on record that the Railway Hospital and its attending physician did their best to render medical facilities to the complainant keeping in mind the age factor of the complainant, due to which no further reopening/interference was conducted, which was obviously for the benefit of the complainant and none else. Having considered the present matter in the light of above discussions we find no merit in the present Appeal and accordingly we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, which, in our opinion, is liable to be confirmed. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgment stands confirmed.