HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- The instant complaint case has been filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant Utpal Roy Chowdhury for the alleged medical negligence of the treating hospital and Nursing Home, causing death of his mother, Anjali Roy Chowdhury, aged about 87 years. The complainant Utpal Roy Chowdhury has filed the instant complaint case praying for the following reliefs :-
“1) To pay total compensation amount to Rs.30,10,325.00 (Rupees Thirty Lac Ten Thousand Three Hundred And Twenty Five) only to the Petitioner by the OP No.1;
- Rs 10325(Rupees Ten Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Five Only) only towards the cost of treatment to be returned with interest by the Opposite party No. 1.
2) For Non Pecuniary damages towards :
i) Damages for Shock trauma caused to the petitioner for loss of companion of the petitioner arising from death of his mother Anjali Roy Chowdhury Rs 10,00,000.00 (Rs Ten Lac) Only.
ii) Rs.10,00,000.00 (Ten Lac Only) for mental agony and emotional distress of the petitioner arising from death of his mother Anjali Roy Chowdhury.
iii) Rs.10,00,000.00 (Rs Ten Lac Only) towards pain sufferings of the petitioner arising from death of his mother Anjali Roy Chowdhury.
Total compensation aggregating (1)+(2)+(3) = Rs 30,10,325.00 (Thirty Lac Three Hundred and Twenty Five Only)
3) Any other order or orders as this Honourable Commission may deem fit and proper”
2. The facts of the complaint case in brief are that the complainant is the hapless victim of medical negligence who had to witness rash and gross negligent act associated with dereliction of bounden professional duty on the part of the attending doctors by not providing urgently necessary medical care and deficient medical service, lack of providing standard medical care for critically ill patient by the attending doctors of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital on 29.11.2017 at about 11.10 a.m. in respect of the treatment of his mother Anjali Roy Chowdhury with acute deterioration of her clinical condition. Ultimately, Anjali Roy Chowdhury expired on the same day i.e. on 29.11.2017 at 6.24 p.m. at the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital where she was admitted at about 4.15 p.m. after being released in a critical condition by the attending doctors of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital at about 3.30 p.m.
3. Further case of the complainant are that the mother of the complainant late Anjali Roy Chowdhury was admitted on 29.11.2017 at about 11.50 a.m. under Doctor of General Medicine Deptt. and, thereafter, she was shifted under Doctor of ITU of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital.
4. Further case of the complainant are that the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital is a proforma Opposite Party and they have been made a party to this complaint for proper adjudication and nothing has been claimed from them.
5. Further case of the complainant are that Late Anjali Roy Chowdhury, since deceased, aged about 87 years was attended in the General Medicine Department at 11.50 a.m. on 29.11.2017 with complaint of bleeding through urine and Per Rectum ( PR bleeding) for last one day. She was a known case of HTN (Hypertension) and was taking medicines. Previously, Anjali Roy Chowdhury, since deceased provisionally diagnosed as “Multisite bleeding with Hemorrhagic Shock with cause (Not Known) - but no investigations were advised by the attending Doctors of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital to know / diagnose the actual site of bleeding. After examination the Doctor prescribed for urgent blood transfusion (not mentioned whether blood sample was drawn and sent for grouping and cross matching ; Blood group and Rh type not mentioned whether blood sample was drawn and sent to laboratory ; no report mentioned). Several medicines were prescribed for the said Anjali Roy Chowdhury, since deceased by the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital. After examination by the Doctor of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital, Doctor prescribed that ABG blood sample was drawn at 11.59 a.m. and report printed at 12.54 a.m. revealed Metabolic acidosis and Hb% was 5.4, K+- 5.6 and base : - 14. The Doctor of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital made observation on clinical findings and advised to transfer the patient to higher institution at 3.00 p.m. on 29.11.2017 and ultimately Anjali Roy Chowdhury, since deceased, was released at about 3.30 p.m. on 29.11.2017.
6. Further case of the complainant are that the act of the attending Doctors of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital not only speaks of commission of rash and negligent act on the part of the attending Doctors, but also definitely speaks of gross dereliction of bounden duty by them towards such a dangerously critically ill patient who ultimately suffered sudden unexpected death at 6.24 p.m. at the Peerless Hospital on the same day in the evening i.e. on 29.11.2017.
7. Further case of the complainant are that during the stay of the patient in the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital, no steps for urgently providing blood transfusion was taken which was very much urgent need of the hour for her with HB%. Although it was urgently advised in their prescriptions 5.4 but without caring for well being of Anjali Roy Chowdhury, they suddenly released the patient in a very critical condition at about 3.30 p.m.
8. Further case of the complainant are that the complainant had no other alternative but to rush to the Peerless Hospital in hired car at about 4.15 p.m. and she was immediately admitted at emergency ward under Dr. Jaya Chatterjee, gastroenterologist and immediately blood requisition was done and at about 5.50 p.m., the patient became unresponsive and CPR started and ultimately the patient expired at 6.24 p.m. In fact, the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital got no time to start the treatment of the patient.
9. Further case of the complainant are that urgent blood transfusion was the need of the hour but the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital failed to provide blood transfusion to the patient till 3.00 p.m. By this time the condition of the patient was much more deteriorated and because of their rash and negligent act four golden hours were lost to start blood transfusion and to save the patient’s life. The patient was not provided with urgently needed blood transfusion, rather, the patient was thrown away by the attending doctors of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital.
10. In the result, the complainant has filed the complaint case praying for the reliefs as stated earlier.
11. The Opposite Party No. 1 did not turn up and did not contest the case. Ultimately, the case was proceeded ex parte against the Opposite Party No. 1.
12. The Opposite Party No. 2 entered appearance in this case and contested the case by filing written version. The specific case of the Opposite Party No. 2 are that the complainant has constituted the case against the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital, Calcutta Heart Clinic & Hospital alleging medical negligence only on its part. The complaint does not contain any negligence and / or grievance whatsoever against the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital. The complainant has made no claim of compensation against the Opposite Party No. 2. As such, the Opposite Party No. 2 has prayed to strike out its name from this case. The complainant has filed evidence through affidavit. No questionnaires were filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant. The Opposite Party No. 2 has also not tendered any evidence through affidavit. The complainant and the Opposite Party No. 2 have filed their BNA in support of their case.
13. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
i) Is the case maintainable ?
ii) Is there any medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital ?
iii) Is the complainant entitled to get any relief and / or reliefs as sought for ?
Decisions with reasons :
Issue No. 1 :
This issue is taken up first for consideration.
This issue has not been pressed by the parties at the time of arguments. As such, this issue is decided in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party No. 1.
This issue is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue Nos. 2 & 3 :
These two issues are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and their inter relatedness.
14. Having heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears to us that it is an admitted position that the mother of the complainant Anjali Roy Chowdhury, since deceased, aged about 87 years was attended / admitted in the General Medicine Deptt. at 11.15 a.m. on 29.11.2017 with complaints of bleeding through urine and Per Rectum (PR bleeding for last one day).
15. It is also an admitted position that Doctors of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital attended the patient and examined the patient.
16. It is also an admitted position that after examination Doctors of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital prescribed some medicines and the patient Anjali Roy Chowdhury was diagnosed as Multisite bleeding with Hemorrhagic Shock with cause ( Not Known).
17. It is also an admitted position that the Opposite Party No. 1 Doctor advised on admission that urgent blood transfusion on the said patient was needed.
18. It is also an admitted position that the patient was shifted to critical care unit from the General Medicine Deptt. of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital.
19. It is also an admitted position that Doctor of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital observed and prescribed to transfer the said patient to any higher institution. Accordingly, the patient Anjali Roy Chowdhury was released at about 3.30 p.m. on 29.11.2017.
20. It is also an admitted position that subsequently, the patient namely Anjali Roy Chowdhury was brought to the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital where Anjali Roy Chowdhury died at 6.24 p.m. at the Peerless Hospital on the same day in the evening on 29.11.2017.
21. Now, we shall have to consider as to whether there was any negligence and / or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital.
22. To prove the case, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit. On perusal of the petition of complaint and the evidence on record it transpires that Anjali Roy Chowdhury, since deceased, aged about 87 years was attended in the General Medicine Department at 11.10 a.m. on 19.11.2017 with complaints of bleeding through urine and Per Rectum ( PR Bleeding) for last one day. The complainant has further stated in the evidence as well as in his complaint that Anjali Roy Chowdhury was a known case of HTN (Hypertension) and was taking medicines. The complainant has also stated in his evidence that the Doctor of General Medicine Department of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital attended the patient and prescribed medicines and injections. The Doctor advised for urgent blood transfusion. Subsequently, the said patient namely Anjali Roy Chowdhury was shifted to CCU (Critical Care Unit) of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital. Therefore, according to the complainant, mother of the complainant was admitted in the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital on 29.11.2017 at 11.10 a.m. and there was bleeding through urine and Per Rectum (PR Bleeding) for last one day. It is proved that to arrest the bleeding, the Doctor of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital had given treatment and advised for blood transfusion.
23. It is also admitted by the complainant that the Doctor of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital had given treatment by giving injections to arrest the bleeding.
24. It is also admitted by the complainant in the complainant that bleeding of the complainant’s mother was not stopped. As such, the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital shifted the said patient to CCU for better treatment. These facts clearly proved that the treatment of the patient was given to the mother of the complainant by the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital properly. Xerox copy of the transfer certificate dated 29.11.2017 issued by the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital discloses that the patient was suffering from bleeding for the last 3 days and found having low Hb% and Metabolic Acidosis on ABG. The said document also discloses that the patient was resuscitated with IVF and Injection Vit K, injection pause and Esomeprazole infusion started.
25. The said document also discloses that blood transfusion was planned and the patient was transferred to higher set up for better management. The said document also discloses that PR bleeding was persisting. So, this fact clearly proves that though the treatment of the patient was given by the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital in spite of that blood was oozing out from the vagina and Per Rectum (PR bleeding). Since, the oozing of blood was not stopped, the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital transferred the said patient to higher set up.
26. From the transfer certificate and the petition of complaint it appears to us that the patient was found to bleed through urine and PR Bleeding for the last three days. It also appears to us from the petition of complaint that Hg was 5.4%. Therefore, the complaint and the BHT of the said patient disclose that the patient was in difficult and critical condition. Therefore, the option with the Doctor was to try to save the life of the patient. The Doctor prescribed medicines and injections and advised to transfuse blood to facilitate recovery of the patient. It was bona fide decision taken by the Doctor in the situation in which the patient was. Therefore, the above noted treatment made by the Doctor is not a case of medical negligence. In the complaint case it is not specifically stated that as to how the Opposite Party No. 1 was negligent in their service.
27. Under the facts and circumstances and on going through the materials on record we are of the view that it is difficult to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital. Thus, we find no merit in the complaint. Hence, the complaint case is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
28. The complaint is dismissed.
