Tripura

West Tripura

CC/81/2015

Smti. Sumi Das Indu. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Partha Pratim Saha & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.D.D.Choudhury, Mr.D.Saha, Mr.S.Chakraborty.

18 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 81 of 2015 

Smti. Sumi Das Indu,
W/O- Sri Kaushik Indu,
East Thana Road,
Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
West Tripura.                ..…..…...Complainant.

           VERSUS

1. Dr. Partha Pratim Saha,
C/O- Devlok Hospital,
24, Dimsagar, Opp. Astabal Playground,
(Presently Vivekananda Stadium),
P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura.

2. Dr. Bedabrata Pathak,
C/O- Devlok Hospital,
24, Dimsagar,
Opp. Of Astabal Playground,
(Presently Vivekananda Stadium),
P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura.

3. Dr. Anupam Chakraborty,
C/O- Devlok Hospital,
24, Dimsagar,
Opp. Of Astabal Playground,
(Presently Vivekananda Stadium),
P.S. West Agartala,
West Tripura District.             ….................Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Dip Dutta Choudhury,
                          Sri Debal Saha,
                          Sri Sujit Chakraborty,
                          Advocates.

For the O.P. No.1 & 2        : Sr. Advocate Mr. P.K. Biswas,
                      Assisted by 
                      Smt. Chanda Bhowmik,
                      Mr. Mrinal Kanti Biswas,
                      Smt. Parul Mog,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No.3            : Mr. Ratnadip Paul,
                      Mr. Manish Chakraborty,
                      Mr. Babul Chakraborty,
                      Advocates.

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  18.11.2016

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the petition filed by complainant, Sumi Das Indu against Dr. Partha Pratim Saha, Dr. Bedabrata Pathak and Dr. Anupam Chakraborty claiming compensation for deficiency of their service in the course of their treatment on her. Petitioner's case in short is that being attracted by the newspaper publication regarding treatment in the Devlok Hospital by M.S. Laparoscopic Surgeon, Dr. Bedabrata Pathak petitioner went there for gall bladder stone  operation. Dr. Partha Pratim Saha examined the patient and admitted her in the hospital for laproscopic surgery. He was admitted in the hospital on 15th November at 9 AM for operation. The name of attending doctor was Dr. Anupam Chakraborty, O.P. No.3. Suddenly it was informed that operation would be in the night at 9 PM. Accordingly operation was done and in the next day morning at 10 AM she was discharged. Review was advised after 7 days on 23.11.13. But on 23.11.13 petitioner made contact but Devlok hospital authority informed that doctor was not available. She became seriously ill, went to Care & Cure Nursing Home. Dr. Ajay Saha advised her to go to ILS hospital, Agartala.  In the ILS Hospital open surgery was done  on 29.11.13. Dr. Nirmalya Bagchi then advised her for another open operation. After open operation 7 nos. of stone was extracted from the bile. Due to bile secretion she suffered much injuries inside. Because of the  deficiency of service she suffered a lot, claimed medical expenses in the Devlok Hospital, ILS hospital and also 2 lakhs for mental agony sufferings Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost in total she claimed Rs.3,90,000/-. 

        O.P. No.3, Anupam Chakraborty filed Written statement stating that laparoscopic surgery was done on the petitioner and operation was conducted by Partha Pratim Saha and Dr. Bedabrata Pathak. He had no role in the operation. Written statement is also filed by Dr. Partha Pratim Saha & Dr.Bedabrata Pathak. It is stated that there was no medical negligence on their part. She was kept under observation for 24 hours after operation. After operation she did not make any contact with Devlok hospital. No bile stone was removed in the second operation. There is no negligence at all in any way at any time. 

        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:    
        (I) Whether there was medical negligence in the Devlok Hospital where laparoscopic operation was done by Dr. Bedabrata Pathak and Dr. Partha Pratim Saha? 
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for sufferings due to deficiency of service by the doctors?

        Claimant petitioner produced the prescription of Dr. Partha Pratim Saha USG report, patient discharge summary, prescription of Care & Cure Nursing home, patient discharge summary, prescription of Dr. Nirmalya Bagchi, patient discharge summary of ILS Hospital, cash memo of Devlok and ILS Hospital. 
        Petitioner produced the statement of affidavit of 2 witnesses, Sumi Das Indu petitioner and her husband Koushik Indu.
        Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of Dr. Nirmalya Bagchi of ILS Hospital who did the  second operation.

        O.P. on the other hand produced in-patient record, patient discharge summary also produced statement on affidavit of Dr. Bedabrata Pathak.
 
        On the basis of all these evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.
    
        Findings and decisions:

        It is admitted and established fact that petitioner Sumi Indu Das was treated in the Devlok Hospital, Agartala for gall bladder stone operation. It is also admitted and established fact that she was admitted in the Devlok hospital and Dr. Bedabrata Pathak, the laparoscopic surgeon operated her along with Dr. Partha Pratim Saha. We have gone through the discharge summary issued by Devlok hospital in the discharge summary nothing mentioned about the ultrasonography report. Dr. Bedabrata Pathak in his evidence stated that he met Sumi Das Indu on the date of operation on 15th November 2013. He had gone through  investigation report, consulted with Dr. Partha Pratim Saha and then decided for operation.  He also stated that Ultra Sonography was done after 07.04.13. From his evidence it is clear that relying on the ultra sonography  report on 7.4.13  on consultation with Dr. Partha Pratim Saha, the gynecologist he decided for doing the laparascopic operation without any talk with patient or her relative. He also stated that he had done the laparascopic sugery  of Sumi Das Indu. 
        
        When the complication arose then Sumi Das Indu was admitted  to the ILS hospital. Ultrasonography  was done there and 288 ml fluid collection was found in the abdomen. Then open surgery was done and Dr.Nirmalya Bagchi, Surgeon stated in his evidence that they found bile inside the abdomen and injury in the bile duct. While doing the laparascopic surgery such injury was caused. Then CBD reconstruction was done over T-tube for passing out of fluid. Condition of patient was very bad when she attended them. This laparascopic surgeon stated  in his evidence that ultrasound examination is to be done  before 7 to 10 days of operation. Before gall bladder operation this precaution is to be taken for 100% satisfaction of CBD. He found  bile leakage in the abdomen and also injury in common bile duct. Such injury might be caused in laparascopic surgery if proper care is not taken. The complication could have been prevented in the early stage but it was not done. The evidence of Dr. Nirmalya Bagchi is very relevant in this case. As per his opinion ultrasound examination is to be done before 7 to 10 days of the laparascopic surgery. But it is surprising that laparascopic surgeon Bedabrata Pathak relied on the USG report on 07.04.13 and laparascopic surgery was done on the basis of that. Dr. Partha Pratim Saha was consultant but he was a gynecologist not doing laparascopy. Dr. Bedabrata Pathak stated that he consulted the USG report of ILS hospital dated 28.06.13. Operation was done on 15.11.13 after 5 months. Within this 5 months many developments can take place in the human body. But he did not take care of it. Operation was done in consultation with the gynecologist and he left Agartala after 2 days. He stated that he visited 2 times in a month and stay for 3 days only. We have gone through the USG report of Sumi Das Indu dated 07.04.13, 28.04.13, 29.11.13 and 25.11.13. In different times different pictures comes out through ultrasonography. It is true that Dr. Bedabrata Pathak is laparascopic surgeon and definitely efficient in the art of surgery. But Dr. Partha Pratim Saha is not a laparascopic surgeon and he has no degree or knowledge in doing laparascopic surgery. It is surprising that Dr. Bedabrata Pathak  relied  on the 5 months old USG report of the patient Sumi Das Indu  and decided for laparascopic surgery even without any talk with patient or her relatives. Risk factor not disclosed to them. 
        
        From the evidence on record it is found that after 7 days of the operation the review of the operation is to be done but Dr. Bedabrata Pathak was not available. No arrangement was available at Devlok Hospital for remedy. Petitioner was not admitted to Devlok hospital to remove the complication. Bedabrata Pathak did not come back to Agartala to see his patient who was under serious condition due to laparascopic gall bladder surgery. In such a situation petitioner had to go to ILS Hospital Agartala. There Dr. Nirmalya Bagchi did open surgery to save her life. Condition was very serious as there was bile secretion inside the abdomen. There was injury in the common bile duct caused by the laparascopic surgery. In the opinion of Dr. Nirmalya Bagchi such injury could not be caused if proper care was taken. 

        Laparoscopic gall bladder operation is a minimally invasive surgery. After removal of the gall bladder stone surgeon will use special X-ray to check that problem in the bile duct. This technique  is called cholangiography. Any abnormalities in the bile duct may be removed. In this case Dr. Bedabrata Pathak in his evidence stated that he have no communication with the presence of stone in the gall bladder and related complication with the operation done. He was not entrusted to do CBD collangiography to T-tube done under G.A. In this regard endorsement not necessary at all. It is the duty of the surgeon who is supposed to conduct  special X-ray to check the problem in the bile duct. Any abnormalities in the bile duct is to be removed. Review was not done by him. But he left the patient in a helpless position and went outside Tripura. Another Dr. Partha Pratim Saha who attended her has no experience in the field of laparascopic operation. The helpless patient then had to go ILS hospital where open surgery was done to save her life. Doctor entered in the hospital in a hurry and left in a hurry.  It caused harm to the patient. The surgeon only stay in the hospital for 2/3 days and post operative treatment was not done. For most patient recovery from anesthesia and surgery is uneventful. Post operative complication can be a life threatening and sudden. From the evidence on record we noticed negligence, deficiency of service by the O.Ps in pre-operative stage and post-operative stage. There was negligence and deficiency of service by O.P. during operation. Negligence in treatment found during post-operative stage. 

        Learned advocate for the O.P. in this case referred the decision of the Supreme court by AIR 2010 SCW 1315. In that case our Supreme Court held that medical professionals are not to be unnecessarily harassed. In Poonam Verma Vrs. Ashwin Patel (1996) Vol. 4 SCC 332, our Supreme Court held that negligence has many manifestations. It may be active negligence, collateral, comparative, concurrent negligence, continued, criminal negligence, gross negligence. In civil proceedings a mere  preponderance is sufficient. So, Supreme Court in a land mark judgment 2005 Vol. 6 SCC 1, observed that the law of negligence,  professional such as lawyers, doctors and others included in the category of persons or skilled persons generally. Any task which is required to be performed with a special skill would generally be admitted or undertaken to be performed only if the person possesses required requisite skill. Here in this case Dr. Partha Pratim Saha had no required skill in the laparascopic surgery but he participated in the process and it is deficiency of service on his part. Dr. Pathak did not ask for recent report relied on USG report of 5 months old. He did not bother to talk with patient or relative & left Agartala on next day without doing review arranging post operative care. This is deficiency of service on his part. Due to such deficiency of service the petitioner suffered. She is therefore, entitled to get compensation. The amount of compensation is to be determined on the damages and loss suffered. Sometimes multipliers is adopted. In this case petitioner claimed the treatment cost and also the sufferings that she had to face because of this medical negligence in the Devlok Hospital. 

        We have gone through the papers relating to cost of treatment, expenditure incurred in the Devlok Hospital and ILS hospital. From the scrutiny of the record it is found that Rs.1,80,000/- was spent for treatment. Petitioner also suffered a lot as her life was endangered. Considering her sufferings Rs.2 lakhs is awarded for mental agony and sufferings, Rs.20,000/- is awarded for litigation cost in total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4 lakhs for deficiency of service of 2 doctors Dr. Bedabrata Pathak and Dr. Partha Pratim Saha.  O.P. No.3, Dr. Anupam Chakraborty have role in the laparascopic operation. Thus, the two points are decided.

        In view of our above findings over the two points we direct both the O.Ps Dr. Partha Pratim Saha and Dr. Bedabrata Pathak to pay the amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioner as cost of treatment, cost of sufferings and litigation cost for their deficiency of service & medical negligence while doing the laparascopic operation. Both of them are made jointly & severally responsible to pay the amount. The payment is to be made within 2(two) months, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.                 
            

                          Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.