West Bengal

Siliguri

62/S/2013

KALIKINKAR GHOSH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. A. K. BASU, - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 62/S/2013.                  DATED : 03.02.2016.            

 

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

                      MEMBER                : SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : KALIKINKAR GHOSH,  

 C/O. Prafulla Kumar Ghosh,

 Fullbari, P.O.- Satellite Township,

                                                             Dist.- Jalpaiguri, PIN – 734 015.

                                                              

O.P.                                    : DR. A. K. BASU,

Basu’s Clinic,

Nandalal Basu Sarani, College Para,

Siliguri.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Self.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

 

 

 

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

 

The complainant’s case in brief is that the wife of the complainant was under treatment for preparation of birth of a child.  On 25.02.2013 the complainant and his wife came to Dr. A.K. Basu.  Dr. Basu without any examination or USG told the complainant for immediate abortion.  Dr. Basu was also told without abortion patient will face deplorable condition and doctor would not treat the patient.  Being afraid the complainant agreed to the proposal of doctor to abort.  The wife of the complainant was at once admitted in his clinic.  At 3.30 p.m. the patient i.e., wife of the complainant was aborted and informed the complainant that abortion is successful.  The complainant paid Rs.8,670/- for clinic bill and medicine and returned home at 8 p.m.  But the wife of the complainant suffered by pain in abdomen.  The complainant again came to Dr. Basu after 10 days.  Dr. Basu examined the patient and told that the patient was well and Dr. Basu prescribed for torch test. 

But the pain in abdomen was not reduced for which the

 

Contd…….P/2

-:2:-

 

 

complainant took the patient to Dr. M. A. Khaled.  Dr. Khaled prescribed for USG and also prescribed some medicines.  After viewing USG report Dr. Khaled asked the complainant if Dr. Basu did not disclose anything to the complainant.  The complainant replied that Dr. Basu informed that operation was successful.  Then Dr. Khaled told complainant that the child was not in the place where it would have been (“Dr. Khaled Bj¡­L ­h¡T¡­me "h¡µQ¡V¡ ­kM¡­e b¡L¡l Lb¡ ­pM¡­e ­eC, h¡µQ¡V¡ ‘D’ ¢VE­h B­R ”).  Dr. Khaled also told for quick operation.  Dr. Khaled also told that Dr. A.K. Basu did not disclose him that he did not get anything at the time of abortion (Dr. Khaled hm­me ­k Dr. A.K. Basu abortion L­l ¢LR¥C f¡u ¢e, HV¡ Bfe¡­L Ee¡l hm¡ E¢Qa ¢Rm ).  So, on next day the complainant came to Dr. P.K. Saha.  USG was done at once at BBS.  At noon 3 p.m. the report was shows to Dr. Khaled and as per his instruction the patient was admitted into Prayas Medicare.  Dr. P.K. Saha completed operation at 6 p.m.  It is also case of the complainant that if Dr. A.K. Basu did not make any operation, then the baby could have been saved.  On 20.03.2013 the complainant returned to home with discharge certificate and paid bill Rs.22,710/-.  It is also alleges that the complainant and his wife have been mentally devastated due to failing of birth of first baby.  Accordingly, this complainant for getting compensation with adequate cost.   

Dr. A. K. Basu filed written version.  The fact stated by doctor is that the wife of the complainant was unable to conceive and had to undergo treatment.  After such treatment she was able to conceive.

In or about 15.02.2013, the wife of the complainant came to this doctor with severe bleeding.  The doctor after conducting requisite test, performed D&C procedure for incomplete abortion.  At that time the scan report of the patient did not show any presence of ectopic pregnancy.  She was discharged on same day with advice to have a torch test and to visit for check up after ten days.  The patient did not pay any visit with this doctor nor the husband nor the patient visited the doctor at any point of time after discharge on 25.03.2013.  The OP again stated that the OP doctor was not involved in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy.  The treatment procedure i.e., D&C conducted by the OP did not disturb

 

Contd…….P/3

-:3:-

 

 

the ectopic pregnancy which was detected subsequently.  It has further stated by OP that the procedure conducted was restricted the wash of the uterus or uterian cavity only and there was no question of venturing towards fallopian tube.  So, if there was an embryo in the fallopian tube, the same could have been affected by washing the uterus.  It has also been stated by the OP doctor that in para 4 of WV that with reference to the complaint the OP has suggested D&C for incomplete abortion without conducting any medical test or Ultrasonography as alleged.  The complainant and his wife voluntarily agreed to such abortion as suggested by the OP doctor and D& C for incomplete abortion was carried out.

Accordingly, it is admitted point by the OP doctor that on that very date “without conducting any medical test or Ultrasonography the abortion was done”.  Accordingly, OP doctor pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.                   

 

Points for decision

 

1.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?               

 

Complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Dr. A. K. Basu Prescription dated 03.12.2012.

2.       Dr. A. K. Basu Prescription, dated 23.12.2012.

3.       Basu’s Clinic – Discharge Certificate dated 25.02.2013.

4.       Basu’s Clinic – Bill dated 25.02.2013.

5.       Dr. A. K. Khaled Prescription, dated 1203.2013.

6.       USG of whole abdomen (Refd. by Dr. M. A. Khaled).

7.       Dr. Pulak Kr. Saha Prescription, dated 18.03.2013.

8.       USG of Pelvis (per abdomen) – Refd. by Dr. Pulak Kr. Saha.

9.       Report on Histopathology – Refd. by Dr. Pulak Kr. Saha.

10.     Prayas Medicare – Discharge Certificate, dated 20.03.2013.

11.     Prayas Medicare – Bill dated 20.03.2013.

12.     Dr. Pulak Kr. Saha, Prescription dated 13.04.2013.

13.     Medicine Bill, dated 25.02.2013.

14.     Medicine Bill dated 20.03.2013. 

 

Contd…….P/4

 

-:4:-

 

 

 

          OP has filed some Medical Literature. 

OP has filed the written notes of argument by affidavit.

 

Decision with reason.

 

          All the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

It is the case of the complainant that complainant came to Dr. A. K. Basu for treatment of his wife.  The wife of the complainant was undergone operation and doctor discharged the patient.  Sl. No.3 is Discharge certificate, whereas Sl. No.1 is Prescription.  This prescription at the glance shows that there is no mention of disease of the patient.  Left column shows general discussion and right column shows names of some medicines.  Another prescription dated 23.12.2012 Sl. No.2 shows that this patient again came to Dr. A. K. Basu on 23.12.2012.  Sl. No.3 Discharge certificate dated 25.02.2013.  Summary of treatment indicates discharge for incomplete abortion.  The patient was admitted on 25.02.2013.  By this discharge certificate patient was asked to again come after 10 days.  So, from the treatment prescription and discharge certificate which is self speaking that wife of the complainant was treated by Dr. Basu OP and OP made abortion.  But there is no diagnosis or no difficulties or abnormalities has been shown in the three documents (Sl. Nos.1, 2 & 3).  Sl. No.4 is bill dated 25.02.2013 at 8 p.m.  Time of admission as per bill is 2 p.m. on 25.02.2013.  Surgical charge is Rs.4,000/- by Dr. A.K. Basu and other charges mentions in the bill (Annexure-4).  So, from these four documents, it is air like clear after a critical scrutiny that the reason of abortion and what was the cause or trouble facing by the patient have not been shown.  There is no mention of proper course to remove the defect.  In the prescription dated 03.12.2012 there is insertion of some alphabet, which does not indicate anything.  There is no USG report and defect shown USG report on the prescription dated 03.12.2012.  Critical study of the prescription dated 03.12.2012, does not able a reasonable man to make idea about anything treated or nature of treatment and nature of diagnosis by the

 

Contd…….P/5

-:5:-

 

 

doctor.  From the bill it is hardly possible to make an idea regarding performance of operation on the patient within 2 p.m. to 8 p.m.  It is pertinent to note that there is no mention of pregnancy or any term relating to pregnancy in the above three document (Sl. Nos. 1 to 3).  The discharge certificate shows the patient was asked to come after 10 days.  Doctor stated that the patient did not come to him after 10 days.  Accordingly, the documents 1, 2, 3 & 4 do not show anything regarding disease, diagnosis, regarding suggestion of treatment, and treatment imparted on the patient.  The complainant also filed another prescription dated 12.03.2013 of M/s. Chitta Sindhu Medical Hall.  At the head of the prescription three line from above, “there is mark of ‘?’, Abortion - check D/C done on 25.02.2013 by Dr. A.K. Basu”.  C/O pain in abdomen since 25.02.2013.  The last four line shows one word ‘Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy’.  So, this document also shows that OP done abortion and last three lines of this documents shows Ruptured ectopic pregnancy and free fluid in peritoneal cavity.  So, what was aborted by Dr. Basu ?  Annexure - 6 is USG of whole abdomen (referred by Dr. M. A. Khaled).  So, the prescription Sl. No.5 was done by Dr. M. A. Khaled.  Dr. M. A. Khaled on 16.03.2013, observed ruptured ectopic pregnancy and free fluid in peritoneal cavity as per USG.  The impressed shown in the USG is i) Hyperechoic lesion seen in Right Adnexa.  ii) Free fluid seen in Peritoneal cavity.

                    …….. ? Ruptured ectopic Pregnancy.

It is pertinent to note here that till this stage there is no whisper in record that the patient became pregnant and that was necessary for abortion.  It is not seen in the above documents why the patient was aborted and what was the actual advice given to the complainant.  Sl. No.7 of prescription of Dr. Pulak Saha, Sl. No.8 of USG of Pelvis as referred by Dr. Pulak Saha.  This investigation shows - “Ectopic pregnancy is a possibility”.  Sl. No. 9 another report of histopathology referred by Dr. Pulak Kumar Saha.  The diagnosis given in the report is “Histopathological features Consistent with Right Tubal Pregnancy”.  Sl. No.10 discharge certificate of Prayas Medi - Care dated 20.03.2013 shows that the patient was treated there from 18.03.13 to 20.03.2013 as

 

Contd…….P/6

-:6:-

 

 

she was suffering from right sided ectopic pregnancy and with some instruction of medicines.  Sl. No.11 is a prescription of Dr. Pulak Kr. Saha.  From Sl. No.12 bill dated 20.03.2013 that that the complainant paid total cost of treatment in the Prayas Medi-Care amounting Rs.22,000/-.  Sl. No.13 is another bill of Basu’s Clinic amounting Rs.676/-.  Sl. No.14 is also another bill of Rs.716/-. 

The above argument advanced by the complainant has been attacked by the ld advocate of the OP doctor.  Their contention is that this OP doctor treated the patient on 25.02.2013 and operation was done and discharged the patient and on that date there was no ectopic pregnancy.  So, no question of its treatment arose.  The ectopic pregnancy was diagnosis on a later stage and was treated by the other doctors.  Accordingly, the OP doctor is not responsible for deficiency in service. 

We have heard both sides argument. 

We have perused the all documents. 

From the above documents, it is still in darkness what Dr. A. K. Basu done on the patient on 25.02.2013 in his clinic from.  The documents from Sl. No.5 to 12 do not support the treatment procedure and diagnosis and standard of treatment of OP Dr. A. K. Basu.  The treatment protocol of the Surgeon Dr. A. K. Basu is covered with darkness and is unable to explain the latter development.  There is nothing in record to show that doctor adopted scientific method for determination the problem of the patient.  Whether there was bleeding or that was connected with pregnancy or that was connected any other urological problem of problem of lower abdomen of any other biological problem in the lower organ.

The doctor has duty to the patient.  The doctor must exact his attempt to cure the patient.  The doctor must act with due care and attention as per his knowledge.  The doctor will be sincere to the alleviation of suffering of the patient.  In this case, the lady has come to the doctor for problem of pregnancy as per statement of Dr. Basu and doctor has investigate the case, cause of trouble of pregnancy and then suggests remedial measure.  But in this case, the time, manner, and conduct of treatment protocol shows there was sufficient negligency of

 

Contd…….P/7

-:7:-

 

 

the doctor in discharging his duty towards a woman who has presented herself in expectation of a child i.e., for becoming a mother.  But the total case presented before this Forum, it is palpably clear that the OP did not apply his mind to the actual problem of the patient and acted negligently without due care and attention. 

Herein the examination of the patient by the other doctors mainly Dr. A. K. Khaled, Dr. Pulak Kumar Saha and the USG reports prepared by the laboratory obviously goes the gross negligency and indifference of Dr. Basu towards the complainant’s wife.  Their documents i.e., their prescriptions  are sufficient to prove not following the treatment protocol which ought to have been followed by an ordinary common doctor. 

The act of the doctor itself shows that it is a negligence act i.e., res ipsa liquitor is absolutely applicable in this case.  The material in record is sufficient to show that the doctor acted negligently and there is deficiency in service on the part of the doctor.  No other extraneous evidence or any other evidence is required to prove this case of negligency.

In the result, the case succeeds and all the issues go in favour of the complainant.  

Now it is necessary to calculate the amount of compensation laid down in the plaint.                         

The complainant has filed this case directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.31,380/- for treatment of his wife, along with other compensation. 

After going through the claim of the complainant, and averments of OP, this Forum is of opinion that complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.31,380/- for treatment of his wife from the OP doctor. 

The complainant has also prayed for compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment.

The complainant has come before the Forum on 06.05.2013. 

The act and conduct of OP doctor is itself a proof of deficiency in service i.e., res ipsa liquitor which means that the act is sufficient proof of negligence and deficiency in service.  Section 14 of the C.P. Act, empowers this Forum to make adequate compensation to the aggrieved consumers.

 

Contd…….P/8

-:8:-

 

On the premise above, the material on record, in inspires confidence in the mind of Forum that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation towards mental, pain, agony and harassment. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation. 

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No. 62/S/2013 is allowed on contest against the OP Dr. A. K. Basu. 

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.31,380/- for treatment of his wife.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment caused by the OP Dr. A.K. Basu.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost from the OP Dr. A.K. Basu.

The OP Dr. A. K. Basu is directed to pay Rs.31,380/- for treatment of complainant’s wife by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days of this order.

 The OP Dr. A. K. Basu is further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days of this order.

OP Dr. A. K. Basu is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for litigation cost within 45 days of this order.

In case of default of payment, the complainant is further entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.1,31,380/- from the date of filing of this case till full realization. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.