| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 4 of 2015 Ishrifa Zaman Shah, ……………..………………………… Complainant. -V/S- 1. Dr. Abhishek Das, C/o Impulse Diagnostic, Meherpur, Silchar-15 O.P No.1. 2. The Proprietor, Impulse Diagnostic, Meherpur, Silchar-15 O.P No.2. Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared: - Mr. Ajmal Hussain Laskar , Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Titu Debroy, Advocate for the O.Ps. Date of Evidence 23-07-2015, 04-12-2015, 05-01-2015 Date of written argument 20-12-2017 Date of oral argument 18-01-2018 Date of judgment 14-02-2018 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Debnath, - Ishrifa Zaman Shah brought this case under provision of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the Radiologist Dr. Abhishek Das and Proprietor of Impulse Diagnostics, Silchar for award of compensation for alleged wrong USG (Gravid Utters) Report dated 23-07-2014.
- Brief facts:-The complainant was under treatment of Gynecologist Dr. A.B. Fuzayel Ahmed. As per advice of the said Gynecologist USG (Graavid Utters) was done at Impulse Diagnostics, Meherpur , Silchar by Radiologist Dr. Abhishek Das on 23-07-2014. Basing on the said report the Gynecologist continued treatment upon the complainant and complainant gave birth of a child in R.E. Nursing Home and Diagnostic Centre, Silchar where it was reported that the born baby was full of single umbilical artery with skeletal deformity and as such due to misinformation of USG report dated 23-07-2014 the treatment was wrongly continued from 23-07-2014 and inconsequence the baby born immature and ultimately expired on 15-12-2014.
Thus, for loss of life, mental agony, treatment cost etc. the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac) only. The O.Ps in their joint W/S denied the allegation. Rather stated inter-alia that during examination, it was revealed that there were two umbilical arteries in cord and fetal abdomen. As the complainant was suffering from hypothyroidism, a condition where fetal abnormality were not uncommon. So, advised her for a repeat USG scan at 22 (twenty) weeks, so that fetal growth could be monitored and early change of growth retardation if any could be revealed. However, the O.P stated further that the O.P No.1 examined the complainant in second trimester of her pregnancy (between 17-24 weeks) by colour Doppler and high resolution USG with extra care for which that could hardly have committed a mistake of counting a single artery. They further stated that the allegation of the complainant depends solely on observation by her obstetrician/doctor after birth of the baby. It is a well proven fact which is depicted in the medical literature that obstetrician and pediatrician frequently fail to enumerate number of vessel in the cord. Reason for this may be that after delivery umbilical cord is cut and vessels within the cord collapse, contact and blood stops flowing within the vessels. So, in a collapsed, retracted and bloodless state it can often be difficult to detect the number of vessel in the cord solely by clinical examination. Beside, in certain instances to make things further complicated for the observation, two umbilical arteries may fuse somewhere in the course and appear as a single artery at the distal end. The intra-fetal segment of the cord, a domain accessible only to a Radiologist with the help of USG and colour Doppler which eludes their view. During hearing the complainant submitted her deposition supporting an affidavit and exhibited Sonography Report dated 23-07-2014, Sonography Report dated 01-12-2014, the Clinical Report of the Gynecologist of Dr. A.B Fuzayel Ahmed, Death Report of baby of the complainant and other relevant documents. The complainant side also submitted deposition of Nurul Haque Barbhuiya as P.W-2. The O.P side also examined Radiologist Dr. Abhishek Das and exhibited some documents including prescription of Dr. A,B. Fuzayel Ahmed and copies of Insurance Policy in favour of Impulse Diagnostics for error and omission medical establishment and insurance policy in favour of Dr. Abhishek Das for Professional IndemnityDoctors Policy. After closing evidence, both sides’ counsels submitted their written argument. However, after hearing both sides’ counsels, the Sonography plate in connection with Sonography Report dated 23-07-2014 was send by the District Forum to Silchar Medical College and Hospital for expert opinion. The professor and Head, Department of Radiologist examined the Sonography plate and submitted analyzed report of Sonography plate vide Memo No. SMC/Radio/464 dated 11-10-2017. I have heard both sides’ counsels in presence of 2 (two) other members of this District Forum. Perused the evidence on record. Also perused the analyzed report of Sonography of expert doctor of SMCH and written argument of both sides’ counsels. In this case the main grievance against O.P No.1 is that he furnished misinformation by giving a wrong Sonography Report dated 23-07-2014, for which the Gynecologist was misleaded to provide proper treatment to the complainant because the complainant delivered a baby having single umbilical artery in the cord which is abnormality but the O.P No.1 in his Sonography Report vide Ext-I,failed to detect such abnormality rather reported about 2 (two) umbilical arteries. The complainant deposed that her baby died after few days of delivery due to misleading information of the O.P No.1 on the reasoning that the doctor could not give proper treatment in time.To support her allegation she exhibited not only a Death Certificate vide Ext-4 but also an opinion of Gynecologist Dr. A.B. Fuzayel Ahmed vide Ext-3. In that Ext-3 the doctor mentioned that that baby born with single umbilical artery with skeletal deformity. But the O.P No.1 by adducing evidence tried to justify his report and tried to convince this District Forum that it is often be difficult to a Gynecologist/doctor to detect the number of vessels in a cord solely by clinical examination. To support his plea the O.P not only exhibited copy of the Sonography Report vide Ext-C but also some medical literatures to justly his finding. As the Sonography report is challenged by the complainant on the basis of opinion of Gynecologist Dr. A.B. Fuzayel, the Sonography plate has been send by this District Forum to Silchar Medical College and Hospital, vide order dated 20-09-2017 and accordingly the Professor and Head, Department of Radiologist furnished analysed report of Sonography plate as Below:-
“The foetal parts depicted in the Sonography plate are normal in appearance. No abnormality is detected on the foetal depicted in the Sonography plate.” The said expert report is not challenged by the complainant. That is why, I have accepted the report and concluded that the experts analyzed report of Sonography plate is not adverse to the Sonography Report dated 23-07-2014 vide Ext-I and Ext-C of the O.P No.1. Thus, in our considered view no negligence against the O.P No.1 is proved in respect of Sonography report. He has not furnished any misinformation to mislead the Gynecologist as alleged by the complainant and as such the adverse opinion given by Gynecologist in Ext-3 against O.P No.1 is not taken into consideration as real cause for death the baby of the complainant. - As such in this case I do not find any justification to award compensation as prayed for or any relief to the complainant. Accordingly, this case is dismissed on contest without cost. Supply free certified copy to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 14th day of February, 2018.
| |
