DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
10.12.2012 17.12.2012 21.07.2015
Complainant = Vs. = O.Ps.
Sri Swapan Kumar Roy, Dr. Pradip Kumar Mitra,
S/o. Late Subendu Roy, Consultant Surgeon in
B-30, Ramkrishna Park, Obstetrics/ Gynaecology
Sodepur, Endoscopy, Zenith Super
P.S. Ghola, Specialist Hospital,
Dist- North 24 Pgs. 9/3, Feeder Road,
(Rathtala) Belgharia,
P.S. Belgharia,
Kolkata-700056,
Dist- North 24 Parganas.
J U D G E M E N T
The fact of the case, in short, is that Sangita Roy is the daughter of the complainant and is a student of Higher Secondary level. The said daughter of the complainant Sangita Roy started suffering stomach pain and for which the complainant and his wife were very much worried and they had been taking some casual medicines from the retail shop for the said stomach problem of their daughter.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
-::2::-
The complainant stated that on 01.06.12, while the complainant was in office, it was informed to him that the said daughter of the complainant suffered severe pain in her stomach and being aware of the same, the complainant advised his wife to contact with Mr. N. B. Tarua and later on,
the wife of the complainant informed him that the said doctor identified the said daughter of the complainant has been suffering from appendicitis pain and was required with a surgeon immediately. Getting the information, the complainant contacted with one reputed consultant surgeon Dr. P. K. Mitra and who is attached to the Zenith Super Specialist Hospital, situated at 9/3, Feeder Road(Rathtala), Belgharia, Kol-56 and who also confirmed the said disease of the daughter of the complainant as appendicitis.
The complainant further stated that after thorough check-up of the said daughter, the said doctor i.e. Pradip Kr. Mitra advised the complainant for immediate admission of the said daughter in the said Zenith Super Specialist Hospital and also advised to operate the same with an immediate effect, otherwise the situation would be extremely painful, problematic for the daughter of the complainant and her life might be endangered in the process. Moreover, on the point of query on the part of the complainant, the said doctor i.e. the O.P disclosed the fact that the entire package for the said appendicitis operation and other necessary medicine and incidental charges is Rs. 20,000/-.
The complainant also stated that realizing the graveness of the situation and being satisfied with the amount of package the complainant was agreed with the operation as prescribed by the said O.P within the said package and the complainant has somehow managed the entire amount within a very short span of time, it was further assured by the said O.P, i.e. Dr. P. K. Mitra that he would operate the said appendicitis of the daughter of the complainant by himself at Zenith Super Specialist Hospital. It is
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
-::3::-
pertinent to mention that as per the advice of the said O.P, the said daughter Sangita Roy was admitted in the said Zenith Super Specialist Hospital on that day i.e. on 01.06.12.
The complainant further stated that the complainant to provide a further sum of Rs. 7,500/- over and above the said package of Rs. 20,000/- after taking the plea that he would provide his own anesthetist and the O.T attendant/ assistant and for them he has/ had to pay a further sum of Rs. 7,500/-. At first, the complainant refused to hand over the said amount as because he was not in a position to arrange the same within the short span of time, but ultimately, the complainant assured that he would make payment the entire amount as early as possible.
The complainant also stated that subsequently the operation had taken place at the said Zenith Super Specialist Hospital on 02.06.12 and the daughter of the said complainant was released from the said hospital on 03.06.12. Thereafter, the complainant along with his daughter went to the chamber of the O.P. on 07.06.12 for check up and at that point of time, the complainant before the O.P regarding the drainage of pus from the operated place. Observing this, the said O.P advised the complainant to arrange proper dressing and as per the advice of the said O.P for two days the dressing was continued but no positive result was there and again as per the advice of the said O.P, the same dressing procedure was continued. But unfortunately day by day, the situation was deteriorated without having any positive improvement and the pus was leaking from the operated place. On 09.06.12 the said O.P, after checking up the patient advised some medicines i.e. Cyclopan tab (1 tab TDS) and Flagyl (1 tab TDS) for three days. But even after in taking those medicines, there was no improvement and the outside skin around the operated place of the said daughter of the complainant has been infected.
The complainant further stated that again on 16.07.12, without getting any improvement, the said O.P started antibiotic tablets and
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 4/-
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
-::4::-
injection and also advised for hot compress and Cifran tablets for 5 days. But unfortunately, no positive improvement was taken place in the instant matter and the condition of the operated place of the said daughter of the complainant had become serious day by day.
The complainant also stated that being extremely perplexed, jeopardized and compelled, thereafter on 23.07.12, the complainant contacted with one Dr. A. Dey, General surgeon and the said doctor declared the fact, the serious infection was taken place inside the operated area and for which the open surgery is urgently required and accordingly the said doctor advised the complainant to do the needful in the matter. Immediately, on 24.07.12, again the complainant contacted the O.P along with the patient and the prescription of Dr. A. Dey and the said O.P, thereafter gave some medicines and assured the complainant that the entire problem would be solved within a short span of time.
The complainant further stated that without realising any positive result and being extremely mentally shattered and agonized, later on, on 30.07.12, as per the advice of the official authority, the complainant met with Dr. Debasis Roy, at the outdoor of the Apollo Hospital, at 58, Canal Circular Road, Kol-54. After thoroughly checking the patient, the said doctor Debasis Roy advised the complainant for open surgery to remove all pus producing area in the operated place around that and also the said doctor asserted that, during the time of first time operation due to some gross negligence, on the part of the O.P and his associates, the entire opeatyed place has been infected and which caused the sufferings for the complainant. The said doctor also assured that he would take four months to complete the treatment and after treating the wonds he would make skin grafting in the operated area to make the area absolutely normal. As per the advice of the said doctor, Debasis Roy, one operation had been undergone upon the patient, Sangita Roy at Apollo Hospital on 02.08.12
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 5/-
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
-::5::-
and after the operation the said daughter of the complainant has been gradually recovering from the problem. The complainant has to spend a huge amount. It is further to be mentioned that still the said patient, Sangita Roy is under the care and supervision of Dr. Debasis Roy and for which the complainant has to incur recurring expenses leading to serious financial burden to him.
The complainant also stated that the said daughter of the complainant i.e. Sangita Roy did not appear in her school examination leading to loss of year to her. It is also fact that, for the purpose of skin grafting of the said Sangita Roy, as per the advice of Dr. Debasis Roy to make the entire problem normal, the complainant has to bear more expenses to a huge extent in recent time.
The complainant further stated that in the meantime, the complainant made contact with the O.P i.e. Pradip Kumar Mitra wanted the explanation of his gross negligence in respect of the operation of appendicitis of the daughter of the complainant and for which the complainant has been suffered physically, mentally and financially, but unfortunately on the point of query, the said O.P behaved in a harsh and rude way with the complainant.
The complainant also stated that there is severe negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the said O.P and due to his negligence, the complainant had to go for separate treatment and operation before the other doctors and which caused a huge financial burden, mental sufferings to the complainant and also at the same time, the patient Sangita Roy also had to suffer immensely. Hence the complaint.
The O.P has contested the case by way of filing written version.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 6/-
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
-:: 6 ::-
The O.P stated that for such fulminating appendicitis, on urgent basis laparoscopic appendicectomy was done by the O.P and the operation was uneventful and the complainant’s daughter was discharged from the Nursing Home within two-days and at the time of discharge necessary advice was given to the complainant’s daughter and the O.P prescribed some medicines for 5/7 days as will appear from the discharge certificate and thereafter the complainant’s daughter visited the O.P on 07.06.12 for
check-up and the O.P found that some discharge from the port side was coming and on examination, the O.P dressed the operation site and prescribed some medicine and it is to be mentioned that part stitches were removed after 7 days and the O.P was reported that the complainant’s daughter joined the school and started leading normal life and thereafter on 09.06.12 the complainant’s daughter was further examined by the O.P and the O.P noticed that wound was healthy and the O.P prescribed some medicine including antibiotics and on subsequent visit the O.P observed that the complainant’s daughter have subcutaneous abscess and on observing the same, the O.P advised the complainant’s daughter to come for a small surgery and at that material point of time, the complainant requested the O.P that in case of referring the patient to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, all the expenditures will be reimbursed from his office and that is why the complainant’s daughter was referred to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital and in the matter of referring the patient to Apollo Hospital. It is falsely stated that after dressing procedure there was no positive improvement and situation was going to be deteriorated and the O.P submitted that such post operative condition of the patient is not uncommon. The O.P stated that the original surgery for Acute Appendicitis was totally successful as the removed specimen on pathological test showed that it was appendix with all features of Acute Inflammation. That means that the damaged appendix was successfully removed by the O.P and the then problem was one minor surface skin problem named as Port Abscess which has as such no relation with inside of abdomen from where the appendix was removed.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 7/-
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
-:: 7 ::-
The O.P further stated that the O.P treated the complainant’s daughter with due care and skill and when this O.P observed that the complainant’s daughter had subcutaneous abscess, proper surgery was advised and as such the O.P made no wrong in treating the complainant’s daughter. The same advice was also suggested by another local surgeon when the complainant’s daughter was taken to him by the complainant ignoring the advice of O.P.
The O.P also stated that the certificate issued by Dr. Debasish Roy as annexed with the petition of complaint does not suggest that for the purpose of skin grafting the complainant’s daughter could not appear in her school examination and so the O.P submitted that such statements have been manufactured and fabricated by the complainant for the purpose of filing this false and test case and as such the complainant is under legal obligation to prove each and every statements by cogent evidence. Hence the O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with Reasons
On proper appreciation of the facts of the complaint including the argument as advanced by the complainant including the prescription issued by O.P- Dr. Mitra it is found that Laparoscopy Appendicectomy done on 01.06.12 by Dr. Mitra and considering the prescription issued by Dr. Mitra (O.P) it is clear in between 07.06.12 to 26.06.12 Sangita was under the treatment of Dr. Mitra even after Laparoscopy operation was done by O.P- Dr. Mitra on 01.06.12 and from the prescription it is clear that the laparoscopy operation of Appendicitis was done by O.P-doctor but situation was aggravated day by day for oozing of pus continuously from the operational wound since the date of operation and till 23.07.12.
When that Sangita was further examined by another Dr. Debasis Roy on 30.07.12 Dr. Roy opined after examination that Sangita has been
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 8/-
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
-:: 8 ::-
suffering from pain, fever, redness, lump and discharge of pus from the operation sites and the situation shows Care… Wound Debriment of anterior abdominal wall was done on 02.03.12 by Dr. Debasis Roy but even after that the situation of the wound was not improved but fact remains that Dr. Mitra admitted her on 01.06.12 and operation was done on 03.06.12 and she was discharged. But in the said discharge certificate dated 03.06.12 there is no whisper what is the position of the patient at post operative period. But it is equally true that Sangita was again admitted to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital under Dr. Debasis Roy and Dr. Debasis Roy before operation diagnosed and collected some reports and it was found from his discharge certificate that wound was infected port sites extending down to Peritonium with abcess, extending up mutual lasers and extending into Peritonial cavity and adherent to Omentum with sidling in omentum and diagnosis was anterior abdominal wall sepsis and after diagnosis wound again detriment of anterior wall was done under general anesthesia on 02.08.12. So, considering the fact it is clear that since the date of her operation by O.P-doctor she was suffering from severe pain , bleeding passing of pus from the wound and ultimately lump was also found inside wall and from the discharge summary report of Apollo Hospital it is found that invariably the O.P did not properly give such medical aid with skill and also did not give proper medical aid and management and probably O.P-doctor failed to apply Laparoscopy operation properly to remove the Apendecitis for which Sangita suffered much and no doubt this doctor was very much negligent for which in a simple Apendicitis operation from the wound she suffered from several types of sepsis and it was bleeding from wound for which debriment was done twice and it is the settled principle of law that the reason for further open operation made by Dr. Debasis Roy is explained in the summary report of the Apollo Hospital what supports that the treatment made by the previous doctor present O.P was negligent in nature and for his negligence Sangita suffered for three months from the date of first operation made by the O.P on 01.06.12 and if second operation
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 9/-
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
-:: 9 ::-
would not be done properly in that case situation would be fatal and complainant’s daughter Sangita may not revive because the Septicemia as started affected the internal abdominal wall very seriously and it is unfortunate that O.P-doctor failed to diagnos this aspect after operation which is proved from the fact that he did not try to adopt conservative process (open operation) to cure her.
O.P. stated that for such fulminating appendicitis on urgent basis, laparoscopic appendicectomy was done by the O.P and the operation was uneventful and the complainant’s daughter was discharged from the Nursing Home within two- days. At the time of discharge, necessary advice was given to the complainant’s daughter and he prescribed some medicines for 5/7 days as will appear from the discharge certificate. Thereafter the complainant’s daughter visited the O.P on 07.06.12 for check-up and he found some discharge from the port side was coming. On examination he dressed the operation site and prescribed some medicines.
O.P submitted that on subsequent visit, he observed that complainant’s daughter have subcutaneous abscess (abscess under skin) and on observing the same, he advised the complainant’s daughter to come for a small surgery and at that material point of time, the complainant requested the O.P that in case of referring the patient to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, all the expenditures will be reimbursed from his office and that is why the complainant’s daughter was referred to Apollow Gleneagles Hospital and in the matter of referring the patient to Apollo Hospital, there was no other reason save and accept the reason as stated above.
In (A. K. Gupta (Dr.) and Anr. -Vs- Mahipal, III (2007) CPJ 303 (NC) wherein it has been discussed ‘The primary principle of the surgical treatment of infections is incision and drainage of localized collections of pus. The old adage ‘never let the sun set on an undrained abscess’ is as true today as it ever was, in considering surgical intervention, one must take
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 10/-
C. C. CASE NO. 469/2012
-:: 10 ::-
into account the location of the infection, the presence or absence of complicating cellulites, the complication of disseminating sepsis, the duration of the lesion, and the presence or absence of complicating disease. Surgical drainage permits the removal of bacteria and their toxins, dead leukocytes, and necrotic, and the access of new phagocytes, antibiotic agents and serum opsonins to the remaining infecting bacteria.
When incision and drainage are used as a method of treatment, it is essential that complete decompression be obtained. The incision must be large enough to accomplish free drainage with the use of mechanical drains whenever these are indicated. Walls between loculations must be broken down or these areas must be drained separately. Dependent drainage is a cardinal principle to be practiced whenever possible. Needle aspiration of abscesses does not provide free drainage and should not be done except for the purpose of establishing a diagnosis, identifying etiologic agents or localizing the site of an abscess.’
We have carefully gone through the discharge certificate, medical sheets of both the doctors and also affidavit-in-chief of both parties and over all evolution of the entire materials on record, we are convinced that O.P- doctor was negligent and did not take proper care after operation of the daughter of the complainant and due to that entire situation of the patient was aggravated which is proved from the fact that by open operation made by Dr. Debasis Roy at Apollo Hospital the patient began to recover and ultimately recovered from sepsis and after plastic surgery she is not quite O.K and for that reason, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for his daughter.
Hence
Ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the O.P .
The O.P is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and negligency within one month from the date of this order.
The O.P is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
O.P is directed to comply the order very strictly within one month from the date of this order, failing which for each day delay punitive damages of Rs. 100/- shall be paid by the O.P till full satisfaction of the decree and said amount shall be deposited to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let the copy be supplied to the parties free of cost, when applied for.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me.
