Order no.2     Dated 12.12.2022

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Perused and considered the complaint application along with photo copies of the documents filed herewith.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

The complainant states that upon noticing some inflated portion in right breast she had done a ultrasonography in Dr. Roy’s Diagnostics Centre Pvt. Ltd. and started treatment on 07.09.2021 in Homoeopathic Hospital Kolkata. On 12.02.2022 after feeling some pain on her right breast, under advise of Dr. R N Ghosh, she again done ultrasonography. The ultrasonography report dated  12.02.2022 suggested that the complainant was having fibroadenoma in her right breast which was non cancerous.

Thereafter, on 28.03.2022 she went to Ram Krishna Mission Seva Prathisthan/opposite party no. 2 for treatment and registered herself as outdoor patient. On the same day i.e. 28.03.2022 Dr. Soumendra Nath Basu/opposite party no. 1 examined her in the department of Surgical OPD and on perusal of 2 (two) USG reports dated 07.09.2021 and 12.02.2022 advised her for immediate biopsy in the surgery OPD. It is alleged that the said doctor conducted immediate biopsy with a defective rusted instrument/gun in spite of objection raised by the complainant. It is also alleged that during the process of conducting biopsy the opposite party no. 1 inserted such defective instrument in her right breast without applying any local anaesthesia and without the consent of her family member. Due to forceful insertion of such defective rusted instrument, the complainant suffered unbearable pain and bleeding in her right breast as a result the complainant cried aloud and the opposite party no. 1 fled away from the place but suggested to get “USG guided True Cut Biopsy” for breast SOL and if  required for IHC too. It is further alleged that due to such forceful incident the complainant suffered severe bleeding and unbearable pain in her right breast for which after eight days i.e. on 05.04.2022 she met another doctor namely Mrs. Amita Banerjee of Peerless Hospital and was advised to have USG of both breast. Thereafter, on 03.05.2022 she had done USG of her both breast from Quadra Medical Services Pvt. Ltd. and the report of USG revealed that she is suffering from cancer in her right breast. Thereafter, on 10.05.2022 a ‘True Cut Biopsy’ was done from Suraksha Diagnostics and the report revealed that the  complainant has invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (ductal) grade 2. According to the complainant that due to sheer negligence, wrong diagnosis and wrong treatment of the opposite parties the complainant is suffering from carcinoma in her right breast. At present she has undergone operation of her right breast and taking chemotherapy. The opposite parties are liable for medical negligence. Hence, this case.

It appears from the Complaint application and the documents annexed thereto that on 07.09.2021 some inflated portion was detected in the right breast of the complainant and she was treated in Homoeopathic Hospital till 12.02.2022. On 12.02.2022 she again done USG of her right breast and the USG report revealed that she was having fibroadenoma in her right breast which was non cancerous tumour. On 28.03.2022 she went to Ram Krishna Mission Seva Prathisthan/opposite party no. 2 and was treated in surgical OPD by Dr. Soumendra Nath Basu/opposite party no. 1. After clinical examination the opposite party no. 1 wrote a prescription (running page no. 20) directing to bring syringe 5 CC (1). Surgicare no. 6 & 7 one each (Gloves) and advised ‘True Cut Biopsy’ for right Breast SOL, review the report and if required then IHC too.

It is crystal clear the opposite party no. 1 after clinical examination of the patient presuming something wrong  immediately asked to bring syringe 5 CC and Gloves. Syringe is required for conducting ‘Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology’ (FNAC).

The allegation against opposite party no. 1 that the instrument/gun used by him was rusted and eventually it caused cancer of the patient.

Be it mentioned here that gun like instrument is used in ‘True Cut Core Biopsy’.

In paragraph 4 of the Complaint application, the complainant alleged that opposite party no. 1 conducted biopsy with rusted Gun like machine and when she suffered bleeding and pain, opposite party no. 1 fled away but suggested to get ‘USG guided True Cut Biopsy’  for right breast SOL and if required IHC too.

So, from the averment made in the complaint, it is crystal clear that ‘True Cut Biopsy’ was not conducted by opposite party no. 1 before he allegedly fled from the spot and it was suggested by him that ‘True Cut Biopsy’ to be done and if required to ascertain proper medicine, IHC too.

So, it is crystal clear that opposite party no. 1 was very prompt in taking decision to detect the disease and to ascertain the course of treatment of the complainant on the very first date of her examination in hospital of opposite party no. 2.

It is apparent that biopsy in the form of ‘Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology’ (FNAC) was conducted in surgical OPD by opposite party no. 1 for which syringe was required. The allegation of bleeding and severe pain cannot be substantiated by the conduct of the complainant or her husband who accompanied her. The complainant made complaint with the Chairman Medical Council, West Bengal on 23.05.2022 and on 10.06.2022. The husband of the complainant being an advocate for the first time send email dated 15.11.2022 to opposite party no. 2 making such allegations against the opposite parties.

Moreover, the allegation raised by the complainant that she suffered bleeding and pain on 28.03.2022 but she met the doctor of Peerless Hospital after 8 days i.e. on 05.04.2022 and the patient history noted by Dr. Amita Banerjee does not reveal that she suffered any bleeding in her right breast but only swelling and pain. Dr. Amita Banerjee on 05.04.2022 prescribed for USG of both breast but it was done by the complainant after a month i.e. on 03.05.2022 when the carcinoma of right breast was detected.

It is apparent on the face of the record that the complainant herself who delayed the proper diagnosis and treatment in proper time.

We are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to proof prima facie that there is any negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

Therefore, the Complaint application cannot be admitted.

Hence, it is

                                            O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.