This is a complaint made by one Rabindra Nath Arinda, son of Late Girish Chandra Arinda, 47, Ho Chi Min Sarani, P.O.-Barisha, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008 against (1) DM.o Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., 113, James Long Sarani, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 063, OP No.1, (2) Dr. Alak Kumar Maiti, 10/1A, Swinhoe Street (Opp. Bhartia Gate), Kolkata-700 019, OP No.2 and (3) Nursing & Ward Staff, D.M. Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., 113, James Long Sarani, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 063 praying for a direction upon the OPs to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- for expenses incurred in the treatment of Complainant, another Rs2,30,000/- for future treatment and Rs.6,00,000/- as litigation cost and compensation for mental suffering and pain).

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is a retired employee of USA Consulate, Kolkata, aged about 77 years. He was suffering from acute pain and he consulted OP No.2 Dr. Alak Kumar Maiti. Consultant General Surgeon & Urologist. After check up by OP No.2 Dr. Alak Kumar Maiti, advised Complainant for immediate admission to DM Hospitals on 8.1.2016 at 1.27 p.m. in Bed No.302, Patient ID No.INP001738/15-16.

            The ultrasonography of KUB Region was done and thereafter OP No.2 advised the Complainant to undergo cystoscopy. After cystoscopy OP No.2 compelled the Complainant to undergo further various kinds of tests and upon scrutiny of the report of investigation Dr. Maiti observed and opined that Complainant was suffering from chronic retention of urine and for which he was treated accordingly and was being discharged on 9.1.2016.

            Complainant again met with OP No.2 and after checking OP No.2 informed Complainant and his family members that Complainant had enlargement of prostate for which he requires to undergo transurethral resection of prostate (TURP).

            Further, ultrasonography report indicated Complainant’s prostate is normal. Hearing the advice of the doctor, OP No.2, the family members of the Complainant got nervous, because the cost of operation was so high. But, for better life, Complainant got admitted to DM Hospitals on 25.1.2016 for that operation. Complainant incurred huge expenses in that operation. After completion of the operation, OP No.2 advised the ward staff of the Hospital to provide hot compress and as per instruction of the OP No.2 the ward staff delegated the job to the ward boy and accordingly he kept that hot water compress in the bed of the Complainant which was to be applied by the duty nurse but the duty nurse never came to the Complainant and there was nobody to look after him. The said ward boy kept the hot water compress near the left leg of the Complainant which was covered by a blanket.

 After few hours when Complainant regained consciousness and he felt an incessant pain in his left ankle and not being able to bear the pain he repeatedly pressed the calling bell but no one responded. After long interval a nurse came to the Complainant and realized that he was suffering from acute pain and ultimately it was discovered that blisters have taken place in the left ankle and Complainant could not sleep for four days and blisters was due to negligence of the Doctor as well as nursing home. On several occasions, Complainant expressed to the OP about the pain and suffering problems. But they did not pay any heed to that. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 & 3 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint petition. They have stated that the present complaint is not maintainable. Their further ground is that before admitting the patient, complainant ought to have been referred for opinion of medical experts of specialized field. It is further stated that this complaint has been filed for maligning the nursing home. They have admitted that Complainant aged about 76 years was admitted and was advised by OP No.2, Dr. Alak Kumar Maity, and he was also operated. The hot water bag was prepared by the ward boy as per instruction of on duty nurse and was kept by the bed side to be applied by the nurse. However, as the duty nurse was busy with another serious patient she could not attend the patient on immediate basis. Instead the patient himself took the hot water bag and applied the same. Further, it is stated that the attending nurse was unaware and the patient could not feel the temperature due to partial effect of spinal anesthesia as he kept the hot water bag in contact with his skin under a blanket such hot water compress caused a small blister formation in the leg of the patient. When the blisters were discovered the same was attended by residential medical officer. The patient got discharged from the hospital on 30.1.2016. The said patient again got admitted on 5.5.2016 for a day care procedure which reveals that the patient was satisfied. Further, these OPs have denied all the allegations and have prayed for dismissal of the case.

            OP No.2, Dr. Alak Kumar Maity, has filed separate written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. He has also admitted that the patient was admitted and he did surgery upon the patient. He did operation of cystoscopy and the patient was admitted under him. The patient was admitted again on 5.5.2016 and he was alright. Further, this OP has stated that he did not have any fault in the development of blisters of his left leg near knee for the negligence is that of the nursing home and so he has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons:

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has stated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this affidavit-in-chief OP No.2 has filed questionnaire which Complainant has replied. OP No.1 has also filed questionnaire wherein question No. 8 is that it was suggested to the Complainant that due to unawareness it could happen. Against the questionnaire, Complainant has replied wherein he has stated that he was not satisfied by the operation and he was in the unconscious stage when the hot water bag created blisters on his left leg. OPs also filed affidavit-in-chief against which Complainant filed questionnaire to which OPs filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/-. Out of this Complainant has prayed for Rs.1,20,000/- for the  treatment expenses borne by him at DM Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Now question arises whether Complainant spent this amount and how much was spent towards medicines and how much was charged by the Doctor who did operation.

            It appears, on perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply of the respective parties that this compensation has been claimed by the Complainant because in the left leg of the Complainant due to the hot water bag blisters occurred and for which Complainant suffered a lot. Admittedly this blister occurred after the operation and documents reveal that this blister was the out come of the negligence of the ward boy and the nursing staff of the hospital. Accordingly, the expenses which Complainant incurred for the operation of prostate was alright. But his suffering was due to the blisters.

            As such, we are of the view that Complainant suffered blisters and he took treatment elsewhere for making blisters corrected. So far as the medical negligence of OP No.2 is concerned, it does not appear that OP No.2 intentionally did some act which amounted to medical negligence.

            There is allegation in complaint that OP No.2 made advice which was not congenial and not as per the reports received after the diagnostics tests.

            In our view such allegation has been made just to involve OP No.2 for his negligence. However, the occurrence of blisters is admitted for which the OP No.1 & 3 are totally liable. But, OP No.2 also cannot shirk his liability on the strength that he made direction. OP No.2 is much lesser for the liability of OP No.1 & 3.

            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that if compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is allowed under the head future treatment the justice would be served. So far as the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- for the treatment expenses made by the Complainant is concerned it does not appear that it is justified. It is because the neither OP No.2 nor OP No1 & 3 during the operation made some act or omission which amounted to medical negligence. Further Complainant has prayed for Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation including cost of litigation. Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded includes the litigation cost, because there is no detail amount of expenses made by the Complainant for future treatment.

            Further, we make it clear that the liability of OP No.1 & 3 is to the extent of Rs.80,000/- and for OP No.2 it is to the extent of Rs.20,000/-.

            Hence ,

ordered

            CC/281/2016 and the same is allowed in part on contest. OP No.1 & 3 are directed to pay Rs.80,000/- to the Complainant within three months of this order. OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant within this period. In default, the amount shall carry interest @ 12%p.a. after three months till realization, provided original prescription, vouchers and receipts of expenses are filed to this Forum.