Date of filing: 04.9.2009 Date of disposal: 25.3.2014
Complainant: Soumendra Nath Bhattacharya, S/o. Abani Bhusan Bhattacharya, Village: Palun, Police Station: Monteswar, District: Burdwan.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. Dr. Balailal Saha, S/o. Krishna Lal @Kishorilal Saha, Dakbanglow road, Police Station: Katwa, District: Burdwan.
2. Proprietor of the Seva Sadan Nursing Home, Dakbanglow Road, Police Station: Katwa, District: Burdwan.
Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Hon’ble Member : Sri Durga Sankar Das
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Subtara Ghosh.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&2: Ld. Advocate, Deb Krishna Sinha.
JUDGEMENT
Introduction:-
This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the C. P. Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the OPs on the ground that negligence has been occurred in respect of providing proper medical treatment towards of the wife of the complaint, since deceased.
Brief Fact:-
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that his wife, since deceased, give birth a female baby through normal delivery years back. In the year 2006 she became further pregnant for second time after seven years from the date of birth of the first child. The complainant took her to a gynecology namely Dr. S.P. Roychowdhury who examined his wife and confirmed pregnancy and expected date of delivery was written on or within
21.9.2007. The said doctor advised for some investigations related with blood, urine and USG from time to time, which has been noted in the prescription and it was further mentioned by the doctor that the wife of the complainant possessed ‘O’ negative blood group which is a very rare one. The complainant also took measures to immune his wife from time to time and took care of his wife and the baby in her womb. ANC -1, Tetanus -1, ANC-2 and Tetanus -2, booster doses were given to ensure safety. His wife was under the treatment of Dr. S.P. Roychowdhury till June 2007. The complainant lives in remote village at Kalna sub-division where there is no adequate arrangement for hospital or nursing home and the only option was at Burdwan if she had to undergo delivery which required adequate manpower and involving huge monetary involvement. For this reason the complaint thought for delivery of baby at his laws’ house situated at Katwa. The complainant consulted with the OP-1 doctor stating him in details the status of her health, who perused all the reports and prescription of the erstwhile doctor along with immunization details. It was stated by the complainant and his wife that the first delivery was normal. And at that point of time the OP-1 stated the second baby will also be normal. But the complainant on the contrary said that the OP-1 is at liberty to perform caesarian section if he deems fit and proper but in that case he must be informed earlier for necessary requirements, specially arrangement of blood as the group of her blood falls in the rarest group. The OP also consented to such proposition. On 07.9.2007 the wife of the complainant felt some discomforts in respect to labour pain and for this reason she along with her mother met the OP-1 and as per his advice she got admission at the OP-2. At the time of admission the mother of the deceased was asked to give all relating prescriptions by the OP-1 because it was necessary for the patient concerned. The patient was admitted at the OP-2 by her mother at about 12.30 pm. Thereafter the patient was taken in the O. T. and after passing a long time the patient party were informed that a male child weighting about 3 kg was normally delivered and no surgical intervention was performed. The complaint asked about the condition of his wife, but the staff of the OP-2 did not rely anything satisfactory. After lapse of another hour when the wife of the complainant was still not transferred to the bed or she was not even taken outside the O. T. the complainant got some foul smell and asked about the condition of his wife to the OP-1. The OP-1 disclosed at about 9.15 pm that arrangement of one unit of blood is necessary. Complainant became astonished with this word because as there was no surgical intervention related to the delivery of the baby, why such blood is necessary and moreover why he was not informed earlier about such requirement. As the complainant was present at the OP-2 for long eight hours why such requirement became necessary at about 9.15 pm. The complainant became helpless to the extent that how can he arrange such a rare group of blood at night but he tried his best for collection of one unit of blood and reached at the OP-2 and informed the same to the OP-2 but he was told that there was no requirement of the same as the patient has expired in the meantime. The complainant was
not allowed to go inside the O. T. to see his wife, the relatives of his wife, as well as, well wishers wanted to see the patient. Ultimately the OP-2 informed that the patient has expired. When the complainant wanted to meet the doctor he was told by the OP-2 that the OP-1 had already left the nursing home. The complainant then insisted the OP-2 to see the dead body of his wife and only then the OP-2 allowed him to enter in the room where she found that his wife was lying there in the O. T. and the lower portion of her body was smeared with excessive blood. The complainant realized that the death of his wife was not natural. Ultimately the OP-2 handed over the death certificate of his wife which was duly signed by the OP-1 along with his registration number. The death certificate reveals the cause of death of his wife was due to PPH (Post Partem Hemorrhage). Thereafter the complaint lodged a complaint with the Police Station, Katwa which was registered as Katwa Police Case no. 245/2007 dated 08.9.2007 under Section 304A, IPC. During inquest conducted by ASI of Police in presence of this complainant and other witnesses on the same day it was detected that the abdominal region had a fresh bandage and there were sutures in the vaginal tract along with a catheter. The body was sent for autopsy for determination of cause of death. The ACMOH, Katwa had initiated a departmental proceeding against the OP-1 and the office of the CMOH had constituted a body of four persons to conduct the enquiry upon the OP-1 & 2. Moreover the complainant was informed from time to time about this through letters. The result of the enquiry is yet to be received but if the BHT is perused meticulously it will be evident that the condition of the deceased was very precarious after delivery of the baby. Finding no other alternative the complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by initiating this complaint alleging medical negligence as well as deficiency in service on behalf of the OPs and praying for directions upon the OPs to pay Rs. 1,00,000=00 due to medical negligence and deficiency in service, Rs. 50,000=00 for unfair trade practice of the OP-2 , Rs. 2,00,000=00 due to loss of company of two children, Rs. 1,00,000=00for mental agony and Rs. 50,000=00 for litigation cost, totaling Rs. 5,00,000=00.
Written Version of the OP-1:-
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version wherein it contended that the complainant’s wife accompanied by her mother met the OP-1 on 07.9.2007 with a labour pain at the advance stage of her pregnancy. Prior to coming to OP-1 the wife of the complainant was duly checked and treated by the doctor at the locality but as a last moment she was brought before this OP for the purpose of delivery as the previous doctor was not available at that relevant point of time and with a view to save the life of the patient upon seeing her condition the OP-1 advised her for getting admission at the OP-2 and the OP-1 started to render his medical treatment to the patient without any delay. He tried to overcome the matter of delivery with best efforts and skill but due to the condition of health of the patient no other option was to deliver the baby except by normal delivery and that is why in course of normal delivery the present OP applied some medicines for increase of labour pain. But due to stout physique of the baby and for delay in delivery it took more time for delivery of the child and ultimately she gave birth a baby. It is false that there was any fault or negligence has been occurred on the part of this OP during and after delivery period. The OP-1 has mentioned that in ordinary course of medical system (gynecology) that after delivery the womb of the mother contracts but it was the ill fate of the patient that the womb did not contract accordingly. Unfortunately there was profuse bleeding during post delivery stage and all efforts of the present OP went in vain. The OP-1 leaving all his routine work has discharged his duty towards the patient as per his best expertise and tried his best to overcome the precarious condition of the patient according to the medical science. Even the present OP in consultation with other doctors took all measures to save the life of the patient but ultimately the patient expired. In the case in hand acute post partem hemorrhage has been occurred which is the rarest of rare cause of death. The OP-1 took proper care and provides sincere service upon the patient according to the medical science, so question of medical negligence in rendering service by the present OP does not arise at all. The OP-1 was never careless to the patient, so the matter of deficiency of service also does not arise. The OP-1 has further stated that he intimated the patient parties about the condition of the patient from time to time and when the patient breathed her last, the present OP intimated the same to the complainant but upon hearing such condition of the patient the complainant along with his associates heckled the OP-1 and damaged some furniture and valuable materials of the OP2. Accordingly the OP-2 intimated the local P. S. and police authority initiated a case over such incident caused by the complainant and his associates without any right or reason. But the complainant did not pay any amount for the cost of the treatment of his wife. As the complainant has damaged the reputation of the OP-1 as well as the OP-2 the same should be compensated by the complainant. The instant complaint has been field by the complainant only to squeeze money from the OPs through an illegal manner because the OPs in no way are liable for the death of his wife. Accordingly prayer has been made by the OP-1 for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
The OP-2 did not file any separate written version to contest the petition of complaint. The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with several medical papers and documents.
Expert Evidence & Cross Examination:-
Doctor Kalyansree Chowdhury being the Assistant Professor of the Department of Obstructionist and Gynecology, Burdwan Medical College & Hospital was examined by the complainant and cross-examined by the OPs in the dock on 13.9.2013. The relevant portion of the expert opinion is necessary to mention.
“the available record shows that the delivery was second time and blood group was ‘O’ negative. It is true that ‘O’ negative blood is not easily available. If this type of patient comes to us, we counsel the patient regarding rareness of blood group and availability of blood. The blood report dated 09.5.2007 reveals that the hemoglobin level was 9.8, which is slightly less than normal. It appears from the register of admission, the name of the institution was not mentioned on the admission sheet of the patient, the BHT is not in proper form, there is no finding of the condition of the patient including hemoglobin, USG , blood pressure etc. on admission. The consent form was not properly maintained since the doctor’s name is not there and blank format was signed by the patient. The consent form does not indicate what surgical procedure will be administered as well as the name of the doctor was not mentioned. At the time of taking consent the problem, procedure and potential problem that may arise during the course of treatment are usually explained as standard practice, though it is not possible to tell every complication to the patient which may arise during the course of the procedure . It was not done in this case. After delivery the condition of the patient was mentioned in the BHT regarding relevant features, namely, bleeding, state of uterus. The admission time of the patient to the labour room is not recorded. The condition of the patient is not recorded in detail in the BHT on 07.9.2007. It cannot be concluded definitely from the available facts whether the doctor was negligent or not”. During cross-examination by the OPs the expert doctor has stated that “I did not find any scrap of documents that the patient was ever treated by Dr. Saha. From the records it appears that laparatomy was dome and the intention of the doctor was to save the patient. From the record I think that PPH developed on its own. The cause of death is not recorded in Post Mortem repot and I am not in a position to say whether the doctor is negligent or not.
Points to be decided:-
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Ld. Forum in respect territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction?
3. Whether there was any medical negligence on behalf of the OPs?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
Decision with reasons:-
Point no.1:-
We have carefully perused the entire record and several documents filed by the parties as the expert opinion along with cross-examination. We are to adjudicate at the very outset whether the complainant is a consumer or not. In this respect we are to say that in view of the Section 2(1)Ib)(v) the complainant can be termed as consumer because after the death of his wife being a legal heir and husband the complainant has filed this complaint. Secondly, as the OPs have mentioned that the complainant did not pay any amount towards medical expenditure the complainant cannot be termed as consumer because free medical service was rendered. In this respect we are to mention the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in III (1995) CPJ 1 in the case of Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha and Ors. Wherein in the paragraph no. 55 (1) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
55 (1): service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service for free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultations, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would follow within the ambit of service’ as defined in the section 2(1)(o) of the act………………………………………………………………………………………..
(3) a ‘contract of personal service’ has to be distinguished from a contract for a personal service . In the absence of a relationship of master and servant between the patient and the medical practitioner, the service rendered by a medical practitioner to the patient cannot be regarded as service rendered under a contract of personal service’. Such service is service rendered under a contract for personal services ‘and is not covered by exclusionary clause of the definition of service’ contained in the section 2(1)(o)of the act………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
7. service rendered to a non-govt. hospital /nursing home where charges are required to be paid by the persons availing such services falls within the purview of expression ‘service‘ as defined in section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
8. service rendered at a non-govt. hospital/nursing home where charges are required to be paid by the persons who are in a position to pay and the persons who cannot afford to pay are rendered service as free of charge would fall within the ambit of expression ‘service‘as defined in the section 2(1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who are not a in a position to pay for such services. Free service, would also be service and the recipient is a consumer under the Act. ……………………………………………………………………..
In view of the abovementioned observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and existing law of this land the present complaint can easily be termed a consumer because no document has been adduced by the OPs that the OPs are rendered medical service to every patient free of charge. Therefore the point no. 1 is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 2:-
The complaint is very much maintainable in respect of its pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum and the complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5, 00,000=00 in total. Moreover, it can be said that this complaint is not barred by limitation as the same has been filed within two years from the date of cause of action. Therefore from the points of pecuniary, territorial as well as limitation this complaint is very well maintainable before this ld. Forum. The point -2 is also decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 3:-
Now we are to adjudicate where there was any medical negligence or deficiency in providing medical service towards the wife of the complainant since deceased or not. Upon careful perusal of the record it is evident to us that admittedly the wife of the complainant became pregnant for second time and she was under the treatment of Dr. S.P. Roychowdhury who has endorsed in the prescription the expected date of delivery as within 21.9.2007. Be it mentioned that the lady gave birth the first child in normal delivery. As per advice of Dr. Roychowdhury several investigations of blood and urine along with USG were done time to time. It is to be noted that the lady belonged in the blood group of ‘O’ Negative, admittedly which is a rare one. The patient was given some injection and medicines as preventive measures to protect herself and baby in her womb and she was under the treatment of Dr. Roychowdhury till June 2007. But when her labour pain occurred slightly then she consulted with the OP-1 and upon perusal of all the reports and prescriptions of Dr. Roychowdhury, the OP-1 suggested to get admission at the OP-2 and also assured her that second child will be in normal delivery. The complainant stated on affidavit in the petition of complaint that the OP-1 was told that he is at liberty to perform caesarian section if he deemed fit and proper. But in the case of surgery he must be informed earlier for requirement of any ingredients specially blood as the blood of the patient falls in the rarest group and it is very difficult to collect the same in emergency. On 07.9.2007 feeling some discomfort and as per advice of the OP-1 the wife of the complainant took admission at the OP-2. The wife of the complainant was taken inside the O.T. and after a long time the complainant and the patient party was informed that a male child was normally delivered and no surgical intervention was performed. But when the complainant asked about the condition of his wife nobody answered him satisfactory and after a lapse of another hour when the wife, since deceased, was not transferred to bed or she was not taken outside the O.T. the complainant got some foul smell and asked the actual condition and state of health of his wife to the OP-1. Then the OP-1 disclosed at about 9.15 pm to arrange for an unit of blood. The complainant became surprised because as there was no surgical intervention related to the delivery why the supply of blood was required. But he tried his best to collect one unit of blood and after collection when he reached at the OP-2 then he came to know that there was not requirement of the same as his wife has already expired. Then he and other relatives went in the O.T. room and found that his wife was lying and her lower portion of the body was smeared with excessive blood. Then he presumed that the death of his wife was not natural. While he asked the OP-2 to hand over the death certificate of his wife then and there the same was handed over along with the signature and the registration no. of the OP-1 from where it is revealed that the cause of death of his wife was due to post pertem hemorrhage. The allegation of the complainant is that due care and caution was not taken by the OP-1 during delivery, though laparatomy was done but no consent was taken from him, not valid and proper consent was taken from him because in the consent form there is no signature of the doctor who performed the delivery or surgery, as the patient belonged in the rarest blood group no measure has been taken earlier before taking the patient in the O.T. , the BHT is not in proper form, no O.T. note has been prepared by the treating doctor, OP-1 etc.
We have perused the form no. V from where it is evident that though consent to surgery anesthetics and other medical services was taken from the patient and her mother but there is no signature of the doctor and who will perform the surgery or provide medical service the name has not been mentioned. Overall the consent form which has been taken from the complainant as well as her mother is totally blank. In this respect the complainant has relied on the medical book Bailey and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery, 24th Edition, edited by Russel, Williams and Bulstrode, (Chapter 3, page 38) it is stated that ‘surgery is technically an assault unless the patient has given express permission for this to occur. This permission is valid only if the patient understands what is plan and then agrees with the proposed course of action. In itself a signed consent form may mean nothing in a court of law; it is the proper taking of informed consent and a record that this has taken place which is the true defense against a charge of assault and battery.’ It has also been stated in the said page that ‘you should introduce yourself, checked the patient’s name and explain what it is that you are proposing to do, and by what authority you are doing this. Currently it is considered that only the surgeon performing the surgery, or a deputy who is also capable of performing the surgery, should obtain consent.’ The complainant has also relied on the reported judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Samira Kohli Vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Anr., wherein their Lordships held that ‘a doctor has to seek and secure the consent of the patient before commencing a treatment including surgery and the consent so obtained should be real and valid, which means that the patient should have the capacity and competence to consent, his consent should be voluntary and to the basis of adequate information concerning the nature of treatment or procedure so that he/ she knows what is consenting to.’ The dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is very much applicable in the case in hand. Because in the consent form there is no mention of the treating surgeon or doctor who has performed the surgery or delivered the baby from the mother’s womb and moreover there is also no signature of the said doctor or any deputy doctor who is also capable of performing surgery. Therefore having regard to the standard medical guideline as mentioned above as well as the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the present consent form cannot be treated as real and valid. Why the OP-2 did not obtain valid and real consent form from the patient or patient party, the answer is silent. Therefore, in this respect due to invalid consent form the OP-2 is solely liable and henceforth the OP-2 is directed not to practice in such unfair manner.
In respect of O.T. note as alleged by the complainant we have noticed that there is no such document from where it will be evident at what time the patient was taken in the O.T. and when the operation was completed and in the O.T., what was the actual condition of the patient. In this connection the complainant has placed the standard medical books namely, Bailey and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery 24th Edition, wherein under the heading of ‘Operating Note’ (page-40) it is stated that ‘operating note is an important document. It should be legible, comprehensive and signed…… It is a contemporaneous record and therefore carries great weight in any subsequent inquiry into complications or an adverse outcome….’
As the case in hand there is no such written operation note, hence, the OP-1 can be termed as deficient in rendering medical service as per standard books and ethics. The complainant has further alleged that laparatomy was done after delivery of the baby, which is evident from the BHT. But in this connection whether consent was taken from the husband of the patient or not, no clear picture is forthcoming from the end of the OP-1. We have earlier mentioned that before surgery written consent is to be taken either from the patient if he or she is stable and conscious to give consent or from the patient party, he may be the wife of the patient or husband. As per the Regulation 7.16 of the Indian Medical Council (professional conduct, etiquette and ethics) ‘before performing an operation the physician should obtain in writing the consent from the husband or wife, parent or guardian in case of minor, or the patient himself, as the case may be……..’ But in the case in hand, admittedly the patient was not in a position to give consent due to her precarious state of heath. Therefore, when her husband and patient party were waiting out of the O.T. it was the bounden duty of the OP-1 to take consent from her husband before laparatomy. If it was not possible before laparatomy, it was the duty of the OP-1 to take consent thereafter. But in the case in hand no step was taken from the husband of the patient prior to laparatomy. Therefore such action of the OP-1 is totally against the medical ethics for which his service can be termed as medical negligence.
In respect of BHT, undoubtedly the BHT was not written properly because while after delivery of the baby the condition of the patient became precarious the same fact has not been disclosed in the BHT. Not only that, in respect of enquiry made by the complainant for knowing the actual condition of his wife, the staff of the OP-2 did not bother to reply. For this reason though the complainant and patient party were waiting out of the O.T. they were totally in the dark about the condition of his beloved wife. Only at 9.15 pm the complainant was directed to supply one unit of blood but no reason has been assigned to him why the blood was necessary while there was no surgical intervention. In this respect also the OP-2 did not bother to reply. After collecting blood while he reached at the OP-2 and handed over one unit of blood only then he came to know that his wife has expired. From the death certificate it is evident that at 9.40 pm the patient died due to PPH. From the BHT it is evident that at 9 pm laparatoy was done. But from the complaint petition it reveals that at 9.15 pm the complainant was directed to arrange one unit of blood. In this respect we are to say whether the operating surgeon had knowledge that the patient falls in a rare blood group that ‘o’ negative why the doctor did not arrange for the said blood unit prior to laparatomy operation. Not only that why the OP-1 did not direct the complainant to arrange for blood prior to open surgery. Entire record reveals that after open surgery when it went out of control of the OP-1, then only the OP-1 directed the complainant to arrange for blood. In this respect we are to mention the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein in the paragraph 11 it is mentioned that “negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence, as recognized, are three: ‘duty’, ‘breach’ and ‘resulting damage’, that is to say:
1. the existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant;
2. the failure to attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, thereby committing a breach of such duty; and
3. damage, which is both casually connected with such breach and recognized by the law, has been suffered by the complainant.
In the said judgment it has also been mentioned in the said paragraph that if the claimant satisfies the court on the evidence that these three ingredients are made out, the defendant should be held liable in negligence. The above-mentioned landmark judgment is very much applicable in the instant case because the OP-1 have miserably failed to take due care and caution before laparatomy operation because knowing fully well that the blood group of the patient falls in the ‘O’ negative which is admittedly rarest one, it was the duty of the OP-1 to preserve one or more blood unit before taking her in to the O.T. Admittedly the patient gave birth her baby through a normal delivery before delivery it was not within the knowledge of the doctor that in which procedure delivery will be made. Therefore, as a precautionary measure as well as pre-operative measures it was duty of the OP-1 to preserve blood beforehand. Moreover, the BHT reveals a glaring example of deficiency in service after laparatomy i.e. after opening her abdomen the complainant was directed to arrange for blood. Therefore in view of the abovementioned dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it can easily be said that the action of the OP-1 suffers from medical negligence as well as deficiency in service. The test with regard to the negligence of a doctor was laid down in Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957, I WLR 582) it was to the effect that a doctor is not guilty of negligence if he acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art. This principle in Bolam’s case has been accepted by the House of Lords in England as applicable to diagnosis and treatment.
Admittedly the wife of the complainant has expired but death cannot be termed as negligence of the treating doctor. We are to see that whether the treating doctor or surgeon has adopted due care and caution and provided standard medical service during treatment. In the case in hand we have earlier discussed that the OP-1 has failed to abide by the medical ethics as per the medical text and literature. For this reason the OP-1 can be held as negligent in rendering proper treatment to the patient. In our view the OP-2 can be held liable as deficient in service as the consent form is the property of the OP-2, not the OP-1. It was the duty of the OP-2 to fill up the consent form properly. As in the consent form there is no mentioning of the name of the treating doctor or surgeon or signature of the said doctor/surgeon, the consent form cannot be said as valid and proper. Due to non-maintenance of the consent form in proper format as per the regulation of the Indian Medical Association, the action of the OP-2 can easily be termed as deficiency in service. The OP-2 being the nursing home is under obligation to abide by the rules and regulations of the Indian Medical Council as well as the West Bengal Medical Council. As there is deviation on behalf of the OP-2, hence, in our view the action of the OP-2 also suffers from deficiency in service. Admittedly, being compelled the complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint for redressal of his grievance and for this reason he had to incur litigation cost. So the OPs are liable to pay litigation cost to him. The complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5, 00,000=00 but in our opinion loss of life, specially, loss of mother or wife cannot be compensated with the payment of compensation. It is true after sad demise of the patient her two children have been deprived from their mother’s love and affection, as well as, the complainant also lost his companion. We shall direct the OPs for payment of compensation but such payment cannot quantify such loss and shock. Hence the point no-3 is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 4:-
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence, it is,
Ordered
that the complain be allowed on contest with cost against the OPs . The OPs are directed to pay either jointly or severally to pay Rs. 5, 00,000=00 (Rs. Five lac) only as compensation to the Complainant due to medical negligence, deficiency in service, mental agony, pain and harassment within a period of 45 (forty five) days from the date of this judgment, in default the abovementioned amount shall carry penal interest @10% p.a. for the default period. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000=00 (Rs. Ten thousand) only towards litigation cost to the complaint within a period of 45 (forty five) days from the dale of passing of this judgment/order, in default the Complaint will be at liberty to put the entire order into execution as per provisions of law. Thus the point no- 4 is also decided in favour of the complainant. With the above-mentioned direction the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.
(Udayan Mukhopadhyay)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Durga Sankar Das)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
