West Bengal

Bankura

CC/58/2016

Mrinal Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Bidhan Mandal - Opp.Party(s)

Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

18 Jul 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No.58/2016

Date of Filing:  03/08/2016

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.

For the Complainant:Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay

For the O.P.1 & 2: Ld. Advocate Sayantan Chowdhury

For the O.P.3: Ld. G.P., Bankura

Complainant:

Mrinal Ghosh, s/o Late Gopal Ghosh, r/o Natungram, PO-Moynapur, PS-Joypur, Bankura

Opposite Party:

1.Dr. Bidhan Mondal,  Surgeon, Camelia Health & Eye Care, Vill+ PO-Kotulpur, Bankura

2. Camelia Health & Eye Care, Vill+ PO-Kotulpur, Bankura

3.MSVP, BSMCH, Gobindanagar, Bankura

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT     

                                                                                                                                                    

Order No.74

Dated:18-07-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that his teen ager son Sandip Ghosh having felt severe abdominal pain went to O.P. No.1/Surgeon for consultation who advised for immediate operation and accordingly he was admitted to O.P. No.2/Nursing Home on 25/03/2015 and was discharged on 27/03/2015 after appendectomy operation. But the pain still subsisted and the patient moved to Bankura Sammilani Medical College & Hospital (BSMCH) for treatment and he was discharged therefrom on 04/06/2015 with the diagnosis of post appendectomy Right Iliac Fossa Lump but as ill  luck would have it, the victim patient could not be relieved of persisting abdominal pain and he was again admitted to BSMCH, Bankura and was discharged on 23/07/2015 with the diagnosis of Ileocecal Tuberculosis. But such medical treatment could not give him relief of tremendous abdominal pain   and as a last resort he was removed to Christian Medical College, Vellore where he was initially admitted on 29/12/2015 and was discharged on 05/01/2016 with the diagnosis “DISSEMINATED ADENOCARCINOMA INTESTINAL OBSTRUCTION STATUS OPEN APPENDECTOMY AND ILEOTRANSVERSE ANASTAMOSIS” and again he was admitted at CMC, Vellore on 15/01/2016 and was discharged on 18/01/2016 with the diagnosis “METASTATIC MODERATE TO POORLY DIFFERENTIATED ADENOCARCINOMA  POST

                                                                                                                                                                                 Contd…..p/2

 

                                                                                              Page: 2

APPENDECTOMY AND ILEO-TRANSVERSE ANASTOMOSIS (ELSEWHERE)  POST EXPLORATORY LAPAROTOMY WITH MULTIPLE BIOPSIES AND LOOP ILEOSTOMY UNDER GA ON 31/12/2015  ON PALLIATIVE FOLFIRI CHEMOTHERAPY”. However life of the patient could not be saved and he expired soon. The Complainant has filed the instant case praying for compensation alleging medical negligence against all the operating doctors.

O.P. No.1& O.P. No.2 jointly submitted written version to contest the case contending inter alia that the patient came to the O.P. No.1/Surgeon with abdominal pain at right iliac fossa with vomiting and fever and after clinical examination it was found to be a case of appendicitis and accordingly appendectomy operation was done by O.P. No.1 at O.P. No.2/Nursing Home to which he was attached to at the relevant time and the post-operative condition was uneventful and stitch was removed after six days and the wound was healed up and so no difficulty arose about the appendectomy operation and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the case.

O.P. No.3 also contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that Dr. Sudhangshu Sekhar Sarkar was the Surgeon at the relevant time at BSMCH, Bankura who rendered proper medical treatment to the post-operated victim patient according to the medical norms and standards and thus said Dr. Sarkar who was attached to BSMCH, Bankura has no medical negligence in treatment of the victim patient and moreover Dr. Sarkar being a purely Government doctor serving in purely charge free Govt. Hospital will not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as free service was rendered to the patient without any charge or fees.

                                                                                          -: Decision with reasons:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission and documents on both sides   the Commission finds that  before appendectomy operation on 25/03/2015 done by O.P. No.1/Surgeon at O.P. No.2/Nursing Home Ultrasonography of lower abdomen of the patient was performed on 17/03/2015 (vide Annexure-D) and the USG report submitted by Dr. Apurba Ghosh shows the feature such as Sonological probe tenderness at right iliac fossa, a few lymphadenopathy at right iliac fossa, distended colonic loop and it was recommended for clinical correlation to exclude appendicitis but without undertaking any further radiological test to correlate appendicitis the appendectomy  operation was done as stated above.

                                                                                                                        Contd…..p/3                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                          Page: 3

 

Discharge Certificate issued by O.P. No.2/Nursing Home (Annexure-B₁) shows that there was investigation report of tender Right Iliac Fossa(RIF). According to the opinion of O.P. No.1/Surgeon tender RIF is a syndrome of appendicitis and so the appendectomy operation was done and there is nothing wrong with such treatment of appendectomy operation.                                                                                                                         

Treatment Sheet (vide Annexure-G2) at BSMCH, Bankura has diagnosed post appendectomy RIF Lump and thereafter further diagnosis of ileocaecal tuberculosis was made on  further treatment (vide Annexure-G₉)

The patient party has the reason to believe that the victim patient was not rendered proper treatment by the treating doctors otherwise he could get relief of subsisting pain. For better treatment the victim patient was compelled to resort to the treatment at CMC,  Vellore where he was preliminarily diagnosed as DISSEMINATED ADENOCARCINOMA vide Preliminary Discharge Summary Report (Annexure-J) and subsequent Discharge Summary of CMC, Vellore (Annexure-K) also gives the same diagnosis of ADENOCARCINOMA. It is evident from Annexure-K that the patient underwent open laparotomy appendicectomy in March, 2015 following which he had recurrent pain and underwent laparotomy in July, 2015. Thus the patient was evaluated for complaints of intermittent colicky abdominal pain localized to the right iliac fossa for one year. Operative finding of CMC,Vellore (Annexure-J) shows that appendix could not be visualized separately.

According to medical bulletin RIF pain is suggestive of appendicitis.  So the findings and opinion of O.P. No.1/Surgeon cannot be faulted with though no definite investigation report is on record. If the treatment is done following the medical opinion and  findings the operating doctor cannot be taken  to task for any medical negligence. The resultant effect of appendectomy operation may give rise to development of carcinoma but that is not due to wrong treatment and wrong operation of any of the O.P./Surgeon.

Operating doctor at BSMCH, Bankura are on the same footing with the Operating doctor at O.P. No.2 Nursing Home. However findings of ileocaecal tuberculosis at BSMCH, Bankura for which exploratory laparotomy was done is based on the opinion of the operating doctor at BSMCH, Bankura.

Discharge Summary of CMC, Vellore (vide Annexure- J & K) has highlighted ADENOCARCINOMA and INTESTINAL OBSTRUCTION which are the effects of appendectomy operation done at O.P. No.2/Nursing Home by O.P. No.1/Surgeon.

                                                                                                                                                                  Contd…….P/4

                                                                                                                   Page: 4

It is a well settled principle of medical negligence that an operating doctor is liable of medical negligence if he falls short of the standard, skill and diligence. Here in this case O.P. No.1/Surgeon proceeded with appendectomy operation according to the available findings and opinion and the subsequent medical report at BSMCH, Bankura and CMC, Vellore as referred to above does not conflict with the line of treatment at O.P. No.2/Nursing Home rendered by O.P.No.1/Surgeon. O.P. No.1/operating Surgeon cannot be made liable of medical negligence for any subsequent medical consequences be it carcinoma or anything else.

To avoid any consequential developing/developed Carcinoma of any operating sensitive organ hystopathological report i.e. Biopsy Report should be consulted both before and after the operation but no such medical standard has been followed. But prior to the operation USG report dated: 17/03/2015 (vide Annexure-D) does not reveal any carcinoma and similarly post operative USG report dated: 21/05/2015 (vide Annexure-C) also does not give features of any carcinoma. Thus the presence of malignancy/carcinoma is ruled out immediately before and after the appendectomy operation.

Such sensitive appendectomy operation is prone to carcinoma which may develop at the subsequent stage and the CMC, Vellore has detected the same. But none of O.P. No.1/Surgeon attached to O.P. No.2/Nursing Home and the Surgeon attached to BSMCH, Bankura/O.P. No.3 are found liable of any medical negligence in the treatment of the victim patient and none of them should suffer on the charge of medical negligence for any natural/ancillary medical phenomenon arising out of such sensitive and successive operation of vital organ.

Thus considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the medical evidences on record the Commission is of the view that none of the O.P.s are liable for any medical negligence in the treatment and premature death of the victim patient.

In view of the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in V. P. Shantha’s case operating doctor whoever may be attached to BSMCH, Bankura which is purely a Government Hospital rendering free services to the patient without any charge will not come  within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

                                                                                              Hence it is ordered…….

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.

____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT          HON’BLE MEMBER