DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 117 OF 2016
DATE OF FILING: 05.10.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 05.08.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Salima Begam, W/O – Syed Abid Ali, Village – Bilandapur, P.O. + P.S. – Magrahat, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743355.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Seba Nursing Home, Newtown, Diamond Harbour, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Pin - 743331.
2. Dr. Abul Hasnat, Newtown, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas, Pin - 743331.
_______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
This is a case filed under section 12, CP Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the nursing home and the operating surgeon i.e. O.P. nos. 1 and 2.
The epitome of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant runs as follows.
The complainant developed an ectopic pregnancy and was admitted to O.P. no. 1 / nursing home on 29.03.2015. Her condition was stated to be very serious and therefore she was operated upon on that very day by O.P. no. 2 who is stated to be a general surgeon. About 2 days after surgical operation, she contacted severe fever coupled with tremendous breathing trouble; her physical condition started deteriorating from bad to worse. So, she was admitted to Kasturi Medical Center at Behala on 01.04.2015 and was under ICCU for some days. Thereafter, she was transferred to general bed where she had to stay for a further period of 3 days. Last of all, she was discharged from the said nursing home i.e. Kasturi Medical Center on 09.04.2015. She had to spent about Rs. 2,00,000/- for her treatment and such heavy expenditure was incurred by her due to medical negligence of the O.P.s. as alleged by the complainant. Now the complainant has filed the instant case praying for passing an order directing to O.P.s to pay compensation to her for medical negligence and deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this case.
Both the O.P.s have entered into appearance in the case and have filed W/Vs separately. Though W/Vs are filed separately by them, the contents of their version are same.
According to them, the complainant was admitted to O.P. no. 1 nursing home on 29.03.2015 at about 8:30 p.m. with inadequate urine, fever and abdominal pain. She brought the USG report of lower abdomen and the said report was suggestive of ruptured ectopic pregnancy with haemoperitoneum, collection of fluid with internal echoes seen in pelvis as well as hepato renal pouch. The patient was in emergency stage and therefore she needed to be operated. The patient party also gave consent for surgical operation of the patient. At about 10 p.m. on that day the patient was shifted to the operation theatre and Exploratory Laparotomy was done under anesthesia. The lower Right Paramedian incision was made and the abdomen was opened in layers. There was a huge collection of clotted and liquid blood noted inside the peritoneal cavity along with lump of blood clot. Operation was conducted successfully upon the patient by O.P. no. 2 and Dr. Rabindra Nath Jana. Hemoglobin level of the patient plummeted and therefore Haemaccel was channeled during the operation. 2 units blood were also given to the patient on 30.03.2015. Antibiotic injection (Pipzo 4.5 gm) was also given to the patient with a doze of thrice daily and other supporting medicine was also given to him. On 31.03.201 in the morning, O.P. no. 2 found that the patient was clinically stable but she had some respiratory distress. So, he referred the patient to another physician namely, Dr. Prabir Mondal, MD who saw the patient and prescribed some supporting medicine with advice to continue the previous medicine.
On 01.04.2015 at about 7 a.m., O.P. no. 2 visited the patient and saw that her condition improved clinically. That day at about 10 p.m. the patient party requested the nursing home authority to transfer the patient to higher center and accordingly the patient was discharged from the nursing home on the request of the patient party.
It is the version of the O.P.s that they have left no stone unturned to take proper care of the patient, that there is no medical negligence nor deficiency in service caused on their part and the complainant has filed the instant case with the sole motive of wrongful pecuniary gain. Therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of medical negligence as well as deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have led their evidence on affidavit and these are kept in record. BNA filed by O.P. nos. 1 and 2 is also kept in record after consideration. No BNA is filed by the complainant.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. 1 and 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for both the parties. Perused the petition of complainant, W/Vs, the medical papers filed on record and also the expert’s medical report. Considered all these.
Here is an allegation of medical negligence brought by the complainant against the O.P.s i.e. O.P. nos. 1 and 2. O.P. no. 1 is the nursing home and O.P. no. 2 is the surgeon who conducted operation upon the complainant on 29.03.2015 at 10:30 p.m. There is no dispute that the complainant was operated upon by O.P. no. 2 in O.P. no. 1 nursing home for her ailment of ectopic pregnancy. An allegation of medical negligence will survive only when the 3 ingredients of negligence are found to be fulfilled. These ingredients are:- 1) Duty, 2) Breach of duty and 3) Resulting damage. Every doctor owes a duty to his patient and this is a duty to take care of the patient. Doctor is expected to take all sorts of care of the patient including pre and post treatment care. In the instant case it is the version of the complainant that proper post operative care has not been taken by the O.P.s and therefore she had to rush to another nursing home namely Kasturi Medical Center for proper treatment. The version of the O.P.s is that the proper post operative care and management was made available to the complainant and the complainant was discharged from the nursing home only on request of the patient party.
Let us see now whether the O.P.s have caused any breach of duty in so far as the surgery of the complainant is concerned. The complainant was suffering from ruptured ectopic pregnancy; her fallopian tube was ruptured and as a result of which the blood got accumulated in abdominal cavity. The condition of the patient was extremely serious and this condition was noticed by the operating doctor i.e. O.P. no. 2. He rightly took the emergency step and conducted surgery upon the complainant, otherwise the life of the complainant would have been at stake. All these are revealed in the treatment sheet of the patient filed by the O.P.s and all these are not at all disputed. The only question which requires consideration is whether proper post operative care was taken by the O.P.s or not. To find it out, we have to see the ground for which the complainant took discharge from the O.P. nursing home and got herself admitted to another nursing home i.e. Kasturi Medical Center. The treatment sheet of Kasturi Medical Center has been placed on record and from the treatment sheet dated 01.04.2015 i.e. the date of admission of the complainant to that nursing home, it is found that the complainant was having only a sort of restlessness. The discharge summary and certificate of the said nursing home is also placed on record by the complainant and from the copy of that discharge summary it stands established that the complainant was admitted to the said nursing home on 01.04.2015 at 11:30 p.m. and was discharged therefrom on 09.04.2015 at 8 a.m. It is further revealed therefrom that the patient approached the said nursing home with complaint of respiratory distress with history of ruptured ectopic pregnancy for which operation was done on 29.03.2015 at 10:30 p.m. in a different hospital. From all these materials i.e. the treatment sheet and discharge summary of Kasturi Medical Center, it is crystal clear that the complainant was suffering from nothing but restlessness and breathing distress only. These symptoms i.e. restlessness and breathing distress are not uncommon complication of the operation of such kind and it has been so highlighted in the medical expert report kept in the record. We like to quote the relevant portion of expert medical report dated 25.08.2015, which reads as follows:
“Initial diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy was correct and the management undertaken was also more or less according to the standard guidelines. Post operative care in this case was also satisfactory.
However, the patient’s condition deteriorated from the second day and most likely it was caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome, which is not an uncommon complication following laparotomy. It may be precipitated by a combination of factors like surgery in an otherwise compromised patient like anaemia, infection, injury or diabetes. It leads to difficulty in breathing due to dysfunction of lung alveoli and that leads to poor oxygen supply to the body. Features like increased pulse rate, increased respiratory rate, decreased blood pressure, crepitations in lungs and low SPO2, are all suggestive of the diagnosis. If not properly managed it may lead to multi organ failure and even death.
In this case however, proper measures were adopted and she could survive the critical complication.
It cannot be said with certainty that, the complication resulted from the original surgery. Her surgical wound was healthy and did not show any evidence of local sepsis. It healed well. No other abdominal complication was evident and that is also suggestive of no improper measures during the Primary Surgery.
Thus in absence of definitive corroborative evidence, it cannot be stated that her sufferings were due to improper management by the concerned Doctors.”
The O.P. nursing home took proper measures to control post surgery complication and it has been so stated in expert medical report. Even the expert medical report points out that, “It cannot be said with certainty that the complication resulted from the original surgery.” The surgical wound of the complainant was healthy and it did not develop any sepsis; it healed well. So, regard being had to all these, we feel not a vestige of hesitation to say that there was no lapse on the part of the O.P.s to take proper care of the complainant after her surgical operation. Ingredient of “Breach of duty” remains unfulfilled and this being so, we cannot say that the O.P.s committed medical negligence as well as deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s, but without any cost.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a copy of this judgment at once free of cost to the parties concerned.
I/We agree Member President
Directed and corrected by me
President
