Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The brief fact of the complaint petition is that the Complainant Mr. Arjun Barman who is a resident of Village- Mansab Sheodagudi, P.O- Najirhat, Dist.- Cooch Behar filed this case against Dr. Jayanta Choudhuri , M.D ( Cal) Consultant Gynecologist & obstetrician having his chamber at Medicin Corner, Modan Mohan Bari Chowpathy, P.O.& Dist.- Cooch Behar (op-1), the Manager, Poddar Seva Sadan Pvt. Ltd., Sunity Road, P.O.& Dist.:- Cooch behar ( OP-2) and Dr. Siddharth Dey. M.D (Radio-Diagnosis), Kostur5i Ultrasound Clinic, Sunity Road, P.O. & Dist.- Cooch behar. The Contention of the Complainant is that the medical negligence of the OPs has caused the death of his wife, Smt. Babli Barman who was a patient of the O.P.1.She started her visit to O.P. 1 doctor fr5om 17.04.15 for her pregnancy and used to be treated regularly onwards. On 18.08.2015 she felt discomfort and labour pain for which the O.P.1 doctor was consulted. On examination, the O.P-1 advised her to be admitted in OP-2 nursing home and an urgent operation is required to be performed. As such, the Complainant being the husband of the patient had given consent by signing all papers without noticing and knowing the contents therein. The O.P.-1 doctor performed caesarean operation ( LSCS) on the patient and she gave birth to a female child on the same date. All nursing staff of the OP-2, OP-1 and OP-3 were totally negligent in taking care of the mother and new born baby after delivery and the patient was discharged on 22.08.2015 after receiving an amount of Rs.18100/- from the Complainant’s husband. The O.P.2 issued discharge certificate and the O.P.-1 doctor prescribed some medicine for post operative healing but they did not issue treatment sheet of the patient. Once again the patient felt unbearable pain in her abdomen soon after the surgery and the O.P. 1 doctor, was consulted for the same who told the patient that it would be cured with lapse of time. On taking medicine of the O.P.1 doctor, the patient did not feel comfort and such abdominal pain continued with fever sometime. Therefore, the complainant and his wife reported this matter to the O.P.-1 doctor on 09.09.2015 and after examination the O.P.1 doctor adviced her some tests which included USG test of whole abdomen. The USG test was done by the O.P.3 doctor on the same day which detected the following impression .
- Bilateral Acute Renal Parenchymal changes.
- Moderate Ascites.
- Right sided pleural effusion.
Thereafter, the O.P.1 doctor refered the patient to a physician after going through the above said USG report . The Physician Dr. P.K. Das was consulted who prescribed some medicine on examination of the patient along with USG report. But the condition of the patient began to deteoriate with tremendous pain in her abdomen after taking medicine of Dr. P. Das. Then finding no other alternative the Complainant rushed to Chennai along with his ailing wife for better treatment there. She was admitted in Sri Ramchandra Medical Centre in Chennai on 25.09.2015 under the supervision of DR. Ramkrishna S.R. but she died on 26.09.2015 at 1.41p.m. in the same centre. The hospital authority reported the immediate and antecedent cause of death as post LSCS, Mild pericaretial Effusion and cardiogenic shock in the death summary. Thus, due to lack of care and skill at LSCS procedure by the O.P.1 doctor and not taking pre-operative ad post operative care by the O.P.2, the patient died. If the doctor fails to diagnose the disease at the initial stage than he is liable to medical negligence, alleged by the complainant. Therefore, this tragic death of 22 years old wife of the complainant which caused the new born baby to be deprived of her mothers affection which amounts to medical negligence and deficiency in service on the parts of the OPS. That by such medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-1.O.P.-2 and O.P.-3 Complainant suffered from irreparable loss, mental pain and agony for which he filed this case before the commission for redressal of his grievances. The cause of action of the present case arose on 18.08.2015 when the o.P.-1 doctor performed LSCS and thereafter on 09.09.2015 when USG was done by the OP-2 doctor and on 26.09.2019 when the patient died and still continued. The Complainant prayed to the commission for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1500000/- as compensation for loss of life of Complainant’s wife and Rs.1000000/- for medical expense, Rs.30000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.15000/- for cost of litigation.
The O.P.-1denied each and every allegation labeled against him. He asserted that the complainant’s wife, Smt Babli Barman was negligent and irregular In following the instructions of the O.P.1 which was evident from the fact that she missed the expected date of delivery on 10.08.2015. Thus, she was brought to the O.P.1 doctor on 18.08.2015 on an emergency condition. On examination by the O.P.1 , she was advised to get admitted in Poddar Seva Sadan Pvt. Ltd for delivery through LSCS procedure. That all possible medical measures had been taken on her caesarean procedure and all complication which might arise out of such caesarean procedure were explained to the complainant’s husband from medical point of view and after understanding such risk factors the husband of the patient had given consent in writing to such operation. The OP-1 doctor performed LSCS procedure on the same date( i.e on 18.08.2015) as per medical norms and prescribed procedure in medical science in presence of Dr.P.K.Dey, Anesthesiologist and Dr.Parikshit Bhattacharjee, Pediatrician and other nursing staff and OT staffs. The said surgical operation was uneventful and the patient gave birth to a healthy female baby and both of them had an uneventful recovery which was due to all sorts of pre and post operative care of both mother and the new born and utmost care and skill with which surgical operation was performed by the OP1 doctor. There was no negligence or carelessness either on the part of the O.P.1 or on the part of any nursing staff in treating the patient and her new born as alleged by the Complainant. The said patient was discharged from the hospital on 22.08.2015 with proper medication and advised as needed from the medical point of view. When the patient again came to the O.P.1 on 09.09.2015 with other complications the O.P.1 advised her some tests including USG test of whole abdomen and to meet physician . The patient once again came to the OP1 on the same day with an USG report done by Dr. Siddharth Dey, M.D( Radio-diagnosis ) at Kosturi ultrasound Clinic and the OP1 again suggested her to see a physician after taking note of the USG impression. This answering OP was not aware of any further treatment of the patient nor did the patient party inform anything about further treatment. The Complainant had categorically admitted in his complaint petition that the treatment was uneventful till 09.09.2015 which was last day of visit to the O.P.1. So, the question of medical negligence or deficiency in service or lack of ordinary care and skill or error in diagnosis against the O.P.1 does not arise at all. Therefore, the complainant’s case is liable to be dismissed with cost and he is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever.
The OP2 in his defence plea stated that on 18.08.2015 at about 2235 hrs. The wife of the complainant, Smt. Babli Barman was admitted at the OP2 nursing home and gave birth to a female baby at about 22.50 hrs on the same day and proper care, nursing and medicines were given to the patint Babli Barman as per advice of the attending doctor Jayanta Chowdhury and during the atay at the nursing home, the patient and her new born were quite health and hearty. So there is no question of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.2. The O.P.3 also denied each allegation against him mentioned in the complaint petition and asserted that one Smt. Babli Barman came to the Kosturi Ultra Sound Clinic on 09.09.2015 for an USG of whole abdomen being referred by Dr.Jayanta Chowdhury and he himself conducted the test on the same day and after conducting the USG he issued a report on the basis of what he found during the examination and on the basis of such findings he gave impression of “Bilateral acute renal parenchymal charge”, “ Moderate ascites, and Right sided pleaural effusing. Apart from the above stated USG, he had done nothing with the patient. The OP-3 gave his entire findings in the said USG report of whole abdomen which was self explanatory. In fact the report of USG given by the OP-3 was absolutely right. Thus it was a false statement that for the USG report dt 09.09.2015 furnished by the OP-3, the Complainant and his family members suffered a lot. Therefore, the Complainant with false allegations projected the case and claimed huge compensation for illegal gain. So, this case is liable to be dismissed with cost and complainant is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever.
Now question arises as to whether there was any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPS which led the complainant’s wife to death. For this an elaborate discussion is required to come to a conclusion which is described under two headings.
- Whether there is any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Point No 1&2 are taken up together as they are interlinked with each other and for brevity
Complainant’s wife Smt. Babli Barman was a patient of the O.P.-1 doctor since 05.01.2015( original prescription annexed ) when she came first after being conceived. Thereafter, she used to visit the chamber of the OP-1 doctor for check up for her pregnancy as advised by the doctor. On 18.08.2015 she came to the O.P.-1 feeling discomfort and with labour pain although her ex-pected date of delivery was 10.08.2015. She was advised by the doctor to get admitted in OP-2 nursing home to perform LSCS procedure for which the patients husband ( Complainant) had given consent in writing. She gave birth to a healthy female baby through LSCS procedure by the O.P.1 on the same day and was discharged from the O.P.-2nursing home on 22.08.2015 ( Anex-B) and the O.P.-1 doctor prescribed her some medicine for post operative recovery. But soon after the operation she felt unbearable pain in her abdomen on 09.09.2015 for which she visited the chamber of the O.P.-1 who advised her some blood fest and USG test of whole abdomen and to see a physician for the same ( Anex-c). After getting the USG done by the O.P.-3 doctor ( Anex-D) she again visited the O.P.-1 who again advised her to see a physician after going through USG report. Thereafter she visited the chamber of Physician DR. P. Das who prescribed her some medicine. The USG test done by the O.P.-3 doctor detected three impression e.g. Bilateral acute Parenchyma changes, Moderate As cites and Right sided Pleural effusion which indicates the patient to be seen by a Physician for which the O.P.-1 doctor being a gynecologist referred her to a Physician. The patient was also seen by Physician Dr. P. Das on 09.09.15 but the Complainant did not file any prescription containing his advice and medication.
The physician Dr. P.Das was not made party to this case. If he was a party to this case, the Commission could know the details of treatment given by him and it would have been easier for the Commission to adjudicate the case. The patient did not feel any comfort after taking medicine of the Physician Dr. P. Das. On the contrary her condition began to doctoriate with tremendous pain in her abdomen. Being puzzled. Complainant rushed to Chennai along with his wife for better treatment there where the patient was admitted in Sri Ram Chandra Medical Centre ( Anex-E) under a physician Dr. Ram Krishnan SR of general medicine on 25.09..15 and died on 26.09.15. ( Anex-F). Neither the Ram Chandra Medical Centre in Chennai was made party nor did the Complainant submit treatment sheet of the patient before the Commission although the complainant tried to bring those treatment sheet through this Commission at a belated stage which the Commission rejected vide its order No 25 dt.26.09.19. Therefore, without these documents the Commission can not proceed in favour of the Complainant as because whatever evidence he submitted is not sufficient to make the OPS liable to be negligent medically and deficient in service.
Moreover, the Complainant categorically admitted in his complaint petition that the treatment was uneventful till 09.09.15. From 09.09.15 onward she was under the treatment of physician Dr.P.Das upto 24.09.15 and thereafter under the treatment of DR.Ram Krishna S.R from 25.09.15.
On the other hand, it is seen from the death summary of patient Smt. Babli Barman of Sri Ram Chandra Medical Centre, Chennai that she had a history of GTCS which stands for Generalised Tonic clonic Scizure, one month back from the date of admission in the above said medical centre following which she was admitted and discharged from the hospital. The Complainant did not disclose anything about the matter in his complaint petition which he disclosed before the doctor of higher centre in Chennai.
Moreover, it is also seen from the death summary of the patient at medical centre in Channai that the immediate and antecedent cause of death was shown as post LSCS, pericardial effusion and carcinogenic shock. Pericardial effusion is a condition in which extra fluid collects between heart and pericardium and cardiogenic shock occurs when the heart is unable to pump as much blood as the body needs. These two conditions of the body are no way related to LSCS procedure which was performed by the O.P.-1 doctor and the incision due to LSCS procedure was also healed as depicted in the death summary of the patient of Ram Chandra Medical Centre in Chennai. So, the question of medical negligence or deficiency in service or lack of ordinary care and skill or error in diagnosis against the O.P.-1 does not arise at all.
The O.P.3 doctor conducted USG test only on the basis of which the patient was seen by Dr .P.Das who was not in the picture and the O.P.-2, the Poddar Seva Sadan against whom the Complainant could not prove any evidence of medical negligence and carelessness. Therefore, the Commission comes to the findings that there is no loop holes on the parts of the OPs. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. So the point No I &-2 are answered in negative and decided against the Complainant.
In the result, the Complaint case fails on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the case be and same is dismissed on contest.
D.A to Note in the trail Registrar.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
