West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/13/2017

Sri Pratik Barman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. S.K.Dey - Opp.Party(s)

Swapan Bhattacharya

16 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

 

Complaint Case No.13/2017

 

1. Sri Pratik Barman, S/o Sri Pramathendu Barman,
2. Minor Stuti Barman, D/o Sri Pratik Barman at Nayagram (Municipality), P.O. Nayagram, District - Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                       ………..…Complainants.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Dr. S.K. Dey, C/o K.G. Medicare (Diagnostic Centre Polyclinic of Nursing Home), at Hospital Road, (Abdul Kalam Azad Bhaban) Battala Chowk, P.O. Medinipur,  District- Paschim Medinipur,
2. Dr. S.N.Tripathi, C/o K.G.Medicare (Diagnostic) Centre, Polyclinic of Nursing Home, at Hospital Road, Battala Chowk, P.O. Medinipur, District- Paschim Medinipur,
3. Dr. R.N. Ghosh,
4. Dr. P.P. Gupta, both are doctors of Saroj Gupta Cancer of Research Institute, at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700063

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Swapan Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Kshitish Palmal, Advocate.

                                                  : Mr. Somnath Pal, Advocate.

      

                                                           Date of filing:27/01/2017

Decided on: - 16/05/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainants Sri Pratik Barman and minor Stuti Barman against the above named O.Ps, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

Contd……………..P/2

 

 

                                                                                               ( 2 )

                Complainants’ case, in brief, is as follows:-

                Smt. Anjana Barman, since deceased, was the wife of the complainant no.1 Pratik Barman and the mother of complainant no.2 Stuti Barman.  Said Anjana Barman was suffering from acute abdominal pain on and from 8.4.2015 and she was at first treated at Keshiary Rural Hospital on same day and as per advice of the doctor of the said hospital, U.S.G. of whole abdomen was done and on perusal of the same, the concerned doctor A.K. Bag diagonised  that she had gallbladder stone and bulky and heterogeneous pancreas and small fluid in the right kidney and lung.  As there was no proper infrastructure in the rural hospital, so the complainant admitted his wife in K.G. Medicare, Medinipur (O.P. no.5) under the treatment of Dr. S.K. Dey, the O.P. no.1.  After going through all medical papers including U.S.G. report, some blood test were done there and seeing all such reports, O.P. no.1 advised for operation for removing stone from gall bladder.  It is stated that without giving any importance to the report of U.S.G., O.P. nos. 1&2 did laparoscopic operation of Anjana Barman in the said nursing home and she was discharged on 18.4.2015.  It is alleged that after such operation,  the condition of her health was broken and she also lost her normal walking capacity.  Thereafter the complainant took his wife to Saroj Gupta Cancer Centre and Research Institute, Kolkata.  After some clinical tests and U.S.G., the doctor of the said institute could not cure the problem of Anjana Barman and they expressed that her kidney had been damaged.  Therefore the complainant admitted his wife in S.S.K.M. Hospital on 6.5.2015 and there she expired on 8.5.2015 due to acute renal failure.  It is alleged by the complainant that the operation of Anjana Barman, done by O.P. no.2,  was defective and before such operation, the O.P. nos. 1&2 did not give any importance to the suggestion of the Radiologist of Medinipur Scan Centre.  It is further alleged that due to wrong laparoscopic operation done by O.P no.2,  the kidney of Anjana Barman had been affected and damaged and such act of those doctors  amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint,  praying for an award of compensation of Rs.20,000,00/- against O.P. nos. 1&2.

       All the O.Ps appeared in this case.  After appearance,  O.P. no.5 did not turn up for which the case was ordered to be heard ex parte against O.P. no.5.  O.P. nos. 3&4, the two doctors of Saroj Gupta Cancer Research Institute,  by filing a joint w/o have stated that in the petition of complaint there is no allegation against them and the present complaint is therefore not maintainable against them.  Subsequently they did not appear in this case.

         Both the opposite parties nos. 1&2 have contested this case by filling two separate written versions.  

Contd……………..P/3

 

 

                                                              

                                                                                              ( 3 )

              Denying and disputing the allegation of medical negligence against them, it is the specific case of the O.P. nos. 1&2 that the patient Anjana Barman was admitted in K.G. Medicare with the history of pain abdomen for last ten days associated with vomiting.  On perusal of her U.S.G. report done in Medinipur Scan Centre, it was found that her report suggested Cholecystitis with cholethiasis and bulky pancreas, small fluid in the right region of minimal right pleural effusion.  After consulting all medical papers, O.P. no.1 advised the patient party to consult with Dr. S.N. Tripathi, the O.P. no.2 who is a general surgeon and O.P. no.2 performed laparoscopic surgery of Anjana Barman and O.P. no.1 also visited her during her stay in the said nursing home.  O.P. no.1 also visited her and O.P. no.2, being a qualified surgeon, rightly operated the patient.  During such operation, O.P. no.2 collected the fluid alongwith some tissues of left ovarian tumor for HPE report and directed the patient party to meet with him with those reports but thereafter they did not turn up after discharge of the patient.  It is specifically stated by the O.Ps that they have no deficiency in service regarding the treatment and operation of Anjana Basrman.

             To prove their case, the complainants  have examined complainant no.1 Pratik Barman as PW-1 and one Arup Pan as PW-2 and one Dr. Partha Pratim Ghosh as PW-3.  During the evidence of PW-1&3, few documents were marked exhibit 1 to 11 respectively.

            On the other hand, O.P. nos. 1&2 have examined themselves as OPW-1&2 respectively.  During the cross-examination of OPW-1, one document was marked as exbt.12 on admission and another document was marked as exbt. 13 on admission during the cross-examination of OPW-2.

                                               

                                           Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Are the complainants entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?   

                   

Decision with reasons

 

           Point no.1:-

Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by any of the parties at the time of final hearing of this case.  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties we do not find anything adverse regarding maintainability of this case.

This point is therefore decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainants.

Contd……………..P/4

 

 

                                                               

                                                                                                ( 4 )

Point nos.2:-

Much have been said regarding deficiency in service and medical negligency on the part of the O.P. nos. 1&2 in the petition of complaint as well as  in the written examination-in-chief by the complainant no.1 Sri Pratik Barman.  Such allegation has already been discussed as above while mentioning the facts of the case.  Of course,  the O.P. nos. 1&2 in their w/v as well as during their evidence have denied such allegation of medical negligency and deficiency in service in treating Anjana Barman, the wife of complainant no.1.  In view of such denial and since the allegation of deficiency regarding medical treatment of Anjana Barman has been pleaded by the complainants, so the burden lies upon the complainants to prove such allegations.   To prove their said case, the complainants have examined complainant no.1 Pratik Barman as PW-1 and two witnesses namely one Arup Pan and Dr. Partha Pratim Ghosh as PW-2 & 3 respectively.  Out of those three witnesses,  PW-2 happens to be an accountant of K.G. Medicare and he stated nothing regarding the allegation of medical negligency.  He just produced some documents regarding treatment of Anjana Barman in the said Diagnostic Centre.  PW-1 happens to be the husband of the victim lady Anjana Barman and his written examination-in-chief discloses all allegations against O.P. nos. 1&2 as pleaded in the petition of complaint.  But his cross-examination reveals that PW-1, the complainant no.1, is not a doctor and he has admitted that he has not filed any medical opinion of another doctor regarding such allegation of medical negligency.  He has further admitted in his cross-examination that he has no knowledge regarding medical treatment and about the medical papers so submitted by him in this case.  So his evidence is of no help to prove the allegation of medical negligency.  PW-3 Dr. Partha Pratim Ghosh happens to be the witness of the complainant and he examined Anjana Barman in Saroj Gupta Cancer Center & Research Institute, Kolkata  .  During his evidence, PW-3 produced some medical documents of Saroj Gupta Cancer Center & Research Institute where this PW-3 was posted as medical officer.  He deposed that he and other doctors examined Anjana Barman in the said hospital and observed over all  condition of the patient.  In his evidence, this PW-3 Dr. Partha Pratim Ghosh has stated that the patient was suffering from acute renal failure and according to him it was difficult to say the actual cause of such renal failure.  It is none but PW-3 who happens to be a doctor and a witness of the complainant has stated in his cross-examination that they did not find any error in operation of gall bladder of Anjana Barman.  Thus we find that it is none but the witness of the complainant and who medically examined the patient Anjana Barman in the said Research Centre has stated that there was no error in operation of gall bladder, so done by O.P. nos.1&2.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, we

Contd……………..P/5

 

 

                                                             

                                                                                         ( 5 )

have no hesitation to hold that the complainants have hopelessly failed to prove the allegation of medical negligency against the O.P. nos. 1&2.

This point is decided accordingly against the complainants.

Point no.3:-

 In view of our above findings under point no.2, the complainants are not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for.

                    All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                     In the result, the complaint case fails.

                                             Hence, it is,

                                                                 Ordered,

                              that the complaint case no.13/2017  is hereby dismissed on contest against O.P. nos. 1&2 and dismissed ex-parte against the rest O.Ps but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                  Dictated and Corrected by me

                           Sd/-B. Pramanik.                      Sd/-P.K. Singha                    Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                                 President                                    Member                               President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur