JUDGEMENT
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted thatcomplainant and his wife SujataBanik since deceased was suffering from some pancreatic gastro problem and as such she went to the Government Health Hospital at Cooch Bihar. There she was advised for whole abdomenUSG and USG was done and in the report it was observed that the patient was suffering from enhancing pancreatic body or tail and said hospital advised the said SujataBanik to go to Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh for proper and advance medication and as per advise of the said institute complainant along with his wife SujataBanik went to the said Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh where her treatment was started and complainant’s wife had undergone with CT Abdomen with Contrast Report dated 05.04.2013 whereby the said institute had confirmed that the said patient SujataBanik since deceased, was suffering from a large heterogeneously enhancing lesion in body and tail of pancreas with vascular and adjacent organ infiltration and probably it was malignant cancer.
In that institute Dr. D. Nageswar Reddy and Dr. N.V.S. Ramakrisna have confirmed that the patient was suffering from cancer by virtue of the said report and also advised the complainant’s wife to undergo treatment of chemotherapy and that was started. On completion of the first chemotherapy the said medical institute discharged SujataBanik who died on 13.04.2013 and also advised SujataBanik, since deceased, to avail of the second chemotherapy on 29.04.2013 and the said medical institute also advised the said SujataBanik since deceased to avail of the later chemotherapy from Apollo Gleneagles Cancer Hospital/op no.1.
Next such a treatment was started at Apollo Gleneagles Hospital under the Dr. P.N. Mohapatra/op no.2 and Dr. Mohapatra advised the said Sujata Banik to avail of various reports and also prescribed several medicines and injections and complainant purchased all the medicines and injections and handed over to the said Dr. Mohapatra of that hospital on the same day 29.04.2013 and the said chemotherapy was availed of by the said SujataBanik and in the discharge report the doctor reported that the patient namely SujataBanik since deceased tolerated the chemotherapy well and the said doctor and the hospital also advised the wife of the complainant to avail of the other chemotherapy on 13.05.2013. Accordingly complainant along with his wife went to op’s hospital on 13.05.2013 and the patient was admitted at about 3:00 PM for 3rd chemotherapy and at that time as per doctor’s advice complainant purchased different type of medicines for the purpose of chemotherapy and same were supplied to the hospital authority. Hospital authority admitted the patient under that doctor on 13.05.2013 at about 3:00 PM. But on utter surprise the complainant’s wife was discharged on the same day at 5 PM and the said ops also advised the patient to visit the said hospital on 28.05.2013 for final chemotherapy.
But it is very much painful how chemotherapy and blood transfusion could be done at such short period of time within two hours. After discharge on 13.05.2013 it was written that the patient tolerated the chemotherapy well and the condition of the patient was stable but after some hours of discharge of the patient, the scenario changed totally and became very critical and she was at the mouth of death in the train while returning back to Cooch Bihar. Anyhow facing such complications by the patient, complainant returned to his house and however telephoned to the said doctor to prescribe some medicines for emergency purpose. However the patient survived and went back to Cooch Bihar and again turned up to the hospital on 26.05.2013 and got admitted with op no.1 at the relevant point of time her doctor undergone several other treatment and injected the Tazact injection upon the body of the patient knowing fully well the condition of the patient. Further the patient was undergone for 4th and last chemotherapy of her course cycle on 30.05.2013 and was discharged on 31.05.2013 that after the full cycle of obtaining the chemotherapy from the ops the condition of the patient SujataBanik was deteriorating daily.
Thereafter the patient visited the Regional Cancer Centre and Kasturi Medical Clinic at Cooch Bihar where in the USG report of the whole abdomen was stated that the main pancreatic duct is significantly dilated, one fairly large, heterogeneous SOL is seen, involving pancreatic body and tail region and rest of the pancreas revealed thin parenchymal, Neoplastic lesion involving pancreatic body and tail with dilated pancreatic duct. Thereafter from the said report it reveals that the condition of the patient was deteriorating day by day as treatment was not fruitful and was not done with proper care.
During her lifetime SujataBanik wrote a letter dated 10.07.2013 addressing to West Bengal Medical Council regarding the chemotherapy done on 13.05.2013 and also with regards to the treatment done by the Apollo Gleneagles Hospital and Dr. P.N. Mohapatra. In spite of knowing that the patient will return to Cooch Bihar, the ops deliberately waited for giving chemotherapy and also admitted her at 3 PM and after giving chemotherapy to her she was discharged on the same date at 5 pm. At this juncture the victim patient also possessed her doubt regarding whether the said ops had given the said chemotherapy to her body or not?
Finally the patient died on 05.09.2013 and Dr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Oncologist who treated the patient had issued medical death certificate in respect of SujataBanik. That the present complainant had also sent a legal notice dated 05.10.2013 under RTI Act 2005 addressing to the op no.1 asking him to furnish the details information of the bed tickets, but till date the op did not respond. From the above document it will reveal that the patient SujataBanik was never given chemotherapy on 13.05.2013 when for pushing chemotherapy it required at least three to four hours and how could the said ops inject the chemotherapy with blood transmission within two hours while admitting the patient at hospital at 3 pm and discharging the patient at 5 pm on the same day.
In the above situation complainant has alleged that op jointly and severally had made a bill of Rs. 1,50,000/- for total treatment in respect of the patient SujataBanik since deceased and complainant had paid the entire amount to the ops but fact remains even after receipt of the said amount, op/hospital and their doctor failed to deliver proper service and practically for not giving proper chemotherapy on 13.05.2013 and due to gross negligence and deficient manner of service and unfair trade practice caused the loss of life of SujataBanik and in the above circumstances for negligent and deficient manner of service and also adopting negligent manner of treatment complainant has filed this complaint for the death of her wife against the ops.
On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written statement submitted that the entire allegation is false and fabricate and op no.2 advised Cycle 1, day 15 for chemotherapy which was given to the complainant’s wife on 29.04.2013 at the op no.1 hospital along with 1 unit of A+ packed Red Blood Cell transfusion since blood test reports showed by the patient at the time of visit at the OPD on 22.04.2013 which revealed low hemoglobin count. Thereafter wife of the complainant was advised for second chemotherapy on 13.05.2013 and practically due to non-availability of bed, which was beyond the control of the ops, there was a slight delay in the admission of the patient for the therapeutic treatment. But she was admitted on 13.05.2013 prescribing drugs were injected and chemotherapy of GEMOX regime conducted along with 1 unit of A+ packed Red Blood Cell transfusion owing to the low hemoglobin count and the discharge summary of op no.1 Hospital reveals that the patient tolerated the chemotherapy well and was in stable condition at the time of discharge.
On both occasion the patient was admitted and discharged from the op no.1 hospital on the same day soon after the chemotherapy when the condition of the patient was found to be stable and in the instant case no thee was no exception to the general rule was followed. Thereafter complainant’s wife was admitted on 26.05.2013 to op no.1 hospital in emergency with 10 days fever after the second chemotherapy from the date of earlier discharge on 13.05.2013 and after giving proper treatment and giving blood transfusion two units of A+ packed Red Blood Cell she was found stable and thereafter chemotherapy was provided on 30.05.2013 and she was discharged on 31.05.2013.
But fact remains that complainant’s wife was suffering from pancreatic cancer which was already at a very advanced stage. But anyhow complainant has failed to prove whether the cause of death of his wife was due to negligent manner of treatment done by the op doctor and the hospital. But no such complaint was ever lodged prior to 31.05.2013. Though complainant has opportunity to convince that it was the incident of 31.05.2013. but such a claim on the part of the complainant is completely false and practically op discharged their duties very seriously and with all caution and as per line of treatment, ops gave all sorts of treatment to the complainant’s wife, but death was imminent in view of the fact that she was suffering from acute pancreatic cancer and that is the observation of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. So, there was no laches on the part of the op for which the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
Practically in this case after meticulous care and on study of the complaint, it is clear that vital question is raised by the complainant that actually on 13.05.2013 Dr. P.N. Mohapatra did not properly give chemotherapy as she was admitted at 3 pm. But after giving chemotherapy she was discharged on the same date at 5 pm. Whereas in the discharge summary on 13.05.2013 issued by the op no.1 it is specifically mentioned time and hours for giving injection Graniset 1 mg + Inj. Decmax 8 mg + inj. Rantac 50 mg + 100 ml NS IV over 30 mins and inj. Cytogem 1.2 gm + 500 ml NS IV over 1 hour and inj. Soxplat 130 mg + 50 ml Dx IV over 2 hour. But from the discharge summary it is found that doctor signed in the said discharge summary at about 5 pm. Now the question is whether the chemotherapy as given by the doctor within two hours was illegal or against the norms of medical science.
In this regard we have through the several books in respect of treatment on adopting chemotherapy, it is found that period for giving chemotherapy may vary from time to time and truth is that after 13.05.2013 the patient also got chemotherapy within the period of 26.05.2013 to 31.05.2013 in the same hospital and at that time she was admitted on 26.05.2013 and discharged on 31.05.2013. Prior to that she was admitted for receiving chemotherapy on 29.04.2013 in the said hospital. So, admitted fact is that during the period from 29.04.2013 to 31.05.2013 she got 3 chemotherapy under the same doctor and op no.1 hospital. But during that period and after 31.05.2013 no such complaint was lodged against the op by the complainant or his wife. Subsequently a complaint was lodged to West Bengal Medical Council by the deceased SujataBanik while she was alive and fact remains she died on 05.09.2013 and admitted the fact is that her advanced stage of malignant cancer in pancreas was detected on 05.04.2013 and she died on 05.09.2013 and in fact she died within 6 months from the date of her detection of advanced stage of pancreatic malignant cancer.
After studying pancreatic malignant cancer (Carcinoma) from the medical science and authoritative books of American Cancer Institute no doubt it is found that pancreas cannot be replaced for which in the opinion of the world famous doctors, it is specifically observed by the doctors Oncologist that in case of advanced stage of pancreas even after giving chemotherapy death is imminent within 5 to 6 months and in the present case advanced stage of pancreatic cancer of SujataBanik was detected on 05.04.2013 and she died on 05.09.2013 and in the meantime she got 4 chemotherapy, 3 from the ops hospital and one from the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad and it is also found from the said doctor’s observation that at best 6 chemotherapy may be given in between the 6 months but not more than that. But by giving chemotherapy mortality cannot be controlled when it is found that it is advanced stage of pancreatic cancer.
So, considering the opinion and in the research paper of cancer institute of America and also France, it is clear that in case of advanced stage of pancreatic cancer (Carcinoma) there is no chance of any recovery from death. But invariably at an early stage if cancer is detected in pancrea by giving anti dose of medicines and chemotherapy the advance stage of carcinoma can be controlled but any other case it is impossible.
So, considering the present fact and circumstances and sufferings of Sujata Banik from acute and advanced stage of carcinoma in pancrea her death was imminent within 6 months from the date of detection (05.04.2013). So as per medical science we have found that there is no ground to believe that for giving chemotherapy within two hours her death was imminent and ultimately she died on 05.09.2013.
Anyhow the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant tried to convince this Forum that as per prescription the said chemotherapy and blood transfusion etc would be done within the period of 3:30 hrs but it was done within 2 hours. Such sort of allegation is not based on any experetised evidence. But even then we have gone through certain medical papers through internet from the institute of France, America wherefrom it is found that procedure for giving chemotherapy time to time is changed and hours is not the factor and practically such sort of transfusion may be made at earlier stage within 2 hours and within two and half hours or within 3 hours as per necessity based on reading by the doctor.
Another factor is that in this case it is found that the doctor of Asian Institute of Gastroenterology after giving first chemotherapy gave instruction to the complainant and his wife to give further chemotherapy at op no.1’s hospital. So, invariably the doctor of Asian Institute of Gastroenterology was well aware of the fact that present hospital doctors are well versed in giving chemotherapy etc. So, considering all the above fact and circumstances we are convinced to hold that the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer is neither subjective nor objective not on the basis of medical science.
Another factor is that complainant lodged a complaint during her life time to West Bengal Medical Council and in that complaint she specifically stated that chemotherapy was given to her and she did not get any chance to take rest as because it was their need to return back their house on that night for which she suffered from abdominal pain and fever and thereafter taking such chemotherapy she became physically very weak and ultimately her two legs were swelled. So, it is clear that chemotherapy was given by the doctor on 13.05.203 and in fact complainant and his wife were in a hurry to return back to Cooch Bihar and it is their fault.
Another factor is that Ld. Lawyer for the op submitted that after taking chemotherapy two legs were swelled but truth is that as per medical science the cancer patient suffers from loss of red blood corpuscles and for which haemoglobin percentage falls many times within one day or two and for that reasons the legs are found swelling but it was not the effect of chemotherapy. It is known to all that cancer patient suffers from loss of haemoglobin always for which time to time before giving chemotherapy blood is transfused to increase the haemoglobin level. But loss of haemoglobin is not due to chemotherapy but it is the direct cause for suffering from acute cancer and in the present case happened.
The husband of the complainant who was present at the time of argument submitted that in fact after taking chemotherapy her kidney was not functioning well and she failed to discharge urine properly and complainant submitted that some problems in the kidney was caused due to wrong treatment of the ops. But we have minutely considered this part of argument of the complainant and also considered several vital effect of acute cancer in pancreatic and it is found that due to acute cancer of pancreatic ultimately kidney, stomach, liver, spleen etc. are being gradually damaged and it is an effect of cancer not the effect of chemotherapy.
Probably at very early stage the wife of the complainant died which is no doubt painful to the complainant and probably complainant thought that such sort of advanced stage of cancer of pancreatic can be controlled by chemotherapy for which due to mis-conception this complaint was filed. Moreover we are sure that this complaint should not be filed by the complainant if he would not be misguided from any corner and particularly in the present case with all force and applying all medical theorization this Forum is concluding that the entire allegations are baseless and without any foundation and there is no negligence and deficiency or any sort of callousness on the part of the ops in treating the deceased patient the wife of the complainant. We are also showing our pain with the complainant for loss of his wife life because his family members have been facing much inconvenience in absence of his wife because complainant’s children are not matured age. So, invariably for want of wife a husband must be perplexed and it is a fact that family members of the patient always spent money for recovery and when recovery is not made the allegation is made against the doctor. But it is not the procedure in all the cases, may be in certain cases some negligent and deficient manner of service are found. But in the present case there is no question of deficiency and negligence on the part of the op and the process as adopted for giving chemotherapy is also found very scientific. We have also realized that the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum attending from Cooch Bihar. No doubt he has spent much money for this present case. But we are undone to give any relief in view of the fact that medical negligence has not been proved by the complainant by any sort of cogent material or evidence.
In the result, the complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the ops but without any cost.
