Sangita Paul, Member:
This is a case filed by Sri Shankar Panchadhyayi S/o. Late Panchanan Panchadhyayi of Garia Station, Nabagram, P.O. – Panchpota, P.S. – Narendrapur formerly Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700 152, South 24 Parganas, AMRI Hospital Dhakuria, Emergency Medical Officer, AMRI Hospital, Dhakuria, and Dr. Biswajit Paul, with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay Rs. 1,56,466/- + Rs.60,000/- = 2,16,466/- has medical and other expenses spent by the complainant till discharge from the BIN Hospital which is still persisting, to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and suffering from mental trauma and agony arising due to gross negligence of the OPs, to pay Rs.30000/- as litigation cost.
OP No.1 is AMRI Hospital, Dhakuria (a unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd.) The address is 38/1A, Gariahut Road, P.S. – Rabindra Sarobar , Kolkata-700 029.
OP No.2 is Emergency Medical Officer, AMRI Hospital, Dhakuria (a unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd.), 38/1A Gariahut Road, P.S. – Rabindra Sarobar, Kolkata-700 029.
OP No.3 is Dr. Biswajit Paul, AMRI Hospital, Dhakuria (A Unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd.). The address is 1A Gariahut Road, P.S. – Rabindra Sarobar, Kolkata-700 029.
The complainant by filing this case states that on 26.02.2019, at around 6:30 p.m., felt nausea, vomiting and vertigo. He was admitted to AMRI Dhakuria, Deptt. of Emergency Medicine (EMO4) at around 7:30 p.m.
City Scan was done by OP No.3. As per report, “Small infract in Lt Pons. Neither EMO nor Dr. Biswajit Paul made mandatory clinical correlation and further evaluation to rule out the Pleural Effusion prior to suggest Thrombolysis Plan in their treatment sheet. This was gross medical negligence towards the complainant. Dr. Biswajit Paul found everything within normal limit. Dr. Biswajit Paul recorded clinical findings. OPs 2 & 3 did not try to make correct diagnosis to find out other causes of vomiting and vertigo of o by way of differential diagnosis, when the condition of the patient was within normal limit. The OPs were negligent.
The OPs did not obtain informed consent from the complainant, when the complainant was fully conscious. The OPD did Thrombolysis without confirming the presence of Thrombus or Ischemia or Infraction (Cell Death) and put the complainant on the life threatening risk of Thrombolysis without any basis. The complainant became sick. The complainant was admitted to AMRI Hospital Dhakuria on 26.02.2019 at around 6:30 p.m. The complainant became more sick and was discharged by OP No.3 on 27.02.2019 at 11:00 a.m. Within thirteen hours the OP No.1 generated a huge amount of bill of Rs.156466/- only. The bill come treatment receipt and receipt of medicine were generated without manufacturers name, batch no. , date of expiry, date of manufacturing etc. The quality potency and life of the medicine are not free from doubt. It appears that the medicines were not used at all, but the names are included in the bill-cum-receipt.
The complainant was shifted to Bangur Institute of Neurology on 27.02.2019 for treatment. The Doctors of BIN made a confirmed diagnosis of Peripheral Vertigo. It was totally different from the report of AMRI Hospital Dhakuria.
At last his condition was improved within 6 days and he was discharged on 04.03.2019 in stable condition. During the treatment at BIN, the complainant incurred and expenditure of Rs.60,000/- including medicines and Lab. Tests.
That the cause of action arose on 26.02.2019, 27.02.2019, 04.03.2019 and it still continuing.
Hence, the complainant prays for directing the OPs to pay Rs.1,56,466/- and Rs.60,000/- =Rs.2,16,466/- as medical expenses spent by the complainant till discharge from the BIN Hospital, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and suffering from mental trauma, and agony arising due to grossly negligent act of the OPs, to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost.
OPs 1 & 2 in the W/V states that the complaint petition is not maintainable in the eye of law and the same is required to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
That the case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. The Ops denied and disputed each and every allegation raised by the complainant in the complaint petition. OP No.1 states that the complainant was not in a conscious state. As a result, the Ops could not obtain informed consent for MRI. They did MRI and on the next date the patient was improved. There was blood circulation in the brain. Next day his vertigo, nystagmus and power of limbs were improved fully. The OP did not commit any fault. On 26.02.2019 the clinical examination proved that he was not in normal condition. He had acute vascular insult in the brain i.e. acute stroke. So the complainant was transferred to the ITU. NCCT Brain was done to rule out the haemourrhage . The patient had central vertigo, not peripheral vertigo. The patient’ wife gave consent for IVT following IV Thrombolysis, the patient was improving. The MRI was done. The result was improved/ normal. The patient’s relative shifted the patient on risk bond. The OPs held the patient party. The Ops have no knowledge whether the complainant was shifted to Bangur Institute of Neurology. The complainant failed to produce any expert opinion. That there was gross negligence. The complaint is liable to be rejected.
That the OP No.3 in the W/V states that the complaint is not at all maintainable in the eye of law. That the complaint petition is speculative and vexatious . That the complainant has no prima facie case against answering OP No.3.
The case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant did not implead other Doctors who treated the patient as a party in the proceeding. OPNo.3 denied and disputed each and every allegations raised by the complainant.
When the OP No.3 examined the complainant, he was drowsy, not fully conscious and alert. NCCT Brain was done due to rule out hemorrhage. It was difficult to get acute ischemic change in the posterior circulation within one hour. Every ischemic change in the brain may be missed easily in City Scan in acute ischemic stroke.
There was no contraindication of IVT in this case. The patient’s wife gave consent for IVT. Following Thrombolysis, the patient’s condition was improved. And also has vertigo, nystagmus and power of limbs were improved. All the allegations are baseless, imaginary, concocted and accordingly denied. The new clinical sign confirmed that developing brain lesion, localized in left pons and it was progressing. City Scan report revealed that there was no sufficient abnormality in the brain.
The acute ischemic stroke IVT is the only treatment available if patient comes within golden time. Effect of IVT was discussed with the patient’s wife. Gradually the patient was improved. In AMRI Hospital, Dhakuria the Doctors have given most possible care. The family members of the patient decided to shift the patient to BIN. So they asked for discharge report. OP No.3 submits that he had no knowledge whether the complainant was admitted to BIN on 27.02.2019. The complainant raised allegations against Ops 1,2 & 3. Complainant failed to provide any expert opinion against the findings of the Ops 1,2 & 3.
Hence the complaint is baseless and OP No.3 prays that the complaint must be rejected with cost.
The instant case was filed on 24.12.2020. The case was admitted on 07.01.2021. On 04.03.2021 OP Nos. 1 & 2 and OP No.3 filed W/V. On 06.04.2021 the complainant files evidence on affidavit with a copy. On 05.10.2021 Ld. Lawyer of the Ops filed questionnaire. On 24.11.2021 the complainant files reply. On 24.01.2022 Ops 1 & 2 filed evidence on affidavit. Copy served. On 04.03.2022 the complainant files questionnaire for Ops 1, 2 & 3 separately. Copies served. On 28.04.2022 OP No.3 filed reply. On 05.07.2022 Ops 1 & 2 filed reply to the questionnaire. On 10.01.2023 the complainant files BNA. Ops 1, 2 & 3 also files separate BNAs. Argument of Ld. Lawyer of the complainant was heard. The complainant was directed to serve all the copies to the Ops. On 19.01.2023 Ld. Advocate for the complainant files a copy of discharge summary and OP’s patient-card, supported by affidavit. Ops 1 & 2 filed W/O against the document filed by the complainant. Heard argument of the Ops and reply of Ld. Lawyer of the complainant in full. Accordingly, we proceed for giving judgement.
POINTS OF CONSIDERATION :-
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Are the Ops guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS :-
- On perusal of records and documents filed by the complainant and the Ops, it appears that the complainant was admitted to AMRI, Dhakuria on 26.02.209. with several physical problems. He felt nausea, and vertigo. Due to vomiting tendency he went to AMRI Dhakuria, Deptt. Of Emergency Medicine. EMO made provisional diagnosis of brains stem infraction. EMO planned for Thrombolysis. OP No.3 withholds the plan of Thrombolysis. It appears that the patient had vertigo associated with other ailments. For his treatment, confirmed diagnosis is necessary. The complainant was basically admitted to AMRI Dhakuria for treatment, based on confirmed diagnosis. The complainant was released from AMRI on the very next day. The hospital authority made a whopping bill of Rs.1,56,466/-. Then the complainant was shifted to BIN Hospital. As the complainant was admitted to AMRI Hospital and then BIN Hospital, he is a consumer u/s 2(7) of the C P Act, 2019. Hence, the 1st point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the Ops.
- The complainant went to AMRI Hospital Dhakuria with some complications. EMO (Emergency Medical Officer) confirmed that it was a case of central vertigo. EMO confirmed brain stem stroke. EMO and Team confirmed it before obtaining the formal report. After tests it takes sometimes to get the formal report. For making diagnosis confirmed report is required. Confirmed report was yet to come. But the Doctors made the diagnosis. When the patient was going to be critical, the line of treatment must be based strictly on report. But in the present case the Doctors started treatment. If the diagnosis is not properly made there would be problems in treating the patient. The Doctors confirmed the case as central vertigo. But it was a case of Peripheral vertigo. On the next day, i.e. on 27.09.2019 the complainant was admitted to Bangur Institute of Neurology. BIN made a completely different diagnosis. They confirmed that it was a case of peripheral vertigo. It is really surprising that BIN did not make other reports, seeing the plates of AMRI Hospital Dhakuria, BIN made the diagnosis. Peripheral vertigo is not of brain origin. After that the condition the patient was improved and he was released from Bangur Institute of Neurology. It appears that the diagnosis made by AMRI different from the diagnosis of BIN. Both the hospitals depend on the same report but the diagnosis was different. Afterwards BIN was made a report for confirmation. It is a clear case of recipsaloquitur. The condition of the patient was improved after being admitted to BIN. So the court is capable to understand the condition of the patient.
Medicine was purchased at 11:10 p.m. and it was administered before 11:10 p.m. The names of the medicine are written without Batch No. expiry –date, manufacturing-date etc. When a patient got admitted it is the duty of other Doctors to treat the patient following popular line of treatment. In the present case, it appears that the Doctors are deficient in providing service. So, the 2nd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the Ops.
- The complainant was not cured at AMRI Hospital Dhakuria. He had to be shifted to BIN. At the time of treatment and therapy i.e. for IV Thrombolysis, the consent of the patient was not taken. The complainant failed to know his condition. The Ops did not feel it important to inform and take consent of the patient, so that he is able to realize his physical condition. If the complainant was asked by the Doctor he could give his opinion regarding treatment. According to City Scan report there was no cell death. No abnormality was found in the City Scan Report. But it was informed that it was a case of CVA, Brain Stem Infract. So it was a fabricated report for raising medical bill. Realizing all these the complainant spent time in mental agony. The complainant spent time in agony after seeing such a huge bill. So it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. So, the 3rd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the Ops.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Ops 1, 2 & 3 with a cost of Rs.30,000/- .
That the Ops 1, 2 & 3, jointly and/or severally are directed to pay Rs.1,56,466/-(Rupees one lakh fifty six thousand four hundred and sixty six) and Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) =Rs.2,16,466/- (Rupees two lakhs sixteen thousand four hundred and sixty six) along with 10% simple interest w.e.f. 26.02.2019 as medical and other expenses incurred by the complainant till discharge from the Bangur Institute of Neurology within 45 days from the date of this order.
That the OPS 1, 2 & 3 jointly and/or severally are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for harassment and suffering from mental trauma and agony arising due to grossly negligent act of the Ops within 45 days from the date of this order.
That the litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- is to be paid by the Ops 1, 2 & 3 jointly and/or severally within the stipulated period of 45 days.
That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within the stipulated period of 45 days.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost.
That the final order will be available in the following website namely www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me,
Sangita Paul
Member
