SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

            The synopsis of the complaint case is that the complainant was under treatment under the OP no. 1 with a desire for issue. Being advised by the OP no.1 the complainant got her urine tested on 14.04. 2016 which was found positive and this was the first issue of the complainant. During this pregnancy the complainant was under treatment of the OP no.1 till 28.11.2016 in the nursing home of the OP No. 2. She was admitted in the OP no 2 nursing home under the Doctor OP no 1 for her delivery. But the Nursing home was not fully sterilized and the equipment of the said Nursing Home was not up to the mark.  Seizure of the complainant was done on 16.11.2016 at 7.25 AM by the OP no. 1 and the complainant gave birth of a female child of 3.6 Kg. The complainant  with baby was discharged on 25.11.2016 at 9 AM  with some medicines and further direction to attend the OPD of said nursing home  for follow up treatment. After two days of the LUCS, in the nursing home the complainant suffered with acute fever. At this, the OP no.1 again tested the blood of the patient and it was found that TC of Hematological Examination was 13,300/cu.mm which was above the range of 4000-11000 / cu. mm and hence, infection started in the caesarian portion of the complainant. Another blood test was done on 23.11.2016 and it was found that the infection gradually increased and pain became acute day by day. It is the allegation of the complainant that the doctor did not take proper care after operation and without consent of the patient party discharged the complainant on 25.11.2016 with a critical condition.  On 26.11.2016 the complainant  consulted with another doctor P. Sinha who advised for examination of the patient by a specialist as due to infection Pus has been formed in the caesarian portion. The complainant party then consulted with a gynecologist Dr. Pijush Kanti Das at Chandipur and as per  his advice the patient was admitted in Chandipur Nursing Home at Chandipur on 28.11.2016 . This Dr. P. Das diagnosed the patient as Suib-catanneous and Sub Rectu (below rectus sheath) huge Pus and sepsis following LUCS. Dr P.K Das operated the complainant by “drainage of pus and wound debridement done under GA on 29.11.2016 Sec. suture given under SA on 07.12.2016 and after long treatment of 26 days the patient was discharged from Chandipur Nursing Home. This time blood was transfused in the body of the complainant. The patient was still suffering from incisional hernia on the caesarian portion and the complainant was suffering from tenderness and pain at medical joint line and at  medical aspect of the knee joint. The complainant is an ICDS employee and due to her serious illness as above, she could not resume her duty and she had to spend Rs. 100000/- for such mis-treatment  by the OP no1 and 2. The husband of the complainant filed a case against the OP no.1 before the AD of CAF, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk but the OP no.1 did not attend. So the dispute remained unsettled.

            Under the above circumstances, the complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer for direction upon the Ops to pay her Rs. 15,00,000/- for medical negligence and other reliefs.

            Both the OPs contested the case by filing a joint written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint petition and claimed that the application is illegal and indefinite and is liable to be dismissed.

            The specific case of these OPs that the complainant was suffering from infertility problem for many years and she came to the OP no.1 on 25.11.15. The patient was suffering from irregular period. The OP no.1 treated her medically with utmost care till her delivery. She gave birth of a female child on 16.11.16 quite in order, and she was discharged from the Nursing Home on 25.11.2016 with advise for some medicine and instructions.  The OP no.1 contends in the WV that he was a renowned gynecologist. The patient did not follow up the post operation treatment and nourishment and so, many mal-nourishment problem may arise in future for which this OP no.1  is not responsible in any way. Those symptoms are not the consequence of the seizure made by the OP no. 1 as alleged by the complainant.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.           

            On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                                                       DECISION WITH REASONS.

Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Perused the complaint, the written version of the OPs, the affidavit in-chief of the complainant, questionnaires by the OPs and reply thereto by the complainant. Perused the documents filed by the parties. Heard the argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate for both sides. Considered.

We have heard the submission of the ld advocate for both sides very carefully.

According to the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the OPs the OP no.1 is a renowned gynecologist and did the operation of the complainant with proper care  and gave proper advice with medicine on 25.11.2016. According to the OP no.1  the complainant did not follow the instructions  of the OP no.1 and her post operative problems are not caused due to the operation made by this OP no.1 as has been stated in paragraphs - 8,9 and 10 of the complaint.  Caesarian operation was done on 16.11.16  and the complainant gave birth of a female bay  at 7.25 AM and the complainant was discharged with baby on 25.11.2016 at 9 am with some medicines along with necessary instructions. It is also alleged during argument that the complainant was admitted at Chandipur Nursing Home as per advise ofDr. PK Das which has been stated in para 12 of the complaint. Admittedly the complainant was admitted in the nursing home of the OP no. 2 on 15.11.16 and the female child was borne   and the complainant was discharged  on 25.11.2016. The complainant alleged that after two days  of the LUCS the complainant began to fell acute pain in the abdomen and also she felt acute fever.

According to the complainant, the OPs being afraid  of the complain felt by the complainant after detection of the infection on the caesarian portion blood test of the complainant was done  in the OP 2 nursing home on 19.11.16. It was found that that TC of Hematological Examination was 13,300/cu.mm which was above the range of 4000-11000 / cu. mm and hence, infection started in the caesarian portion of the complainant. Another blood test was done on 23.11.2016 and it was found TC of the blood has raised to 14,800 which indicates that the infection gradually increased and pain became acute day by day. Fever and pain of the patient was not removed and the Ops did not take proper steps for biopsy test of the complainant after LUCs and without taking any permission, the complainant was discharged from the nursing home on 25.11.2016. On 26.11.2016 the complainant was treated by Dr. P.Sinha at Contai. At his advice the complainant was admitted at Chandipur Nursing Home. Dr. P.K. Das diagnosed the patient as Sub-catanneous and Sub Rectu (below rectus sheath) huge Pus and sepsis following LUCS. Dr P.K Das operated the complainant by “drainage of pus and wound debridement done under GA on 29.11.2016 Sec. suture given under SA on 07.12.2016 and after long treatment of 26 days the patient was discharged from Chandipur Nursing Home. Dr. Das had given blood  to the patient.

The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that the OP no.1 did not give proper care and proper method at the time of caesarian operation and also did not take any post operative discussion.

After perusal of the materials on record it appears from the documents submitted by the complainant that the complainant was discharged on 25.11.2016 at 9 am with prescription of some medicines and one instruction for regular bath after 4 days.  From the prescription dated 26.12.16 of Dr. P. Sinha, it appears that the doctor advised the complainant after seeing the symptoms and sign i.e LUCS infection in the injury place and investigation was suggested for blood test of TCDC, ESR.  From the  copy of the prescription dated 28.11.2016 issued by P. K. Das it appears that the doctor founds Pus in the abdomen since LUCS on 16.11.16 at Egra Nursing Home.  Temperature of the patient was 104 Degree, guaze pack inside the wound – pack was removed huge laticutavin….and wound infection. The patient was admitted in the Chandipur nursing Home  on 28.11.16.

From the discharge summary of Chandipur Nursing Home it appears that the complainant was admitted on 28.11.2016 at 1 PM and was discharged on 02.12.2016. her diagnose  as Sub-catanneous and Sub Rectu (below rectus sheath) huge Pus and sepsis following LUCS. Dr P.K Das operated the complainant by “drainage of pus and wound debridement done under GA on 29.11.2016 Sec. suture given under SA on 07.12.2016. She was given some follow up advice and check up after one week From another medical report, dated 20.10.2017 I appears that after examination impression was found : normal study except a large incisonal hernia in the infraumbilical region noted.

Ld advocate for the Ops argued  with reference of several decisions such as  2017 (2) CRR 864 (NC) ,  2017 (3) CRR  452 (NC),  2018 (2) CRR 287 (NC), 2018 (2) CRR 653 (NC),   2018 (1) CRR 507 (NC) and others.  The Ld. Advocate for the ops tried to impress upon this Forum that the OP nol.1 was not at all medically negligent in doing his duty towards the treatment of the patient. But after going  through the prescription  and report of Dr. P K Das  we failed to understand  how the infection and pus was formed in the caesarian portion  of the complainant.

We have seen each and every such reporting, but do not find  any substance with reference to the case in hand. 

The OPs could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding such result after the operation., It is also found that gauze was in the affected area  and the said guaze was removed by Dr. PK Das. This fault of existence of gauze in the caesarian portion is a serious default and the OP no.1 did not give any satisfactory explanation as to why the guaze was found which was the cause of incessant pain and fever of the patient after the operation for a long period.  Ld advocate for the OP no.1 also argued that the OP no 2 had no liability towards the treatment of the patient but it  is settled  principle of law  that hospital administration and management are important as the role played by the doctor in the treatment of a patient or that of a surgeon  for performing a surgery. It is well known that negligence on the part of a person entrusted with the responsibility of management of a hospital  may lead to infection, medical complication and even death. Thus negligence  in pre or post  operative care can be as much as the cause of medical as negligence  of the operating surgeon or attending doctor.   Once a person represents himself as a doctor and a patient submits to treatment, he is duty bound to take necessary  care in administration  of the treatment. Hospital administration involves maintenance  of clean and hygienic condit9ons in the hospital.  So it can not be said  that the OP no.2 was not liable for the negligent treatment of the complainant.

We have carefully gone through the materials on record and we find that it can not be said that the OP no.1  is not negligent in duty of treatment towards the complainant.

The complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for medical negligence and other heads.

According to the case of the complainant both the Ops took Rs. 35,000/-  from the patient for such negligence treatment without any receipt and till now the complainant  has stent  money for the medical negligence which may amount to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The complainant could not establish how much she spent for the second treatment. So, we are of the view that the complainant only succeeds  in establishing guilt of the OPs but  the other reliefs she wanted is refused. However considering all the above aspect we allow Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the negligence of the treating doctor and the nursing home which we think would be just and proper.

Both the points are answered accordingly.               

             Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/ 02 of 2018 be and the same is allowed  on contest in part  against  both the OPs.  

Both the Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation within one month from the date of this order, failing which the  OPs will be liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the awarded amount. The complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution for recovery of the entire money in case of non compliance of the order by the OPs.

Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.