| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 12.06.2014. DATE OF S/R : 18.07.2014. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27.08.2015. Sampa Patra, wife of Sri Maheshwar Patra, residing at Nazirgaung, P.O. Danesh Sk. Lane, P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah, PIN 711109. ………………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT. 1. Dr. Archana Sinha, an Gynaecologist & Obstretrician of Anandalok Hospital, at CK 44, Salt Lake, Kolkata 91. 2. Anandalok Hospital, of CK 44, Salt Lake, Kolkata 91. 3. West Bank Hospital, situated at Andul Road, District Howrah. 4. Fortis Hospital and Kidney Institute, Situated at 11A, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata 700029. …………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak. F I N A L O R D E R - Complainant, Sampa Patra, by filing a petition U/s 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. no. 1 to pay Rs. 18,00,000/- as compensation for wrongful operation leading to loss of one kidney, Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant got admitted to the hospital run by O.P.2 on 20-08-2013 with pain in abdomen under the treatment of O.P.1. O.P.1 suggested some pathological tests which were done and after going through the reports, O.P.1 opined that the complainant was suffering from tumor pain and surgery is to be done. Accordingly on 23-08-2013. O.P.1 did the tumor operation which is known as TLH+ BSO GA. And for that operation ₹50,000 was paid by the family members of the complainant. But the complainant was still suffering from tremendous paid from 23-08-2013 to 26-08-2013 which was informed to O.P.1 But it is alleged that O.P.1 never attended the complainant rather on 26-08-2013, O.P.1 discharged the patient with heavy pain. On 03-09-2013 as soon as the stitches were cut it lead to the continuous flow of urine from the operated place. O.P. 1 was then and there called but she remained silent without taking any step. So, another doctor of O.P.2, namely, Dr.Gautam Bhowmick, was contacted who opined that another operation was required to be done. On 11/09/2013 the next operation, known as Cystoscopy – ureteric Catheterization blockage bilaterally and the problem was cured for the time being and the finally members of the complainant had to pay ₹60,000 for this second operation. But the family members of the complainant thought that for the earlier wrong treatment, complainant might have to suffer in future and for getting better treatment, complainant was taken to the hospital of O.P.3 where she was attend by Dr. R.K. GOPALA KRISHNA and he opined that the condition of the right kidney of the complainant got damaged and ultimately her right kidney was operated at her young age of 35 at the hospital of o.p. 4. And for this 3rd operation, the family member of the complainant had to pay ₹ 2,50,000 to O.P.4 and complainant became cured after loss of her important organ like kidney which caused severe mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to her. So, being highly aggrieved and frustrated complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were properly served upon O.P.s. But o.p. nos. 1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed any written version. Only O.Ps. 3 and 4 appeared through respective representatives but did not file any W/V. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte against all O.P.s.
- Two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? - Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS : - Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through all the documents filed by the complainant in support of her case. Complainant was suffering from acute pain in lower abdomen as due to her enlarged and cystic (lower) ovary as it is revealed from Discharge Summary provided by O.P.2 on 26-08-2013. And O.P.1 did the operation on 23-08-2013 required for making the complainant fully cured. But her pain still persisted and O.P.1 did not pay any heed to attend the patient although the complainant was admitted to O.P.2 on the advice of O.P.1 vide prescription dt. 03-08-2013. Not only the complainant was suffering from acute pain after operation when the stitches were removed on 03-09-2013, the urine started flowing continually from that place. Immediately, complainant contacted with O.P.1 but O.P.1 was so negligent that she never attended her patient for which complainant was compelled to visit another doctor namely, Gautam Bhaumick, attached with O.P.2 and on 11-09-2013, that doctor conducted another operation which gave her some temporary relief. It is to be kept in mind that O.P.1 conducted the first operation after doing all pathological tests. Why that first operation failed to give the actual relief to the complainant? Moreover, the urine started coming out from the operated area continuously and that must have affected important organ of the complainant, like kidney as we all know that urine carries all the bad elements of our body. So complainant had nothing but to visit the hospital of O.P.3 where she was attended by Dr. R.K. Gopala Krishna. And at the hospital of O.P.4., complainant again got admitted under the consultant urologist, Dr. R.K. Gopala Krishna in department of Urology. Ultimately on 05-11-2013, She had to undergo another operation and that is nothing but NEPHRECTOMY, RIGHT which means she had to lose her right kidney forever.Here it is to be noted that in the Discharge Summary dt. 26/08/2013, against the point “Treatment Done”, only the word “Surgical” is mentioned by o.p. no. 1 but no details of treatment, given by o.p. 1 during the period of 20.8.2013 to 26.8.2013, is recorded by o.p. no. 1. But for the second and third operations, the details of procedures taken for giving treatment to the complainant, is recorded by the concerned doctors like Dr. Gautam Bhowmick & Dr. R .K. Gopala Krishna. And from the back side of the Discharge Summary dt.19/09/2013, signed by Dr. Gautam Bhaumik of o.p. no. 2, it is clear that severe problems cropped up after the first operation done by o.p. no. 1. How o.p1 could discharge the complainant on 26/08/2013 by writing the condition of discharge as “stable”. Even Dr. Bhaumik mentioned in the Discharge Summary dt.19/09/2013 that “postoperative recovery uneventful”. He also mentioned against the point ‘condition of discharge’ with Rt ureterostomy. He also gave the details of the treatment done mentioning ‘damage at multiple level with urinary ascites’. Finally , in Discharge Summary dt. 12/11/2013 given by o.p. no. 4, it is also noted that complainant was admitted there with “Urinary leakage”, Right Ureteroscopy and drain in situ. So, it is clear that urinary system got damaged by the first operation in such a way that she had to lose one kidney which caused severe mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Without a kidney she is to lead rest of her life which is really painful as well as unthinkable for a lady of 35 years. Definitely, her working capacity would be affected for which none other than o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are responsible. Moreover, even after receiving the summon, both o.p. nos. 1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed any written version from which it is crystal clear that they have nothing to put forward in their favour and we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. And we are of candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed against o.p. no. 1 & 2.
Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 335 of 2014 ( HDF 335 of 2014 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against o.p. no. 1 & 2 and dismissed ex parte against o.p. nos. 3 & 4 without cost. That the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid entire amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( Jhumki Saha) Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah. | |
