West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/137/2014

Amalendu Bhattacharyya. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. A.S. Mahapatra. - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.137/2014

                                                       

Sri Amalendu Bhattacharyya, S/o Late Tarapada Bhattacharyya,

at  Qtr. No. C/6, Police  Line, P.S. Kotwali,

 Dist-Paschim Medinipur.………..….……Complainant.

Vs.

1) Dr. A.S. Mahapatra, At Keranitola (Sinha Compound), P.O. Medinipur,

P.S. Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101,

&

2) Medinipur Nursing Home at Rabindranagar, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721101...………...........…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Kshitish Palmal, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -31/08/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant was suffering from pain in his abdomen on 12/08/2014 and immediately thereafter he was taken to the chamber of the opposite party-Dr. A.S. Mahapatra and after examining the complainant, opposite party no.1 advised him for admission in the hospital but the relative of the complainant requested the opposite party no.1 for treatment of the complainant under him in any nursing home and accordingly the opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to take admission in Medinipur Nursing Home i.e. the opposite party no.2. Accordingly on that day the complainant was admitted in Medinipur Nursing

Contd…………………P/2

 

 

(2)

 Home and opposite party no.1 advised for USG of whole abdomen and other tests.  As per his advice, USG of whole abdomen and blood test was done on 13/08/2014 and the concerned pathologist submitted report of such USG and other reports of blood test on 13/08/2014.  Opposite party no.1 perused all such reports alongwith report of USG.  It is stated that as per report of USG of whole abdomen it was opined by the Radiologist that Pancreas is normal in size and shows normal echopathern no focal parenchymal lesion is seen and the Radiologist also suggested in his report Sludge in gallbladder.  Even thereafter the opposite party no.1 without consulting the report treated the complainant as acute pancreatitis from 12/08/2014 to 18/08/2014 and then he referred the complainant to any super specialist medical centre for better treatment.  It is alleged that the pancreas of the complainant was totally  normal and opposite party no.1 gave  wrong treatment and due to such wrong treatment, health condition of the complainant was totally decreased and he gradually became ill.  Due to deterioration of health condition, the complainant was taken to Asian Institute of Gastroenterology at Hyderabad and the attending doctor of the said institute examined the complainant and admitted in the said institute  and also advised for Real time Screening  UL trasonography of abdomen and as per advice,  ultra sonography of abdomen was again done there and the consultant Radiologist opined that Pancreas normal in size and contour,  Parenchymal echotexture is normal, no calculi, no peri pancreatic edema, no fluid collection only ultrasound findings are GB SLUDGE WITH TINY CALCULLI.  The complainant was thereafter treated in the said hospital and he had to incur an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- for such medical treatment in Asian Institute of Gastroenterology at Hyderabad.  It is alleged that for such wrong treatment of the opposite party no.1, the complainant suffered a lot both mentally and physically.  It is further alleged that such wrong treatment and wrong diagnosis of the opposite party no.1 amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint, praying for an award of compensation Rs.10,00,000/- and cost of proceeding.    

                  Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that there was no medical negligence whatsoever on their part.  It is stated by the opposite parties that on 12/08/2014, the complainant for the first time met opposite party no.1 at Spondan Nursing Home cum Hospital at about 8 to 9 p.m. with a complain of his pain in abdomen and then the opposite party no.1 advised him to take admission in the

Contd…………………P/3

 

 

(3)

hospital but the patient party as well as the complainant requested opposite party no.1 to admit the complainant under him in any nursing home.  Accordingly, complainant was admitted in Medinipur Nursing Home and opposite party no.1 treated him and suggested for USG of  whole abdomen and also advised for some clinical test and other pathological test.  Opposite party no.1 is a qualified M.D. physician and he gave sincere service to the patient as per medical science.    Opposite party no.1 diagnosed acute pancreatitis on the findings  No.1- pain upper abdomen, No.2-Deep tenderness on upper abdomen, No.3-Blood report raised levels of serum amylase and lipase.  The opposite party-doctor followed the book of writer Davidson and as per the said book he very rightly treated the patient and there was no sort of negligence on his part.  He very rightly referred the patient to a better set up of medical centre for better treatment of the patient. So no question arises regarding alleged negligence on his part.  During his treatment, opposite party no.1 did not give any wrong treatment to the patient and no question of deteriorate of health condition of the patient therefore does arise.  The complainant has filed this case without any expert report or opinion and with a view to harassing  the opposite party in the society, the present case has been filed. The opposite parties therefore claim dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                    To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and one                      Dr. Mrinmoy Sarkar as P.W.-2. Documents, relied upon by the complainant, have been marked as exhibit 1 to 7 respectively.  On the other hand, on behalf of the opposite parties, opposite party no.1-Dr. A.S. Mahapatra has been examined as Opw-1 and during his cross examination, two documents were marked as exhibit 6 and 7 respectively.

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Was there any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged ?
3.  Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?  

                         

Decision with reasons

 For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

 Facts remain admitted that on 12/08/2014, the complainant met the opposite party no.1-Dr. A.S. Mahapatra with complain of pain in abdomen and after examining him, opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to take admission in the hospital.  It is further

Contd…………………P/4

 

 

(4)

admitted by the parties that in spite of such advice, the complainant and his family members requested the opposite party no.1 to admit the complainant under him in any nursing home at Medinipur and accordingly the complainant was admitted in Medinipur Nursing Home.  Admittedly, opposite party no.1 advised for USG of whole abdomen of the complainant and other blood test and on perusal of all reports including report of USG, opposite party no.1 diagnosed that it is a case of acute pancreatitis and on 18/08/2014 he referred the complainant to any sophisticated medical centre for better management.  According to the complainant, although in USG report it was opined that the Pancreas is normal in size but without perusing the said report, opposite party no.1 wrongly diagnosed that the complainant was suffering from acute pancreatitis and he referred the complainant to any sophisticated medical centre for better management.  It is the allegation of the complainant that for such wrong diagnosis, he had go to Asian Institute of Gastroenterology at Hyderabad and there it was found by the doctors that the Pancreas is normal in size and he was treated there and incurred  medical expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- for medical treatment in the said institute.  We have perused the medical prescription (Exhibit-6) and discharged certificate (Exhibit-7) issued by opposite party no.1 as well as the report  of USG (Exhibit-5). On perusal of those documents,  we find  that as per advice of opposite party no.1, USG of whole abdomen of the complainant was done in Medinipur Scan Centre and it was opined by the Radiologist that Pancreas is normal in size. From exhibit 7 we find that opposite party no.1 diagnosed  acute pancreatitis  and he referred the complainant  on 18/08/2014 to any sophisticated medical centre for better treatment.  It is the case of the complainant that thereafter he went to Asian Institute of Gastroenterology at Hyderabad and there he was treated and it was found after examination by the doctors that the Pancreas is normal in size. To prove his said case, the complainant examined no doctors of the said institute at Hyderabad.   For the sake of argument if  we accept the case of the complainant that the doctor of Asian Institute of                        Gastroenterology at Hyderabad was of the view that Pancreas of the complainant was normal and it was not a case of acute pancreatitis,  even then such diagnosis regarding acute pancreatitis  of the opposite party no.1 cannot be said to be medical negligence particularly when PW-2 Dr. Mrinmoy Sarkar,  the Radiologist, who prepared that USG report in his cross-examination has stated that “Pancreas is not always detected by USG”.  So if opposite party no.1 did not rely upon that USG report and after seeing symptoms of the complainant he diagnosed that it was a case of acute pancreatitis, such act or diagnosis cannot be said to be an act of medical negligence  particularly when the opposite party no.1 did not detain the

Contd…………………P/5

 

 

(5)

complainant for treatment under him and he referred the complainant to any sophisticated medical centre for better treatment.  Therefore we are of the view that there was no medical negligence on the part of the opposite party no.1 for his alleged wrong diagnosis.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                                       Hence, it is,

                                        Ordered,

                                        that the complaint case no.137/2014  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                        Sd/-B. Pramanik.               Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.          Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                            President                                   Member                               President

                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur