West Bengal

Bankura

CC/44/2017

Nabanita Biswes - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anindya Kumar Das Prof. Dr. - Opp.Party(s)

Durgaprasad Sarkar

29 Jan 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA 

  Consumer Complaint No. 44/2017

                                                    Date of Filing:  17/05/2017                                           

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukherjee

For the O.P.:  Ld. Advocate:  Ankita Ghosh /Vivekananda Sinha/Sayanton Choudhuri, Rupa Rani Mallick

Complainant  

Nabanita Biswas, W/o Kalyanashis Biswas, R/o Sonamukhi, Dist. Bankura

Opposite Party 

1.Prof. Anindya Kumar Das, BSMCH, Bankura

2.Hope Medicare, Rambhagat Bajoria Sarani, Lalbazar, Bankura

3.Dr. Smt. Krishna de, BSMCH, Bankura

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

Order No.46

Dated: 29-01-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that she got herself admitted at O.P. No.2 /Nursing Home on 27/07/2016 at 5 p.m. under the care and supervision of O.P. No.1 Dr. / Gynecologist attached to said Nursing Home and she was operated next day on 28/07/2016 as an emergency Caesar case and a baby was delivered but immediately after operation the Complainant suffered profuse bleeding and she was again operated next day i.e.29/07/2016 for the same which resulted in her renal failure for which  she was taken to Mission Hospital, Durgapur on the same day i.e. on 29/07/2016 for further management and treatment where the case of the Complainant was diagnosed in the Discharge Certificate dated: 08/08/2016 as Post-operative case of LUCS-PPH-Subtotal Hysterectomy with left iliac artery ligation, acute renal failure. The Complainant has accused O.P. No.1 Dr. Gynecologist / O.P. No.2 Nursing Home for medical negligence and deficiency in service in performing caesarian operation followed by an immediate 2^nd  operation  which resulted in her renal failure as diagnosed subsequently in Mission Hospital, Durgapur and hence this case for compensation.   

                                                                                                                                                                              Contd……p/2

Page: 2

O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing separate written version denying all the allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service made in the petition of complaint. The defence case of O.P. No.1 Dr. Gynecologist is that the Complainant was at the last Trimester of pregnancy. It was detected from USG that she had intrauterine growth retardation of fetus and reduced amount of fluid around the fetus and for that reason she was recommended urgent admission and emergency caesarean section as she had complain of reduction of fetul movement and the husband of the patient was duly explained about the risk of operation and risk of bleeding and urgent need for blood transfusion which must be arranged by her relatives. The patient underwent caesarean section with proper pre-operative preparation on 28/07/2016 in the morning but in course of operation there was severe intra-abdominal adhesion and ugly looking puckered abdominal scar and a female baby of 2.4 kg was delivered. The patient was found normal after operation on 28/07/2016 but on 29/07/2026 at 6.50 a.m. the patient on examination was diagnosed of intra abdominal bleeding with suspected broad ligament hematoma for which exploratory laparotomy operation was done as lifesaving measures and with transfusion of blood as soon as it was available. Even the Nursing Home staffs had to donate two units of blood for the patient to save the life of the patient. But unfortunately no urine tube was found and accordingly the patient was advised for shifting to higher referral centre and Mission Hospital, Durgapur was accordingly informed. Thus O.P. No.1 Dr. has rendered all possible treatment and surgery firstly LUCS for fetal distress and secondly exploratory laparotomy to save the life of the patient and thus he cannot be made liable for any medical negligence and deficiency in service for treatment of the patient.

The defence case of O.P. No.2 being the Nursing Home is that all necessary medical services and facilities were given to the patient from time to time as advised by the attending Dr. and as such O. P. No.2 is not liable for any post-operative complications.  

O.P. No.3/Anaesthetist also filed a separate written version contending in the same line of O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2                                                                

-: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents from both sides the Commission finds that the patient had fetal distress which is known as IUGR i.e. Intra Uterine Growth Restriction when a baby in the womb a fetus does not grow as expected and the medical prescription dated: 03/07/2016 of O.P. No.1 Dr. Gynecologist lends support to this fact which shows that weight of the mother was found 66.5 kg on  03/07/2016 and it remained the same on 13/07/2016. Accordingly the O.P. No.1/Dr. advised for emergency LUCS i.e. lower uterine segment caesarian section for such fetal distress but because of the profuse bleeding out of this surgical operation suffered by the patient known as Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPH) i.e. when a woman has heavy bleeding after giving birth for which exploratory laparotomy was immediately arranged to save the life of the patient. It reveals from the record that sufficient blood for transfusion to be collected by the patient party was not readily available despite requisition by the operating doctor and this is an emergent situation beyond the control of the operating doctor.                              

                                                                                                                                                                                       Contd…..p/3

Page: 3

So the Commission does not find anything wrong with the norms of medical treatment and surgery followed by O.P. No.1 Dr. / O.P. No.2 Nursing Home. It is no doubt a life-  threatening operation and despite best and diligent service by the O.P. No.1 Dr. / O.P. No.2 Nursing Home the patient developed renal  failure which is a resultant effect of such type of operation and surgery and the patient was accordingly referred to Narayana Mission Hospital, Durgapur for better management and treatment. It is a well settled proposition of medical jurisprudence that a treating Doctor should not be held medically liable for any adverse consequential effect out of any risky operation / surgery as a last recourse for saving the life of the patient.

Thus the Commission is not satisfied with the allegation of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 Dr. / O.P. No.2 Nursing Home in the treatment and surgical operation of the patient as made out in this case. No expert opinion is necessary to come to this conclusion and so the prayer of expert opinion as contended by Ld. Advocate on both sides is over ruled.

Accordingly it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.

 

____________________                 _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER