BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 18 of 2012
1. Sri Parimal Chakraborty,
Krishnanagar-Sibcolony, …………………………………….. Complainants.
-V/S-
1. Dr. Angshuman Dutta,
Silchar Medical College and Hospital Quarters,
Silchar, Cachar, Assam ………….……………………… Principal O.P.No.1.
2. South City Hospital, Represnted by its owner,
Meherpur, Silchar, Cachar …………………………….. Proforma O.P.No.2.
Present: - Sri BishnuDebnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Mr. Soumen Choudhury, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. A. Biswas, Advocate for the O.P.No.1
None for O.P.No.2.
Date of evidence 28-01-2013
Date of written argument 06-11-2017, 07-02-2018
Date of oral argument 17-05-2018,
27-08-2019(None appeared for oral argument)
Date of judgment 06-09-2019
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri BishnuDebnath
1. Sri Parimal Chakraborty (Complainant) brought this complainant under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Dr. Angshuman Dutta (OP No.1) for award of compensation for the allegation of medical negligence. To get the relief as stated in the complaint he brought the facts. The said facts is briefly stated below:
a. On 17/06/2011 at about 02:30 P.M the complainant sustained injury on his left arm. Hence, immediately after the incidence, he rushed to South City Hospital, Silchar (OP No.2). The OP No.1 being an Orthopedic Surgeon attended him and on examination diagnosed the case of fracture. The OP No.1 advice for immediate operation. Accordingly, he was admitted to the OP No.2 under the OP No.1, vide patient PIN/ID No.0658/SCH/11.
b. On the following day, i.e., on 18.06.2011 at about 8:00 P.M. the left arm of the complainant was operated under anesthesia and informed the complainant by the OP No.1 that he successfully fixed a plate in the left arm of the complainant for reunion of bones.
c. Thereafter, on 20.06.2011 the complainant was discharged with advice of medication given in the discharge certificate and also advice to remove stitches on 30.06.2011. However, at the time of discharge the complainant made payment of Rs 30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only to the OP No.2 as charge of medical expenditure.
d. On 30.06.2011 stitches were removed and plastering was done on the left arm of the complainant. But on 05.11.2011 the complainant felt acute pain in his left hand and met the OP No.1 in the OP No.2 Hospital.
e. This time, as per advice of the OP No.1, X-ray was done and on looking at the X-ray plate the OP No.1 told the complainant that bones have not united and as such required another operation to inject a kind of juice to the operated arm from bone marrow of the complainant.
d. On asking the reasons for such new operation, the OP No.1 expressed that there were some negligence and omission on his part while conducting operation, which has to be corrected and sought co-oration from the complainant.
f. The complaint came back and on 07.11.2011 met Dr. Suji Kumar Nandi Purkayastha, a leading Orthopedic doctor in Varak valley with the medical records and told about the advice of the OP No.1 regarding injecting juice from bone marrow. Hearing the said advice the Dr. Sujit Kumar Nandi Purkayastha laughed and said that the stage of injecting juice for uniting bones is over and it would be impossible to unite the bones.
g. However, after examination of left arm of the complainant D. Sujit Kumar Nandi Purkayastha prescribed some medicine and on 16.12.2011 he confirmed that the complainant require another operation with bone grafting. Another orthopedic surgeon Dr. Arijit Dhar also advised the complainant for bone grafting.
h. On 18.03.2012 the complainant went to Patna and on the following day in the Mukhopadhaya Orthopedic Clinic and Research Centre at Saidpur Road, met Dr. John Mukhopadhaya. The said doctor examined the complainant and observed on the basis of X-Ray Report and Pathological tests that due careless operation done by the OP No.1 the plate loosely fixed in the left arm of the complainant, resulting of such, bones were not united.
i. In such situation the complainant was compelled to undergo another operation at Popular Nursing Home, Ashok Raj Path, Patna on 22.03.2012 under the supervision of Dr. John Mukhapadhaya. In that operation, bone grafting was done to fill up the gap and earlier plate was replaced with new one.
j. For that operation and treatment the complainant spent Rs.1,10,000 (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand) including traveling, lodging, food of the complainant and his 2(two) attendants.
2.a. In this case OP No.2 did not contest by filing Written Statement (W/S). However, the OP No.1 in his W/S stated inter-alia that surgical operation on left arm of the complainant was undertaken with regional anesthesia on 17.06.2011 in OP No.2 and on 15.11.2011 the sign of delayed union was revealed on post operative X-Ray. He said delayed union is a common phenomenon, which may occur after any fracture surgery. Accordingly, the OP No.1 advised the complainant for stem-cell therapy, i.e., bone marrow injection therapy which is a semi-invasive, economic and standard procedure done in such situation instead of bone grafting. The OP No.1 further, stated that there was no negligence or omission on his part towards the complainant rather he advised the complainant to seek proper and further treatment that was required for his condition but the complainant did not follow his advice.
b. However, in reply to the alleged opinion of the orthopedic doctor of Patna regarding loosening of the plate and screws fitted by the OP No.1 on operation, he said it may occurred due to further delay of around 4(four) month from the date of his advice for injecting bone marrow.
3. During hearing, the complainant submitted his deposition supporting affidavit and exhibited some medical papers and hospital bills, etc. The OP No.1 also, submitted his deposition supporting affidavit and exhibited some documents. After closing their evidence both the parties engaged lawyers submitted their written arguments.
4. However, during hearing I have asked the Dr. Sujit Kumar Nandi Purkayastha to examine the medical papers submitted by the parties in this case and submit his comment touching the alleged remarks passed by him against the OP No.1 regarding medical treatment medical advise given to the complainant by the OP No.1. the said Dr. Sujit Nandi Purkayastha in his comment dated 15.02.2019 he stated clearly that he did not pass any such remark as stated by the complainant in the complain but admitted that delayed union is a known complication of bone surgery and he advised the complainant for surgery.
5. After hearing argument of the parties, I have sent the medical papers to the Guwahati Medical College & Hospital for medical opinion of special Medical Board. The Medical Board consisting of three members (out of which two are Orthopedics and one is Surgeon), submitted their report after examination of the medical papers transmitted to them with opinion that the medical board did not find any reason to believe deliberate motive of medical negligence on the part of OP No.1. They observed in the report as below:-
“Loosening of implants, Non-union, Delayed union at fracture site, Implant failure, Infection are the some of the complications known to occur after any orthopedics operation for fracture fixation universally in a certain percentage of patients.
Some bones in our Human body are inherently vulnerable to complications like Delayed union. Non union such as Fractures of Humerus, Fracture Neck of Femur, Fracture of Scaphoid bone, Fracture both bone lower third of leg etc.
Subsequent management of this type of complications may require Reoperation. Different treatment modalities which varies from case to case such as charge / removal of Implants, Bone Grafting procedures, Bone Marrow substitutes, Ilizarov methods are some of them which may require to promote Union and restore function.
Moreover, subsequent violent trauma or a fall after the operation in an individual on the operated limb can also cause implant loosening or even refracture leading to delayed Union or Non-Union.”
6. Keeping in view the above observation of the Special Medical Board, I have gone through the evidence on record to find out as whether the OP No.1 loosely fixed the implant (plate and screws) on the fracture bone of the complainant. But from the evidence on record I do not find any convincing material facts to say that the OP No.1 negligently fixed loosely the implant on fracture bone at the time of operation, resulting non union of bone within 4 ½ month from the date of operation done by the OP No.1. Moreover, there is no evidence available in the record that Dr. Sujit Kumar Nandi Purkayastha or Dr. Arijit Dhar made comment on examination of the complainant that implant fixed by the OP No.1 loosely. Thus, it is of opinion that if the implant was loosely fixed by the OP No.1 on operation of the left arm of the complainant on 18.06.2011, it could certainly be able to detect by Dr. Sujit Kumar Nandi Purkayastha and Dr. Arijit Dhar at the time of examination of the complainant. No, such evidence is available in the case record.
7. Therefore, in this case it is concluded that the medical negligence of the OP No.1 is not established in view of the evidence on record. Thus, no relief is granted in favour of the complainant.
8. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties of this case immediately. With the above, this case is disposed of on contest without any cost. Given under my hand and seal of the District Forum on this the 6th day of September, 2019.
