Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : In person.
For the Opp. Party :Mr. Bijay Ray, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President — Death of son on account of negligence in treatment is grievance of complainant.

2. Gyana, son of complaint, was a student in Personal Manager and Labour law of Sambalpur University. He suffered from fever on 15.5.1990. He was entitled to free medical treatment in Impat General Hospital for which he was taken by the complainant for treatment at about 7.15 p.m. on 15.5.1990. Later on, he was admitted to hospital as an indoor patient on 17.5.1990 for better treatment. Gyana, however, expired in the hospital in the afternoon on 19.5.1990.

3. Case of complainant is that he took his son to the out-patient-department of the hospital on 15.5.1990. The doctor on duty without examining the patient instead of advising pathological test prescribed medicines for Malaria. Next day without investigation, the doctor asked him to continue the same medicines. When complainant requested to examine the patient properly, the doctor on duty assured that fever would come down within 30 to 36 hours. When there was no improvement, in the evening of 17.5.1990 Gyana was admitted to hospital as an indoor patient for better treatment. He was admitted in the M.M. Unit. Neither the doctors nor the staff bothered to diagnose the disease and the patient was asked to continue the same medicines. On account of this negligence patient developed complications and vomited blood twice. However, no doctor attended to him and he was given medicines by inexperienced trainee nurses which was intimated by Gyana to the complaint on morning of 18.5.1990. That day also there was no diagnosis and medicines were prescribed by guesswork in a most casual manner. Due to want of proper diagnosis and reasonable degree of care or precaution of the doctors on duty and the medical staff, Gyana expired in the afternoon on 19.5.1990.

4. Opposite Party No. 1, the Director of Medical and Health Services, has stated his case. Opposite Party No. 2, the Managing Director of Rourkela Steel Plant, has adopted the case stated by opposite party No. 1. It is their case that on 15.5.1990 Gyana attended Casualty of hospital. He attended out-patient department of the hospital on 16.5.1990 and 17.5.1990. At about 6.45 p.m. on 17.5.1990 he was admitted the Mala Medical Ward and was given necessary treatment. On 18.5.1990 he was shifted to the cabin of the Ward and on 19.5.1990 he was taken to the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital. In spite of all efforts by the treating doctors including senior specialists and Deputy Director, Medical and Health Services, he expired on 19.5.1990 at 6.10 p.m. Details of the treatment has been described. It is stated that on 15.5.1990 Dr. C.R. Roy, Casualty Medical Officer who examined Gyana recorded the disease to be Pyrexia in the register which is usually recorded in the Medical Department Book, supplied to all patients entitled to free medical treatment in Company’s hospital. He was examined, given medicines by the doctor on duty on 16.5.1990 in the out-patient department. When he care to the Male Out-patient Department he was examined by Dr. N.K. Naik, he complained of fever with chill for the last three days. Dr. Naik provisionally diagnosed that the patient was suffering from Malaria and Viral fever and advised admission in the Ward. Examinations were made by different doctors and medicines were given to him during the period from 17.5.1990 evening till 19.5.1990 at 6.10 p.m. when he expired. These facts were recorded in the bed-head ticket. On 17.5.1990 itself blood examination for T.C., D.C., M.P., and Haemoglobin was done and the patient was examined at length by the attending doctor who provided the required medicines for the patient. When the patient vomited twice on 18.5.1990, he was attended to by Dr. S.R. Padbee, Senior Specialist, Dr. S.R. Satpathy, Specialist-in-Charge of Medicine, and Dr. S.S. Chand, Deputy Director of Medical and Health Services, alongwith other attending doctors. Various clinical tests and investigations were conducted from 17.5.1990. That day blood routine, T.L.C., D.C., HD and M.P. was done. On 18.5.1990 Sr. Bilirubin and SCPT were tested, routine examination of urine was done and Hb, grouping, cross matching were done. On 19.5.1990, Lumbar puncture was performed and CSF examination for cell count, prove in and sugar was done. Blood sugar, T.C., D,C, Hb., M.P., Urea, creatinine, Sr. Sodium, Sr. Potassium, Bicarbonate were tested. On the same day, again blood for M.P. and routine urine examination was also conducted. X-ray chest was also done on 19.5.1990. It has been further stated that free medical service rendered by the opposite parties do not come within the purview of service as envisaged under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumers Protection Act.

5. Complainant has supported his case by publication of the news in some newspapers and a bulletin published by the Rourkela Shruwika Sangha, representation of complainant as employee being Senior Malaria Assistant, Public Health and Malaria Department, Rourkela Steel Plant, to the Managing Director. Opposite parties have supported their case by various documents of the hospital maintained by it and the confidential report of the inquiry committee on death of Gyana. Statement of complainant recorded by the committee who refused to sign, such statement of Dr. S.R. Satpathy, Dr. S.S. Chand, Dr. S.K. Mishra, Shri Umapada Mohapatra who attended the patient, Shri Present Behera, Smt. Ahalya Kumari Mahanta, Dr. Ajay Ray, Shri N.M. Chseph, Data Processing Officer, were produced.

6. There is no doubt that free service rendered is not a subject of scrutiny by the redressal agencies under the Act. Therefore, Rourkela Steel Plant and the hospital management would not be treated to be rendering service as defined under the Act. However, service of the doctors and other employees of the hospital are hired on payment inasmuch as they are remunerated for rendering service. They do not gratuitously render such service. They are paid to render the service to the patients who are beneficiaries of service which is with approval of the management, whether specific or implied. Accordingly the service rendered by the doctors and staff would be within the scope of scrutiny by the redressal agency under the Act.

7. There is no allegation that the Director of Medical and Health Services (Opposite Party No. 1) rendered any service to the son of complainant. Equally the Managing Director of Rourkela Steel Plant (Opposite party No. 2) has not rendered any service as defined under the Act. In case specific complaint would have been made by the complaint against any of the doctors specifically or any staff of the hospital specifically, a copy of the complaint would have been sent to him as required under the Act so that he would have stated his case. Once they have not the opportunity to state their case, it is not desirable to make them accountable under the Act in this dispute.

8. Before parting we are inclined to express our concern over the ill-reputation of the hospital management. It is desirable that to keep up the high image of the hospital, serious view ought to be taken by the management and slightest delinquency of the employee coming to their notice should be sternly dealt with. Lives and health of employees and their dependents who have devoted themselves for production of steel, which is essential for the development of the Republic, are very valuable. Public policy is to protect such health for which guidelines are indicated in the various Labour Laws. This is neither amenity nor prequisite; it is essential for their efficiency. Unless this is taken note of, the doctors and employees of the Ispat General Hospital have no justification to be paid highly in comparison with the similar employees under the State Government. They should be made conscious of their duty.

9. Since in this case we are of the view that opposite Parties were not rendering any service to the complainant as defined under the Act, the complainant is not a consumer. Once the complaint is not a consumer on the facts of this case, the complaint is not maintainable.

10. In result, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

Complaint dismissed.