Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The basic fact of the case in a few words is that Complainant Smt. Sumana Barman, aged about 28 years is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(7)(i) of CP Act,2019. OP is a Doctor and practicing himself at his own chamber at Mrinal Diagnosis Centre. The Complainant went to Dr. Apurba Chowdhary on 11.07.20 for feeling an acute pain in the lower part of her body and bleeding started. Then Doctor prescribed medicines after checking her body. At that moment Complainant herself exposed her desire for ligation before OP on 12.07.20. OP did ligation too at the chamber of OP and prescribed medicines to and advised her to attend after 7 days for removing of stitches. After 7 days, when the Complainant brought before OP for removing stitches. Thereafter on 26.07.20 the Complainant had been feeling acute pain as before and then brought her before the Doctor. Doctor advised the Complainant for doing USG and also altered the medicines to be get relief. But the physical condition of the Complainant began to deteriorate gradually and again on 28.07.20 Complainant was brought before the chamber of OP and that was the 4th time. The OP Doctor advised the Complainant to take admission at Mathabhanga S.D. Hospital without checking her and Doctor even told that he could do nothing for the Complainant in this regard. During that time, the Haemoglobin level was 4.9, so she was in acute position. The Complainant had been moved towards Mathabhanga S.D. Hospital and thereafter Cooch Behar Medical College & Hospital and admitted there on 28.07.20 and 29.07.20 without delay. But no relief could be attained at all. There also the condition of Complainant began to deteriorate gradually. On 30.07.20 the Complainant was brought at Shanti Swasthalaya & Anusandhan Kendra, Siliguri and she stayed there up to 09.08.20 i.e. at a time 11 days and then USG of whole abdomen had been done as per advice of the Doctor named Dr. Ranjan Paul Chowdhary M.S. on 30.07.20. Then several times USG had been done with several lab. Then Doctor prescribed medicines after proper exam and medicines had been being used as per Doctor’s advice. From that period Complainant began to feel better and return to her normal life. Shanti Swasthalaya & Anusandhan Kendra, Siliguri, it was found following results diagnosis, uterine perforation with effect pelvic abscess. Treatment modality surgical. Op became failure from proper diagnosis and ligation was not performed properly at his chamber. Complainant stated that at the time sedation system and failed to use the reasonable degree of skill and care. Complainant also stated that she would have to suffer on acute unendurable alongwith solicitous during his acute position of body due to wrong step of OP and due to skill and ordinary care. OP performed sedation system in unskilled and negligent manner causing the physical condition of the Complainant began to deteriorate gradually. The Complainant did not take care causing deficiency in service. Op was not performed properly at his chamber and he has no proper infrastructure. Due to deficiency in service the OP caused physical distress and mental agony for which the Complainant sustained loss and financial expenses to the tune of Rs.2,10,167/- for Nursing Home charges at Siliguri and miscellaneous expenditures of Rs.1,00,000/-. Complainant also prayed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and for other reliefs as compensation for loss suffering by the Complainant. Complainant also claimed from OP Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. The cause of action arose on 11.07.20 within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Summons upon the OP was duly rewarded. But nobody did not turn up to contest this case and hence the case was heard ex-parte against OP.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and have perused the documents of the Complainant and heard ex-parte argument by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant at length.
Points for consideration
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the CP Act, 2019?
- Whether the OP was negligent in performing the sedation system upon the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief(s), if any Complainant is entitled?
Point No.1.
Point No.1 relates to ascertainment of the question as to whether the Complainant is a consumer under the CP Act. At the threshold of the discussion, it is pertinent to mention that the very basic and important question as to the maintainability of the case hinges upon the present point. The Complainant claimed herself as a consumer under the CP Act. Although the OP did not deny the status of the Complainant as a consumer, yet the OP did not allege that the claim petition is not devoid of any cogent reason to attract the deficiency in service or medical negligence under the perview of the CP Act.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative on behalf of the Complainant.
Point No.2 & 3.
On behalf of the Complainant during argument, it was submitted that Complainant had some abdominal pain in her lower part and consulted the Doctor i.e. OP at Mrinal Diagnosis Centre, Mathabhanga and having examined the OP gave some medicines and at that time Complainant herself exposed her desire for ligation before OP. Accordingly OP legated too on 12.07.20 at his own chamber as “Sedation system” & prescribed medicines to be relief and advised her to attend after 7 days for removing of stitches. OP, likewise after the operation was done, no measure was taken to cure the patient. Much emphasis was given on the alleged lack of pre-operative and post-operative measures on the part of OP and the said inaction on their part tantamount to medical negligence in the eye of law.
Secondly, OP became failure from proper diagnosis and the ligation was not performed properly at his chamber and his chamber has no proper infrastructure.
Thirdly, OP/Doctor also failed to use reasonable degree of skill and care, knowledge and prudent while treating the patient. So the Complainant would have to suffer an acute unendurable suffering during her life time due to unjust step of OP. It tantamounts to medical negligence and deficiency in service.
Fourthly, Complainant had to suffer much from the improper treatment of OP and suffered much mental pain unnecessarily and also suffered pecuniary loss. The admission of the patient at Shanti Swasthalaya & Anusandhan Kendra, Siliguri, and the purpose of doing treatment by another Doctor Ranjan Paul Chowdhury amounts to medical negligence by OP/Doctor named Apurba Chowdhary. Several times USG had been done when the patient was under care of Ranjan Paul Chowdhary. It amounts to financial loss of Complainant. As alleged by the Complainant was caused by sheer negligence on the part of the OP and he should be held liable in this case to pay compensation as prayed for.
On the other hand, on behalf of OP in his argument were not denied all the allegations of the Complainant. The documents produced on behalf of Complainant are (1) Prescription of Dr. Apurba Chowdhury dated 11.01.20(Annexure-A). (2) Prescription of Dr. Apurba Chowdhury dated 26.07.20(Annexure-B). (3) Copy of blood test report (Annexure-C). (4) Copy of referred Card dated 28.07.20 (Annexure-D). (5) Copy of referred Card dated 29.07.20 (Annexure- E). (6) Copy of discharge summary (Annexure-F). (7) Copy of test reports of USG and CT (Annexure-G).
All these documents are uncontroverted and unchallenged documents because OP did not contest the case by filing written version, evidence in chief and never argue the case at the time of argument. These documents go in favour of the Complainant.
In this contention, we think, it would be convenient to point out about what does it mean by the word negligence. It has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that negligence is breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence in the context of medical profession calls for a treatment with some category.
Accordingly, the point No.2 & 3 are affirmative in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.4.
Point No.4 is corollary to all the aforesaid points No.1, 2 & 3. These points being ascertained in favour of the Complainant, consequently this Commission has no other alternative but to decide this points in favour of the Complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds in favour of the Complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/55/2021 be and the same is allowed ex-parte with cost.
The Complainant do get an award of Rs.2,10,167/- for Nursing Home charges at Siliguri against the OP. The OP is directed to pay of Rs.1 Lakh for miscellaneous expenditure and towards medical negligence of Rs.1 Lakh. The OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost and a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony and harassment. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.4,85,167/- (Four Lakhs eighty five thousand one hundred sixty seven Rupees) only to the Complainant within 30 days from passing the order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay an interest of 6 % per annum on the awarded sum of money from the date of Final Order till the date of realisation thereof.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order be also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
