West Bengal

Bankura

CC/121/2013

Sambhu Nandi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Abhisek Pal and One Other - Opp.Party(s)

Ananda Mohan Mondal

01 Feb 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA 

  Consumer Complaint No. 121/2013

                                                     Date of Filing:   04/12/2013                                               

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Ananda Mohan Mondal

For the O.P.:  Ld. Advocate Banamali Choudhuri

Complainant  

Sri Sambhu Nandi Modak, s/o Late Fatik Ch. Nandi, Kethardanga, Bankura

Opposite Party 

1.Dr. Abhishek Pal attached with Hardik, Rabindra Sarani, Bankura

2.Dr. Subhas Sarkar, Proprietor of Hardik, Rabindra Sarani, Bankura

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

Order No.68

Dated: 01-02-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

Prayer for adjournment on behalf of the O.P. is considered but rejected.

After hearing argument from the Complainant the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he suffered an accidental cut injury on his right little finger on 30/11/2012 and on that very date he visited O.P. No.1/Dr. attached to O.P. No.2/Nursing Home who after finding the injury as vascular injury stitched the wound with bandage, prescribed medicines but advised urgent consultation of Ortho Surgeon and stitched off after seven days. Accordingly the Complainant visited O.P. No.1/Dr. at the same Nursing  Home on 14/12/2012 who after dressing the  injury advised for Orthopedic consultation. But the Complainant suffered intolerable pain from the injury and noticed black coloration on the injury spot and he was admitted at O.P. No.2/ Nursing Home on 20/12/2012 for better treatment where his right little finger was partially amputated as he developed ischemic dry gangrene in the affected right little finger and after operation he was discharged on 22/12/2012. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service against the O.P./Dr. and O.P./Nursing Home for wrong diagnosis and treatment with the prayer for compensation.

Both O.P. No.1 & 2 jointly submitted a written version contending inter alia that the  preliminary treatment was given to the Complainant on the very  date of incident with necessary advice for immediate consultation of an orthopedic surgeon and none of them are liable for subsequent development of gangrene and as  such the Complainant is not entitled to  get  any relief in this case.   

                                                                                                                                                                              Contd……p/2

Page: 2

-: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents from both sides the Commission finds that immediately after the accident on 30/11/2012 O.P. /Dr. rendered necessary treatment like stitching  and bandage of the cut injury of the Complainant’s right little finger with specific advice for urgent consultation of Orthopedic Surgeon. One week thereafter similar advice was given to the Complainant after stitching off the wounds and dressing. The Complainant did not follow the advice and instruction of O.P. No.1/Dr. by attending to any Orthopedic Surgeon for proper treatment. It is only on20/12/2012 i.e.  after about one week the Complainant was admitted at  the O.P. No.2/Nursing Home and by that time ischemic dry gangrene developed on his right little finger and he was operated by partial amputation of his right little finger and was discharged on22/12/2012 from the said Nursing Home.

It is common experience that gangrene develops when any tissue of any organ is affected and immediate and urgent treatment is needed for that case but the Complainant without attending to any Orthopedic Surgeon as per advice of the O.P./Dr. took time to develop gangrene than to  heal the injury.

In this case none of the O.P. is to blame for lack of medical care, skill and diligence in the treatment of the Complainant. The Complainant has suffered for his own act and omission for non-consultation of Orthopedic Surgeon immediately after the accident as per  advice of the O.P. No.1/Dr. Diagnosis by O.P.  No.1/Dr. as vascular injury and the preliminary treatment thereof cannot be faulted with.

The Complainant has therefore failed to make out a case of medical negligence and deficiency in service against any of the O.P.s.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.

 

____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER