In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.417/2008.
1) Shri Parimal Sinha,
Villagae – Teghoria, P.O. Bansgara,
P.S. Lalgola, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin – 742148. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Dr. Sthabir Das Gupta,
101/24A, North Purbachal Kalitala, Kolkata-78.
2) Microlap Nursing Home,
24, Bepin Pal Road, Kolkata-26, P.S. Kalighat. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 44 Dated 29-11-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant was having ‘Suphomatic Abdominal’ problem and thereby consulted Dr. A.B. Roy. After being advised by Dr. A.B. Roy, the complainant underwent several clinical and pathological tests including upper G.I. Endoscopy on 19.7.08 at Reliance Diagnostics. It was detected from the said upper G.I. Endoscopy report that there was a large ulcerated growth occupying the antrum and the ‘Histopathological Examination of Tissue’ revealed ‘Adeno Carcinoma’.
On 22.7.08 the complainant consulted Dr. Manoj Agarwal; Gastroenterologist at Bellevue Clinic, Kolkata, for this ailment and a CT Scan was conducted of whole abdomen. That the said CT Scan of whole abdomen was done at HealthPointSpecialtyHospital, Calcutta. The CT Scan report findings of whole abdomen was suggestive of pericircumferential gastric outlet as well as lesser curvature thickening with few retro gastric nodes and peri gastric stranding. It was however commented that it was most likely gastric neoplasia (mitotic) with adjacent spread i.e. ‘stomach carcinoma’.
Complainant was persuaded by o.p. no.1 for this surgery and he was give no further instructions or suggestions to visit any another doctor or hospital specialized in the treatment of cancer. The complainant was further assured by o.p. no.1 specifically that if the surgery was done immediately he will be completely cured and there would be no chance of further growth or aggravation of the disease.
O.p. no.1 performed operation of the complainant on 1.8.08 at Microlap Nursing Home. The complainant during his stay at Microilap Nursing Home underwent several tests and investigations which are annexed hereto. O.p. no.1 narrated and communicated to the near relations of the complainant that the operation was successful and the patient will be completely cured and there was no chance for further aggravation in any manner whatsoever.
Complainant was discharged from the nursing home on 11.8.08 and the discharge certificate was issued by o.p. no.1. That no post operation guideline was given by o.p. no.1, the complainant was advised to have some simple blood test on 21.8.08 and the report of the blood test was to be shown to him on 22.8.08.
After being discharged from the nursing home on 11.8.08 o.p. no.1 did not advise the complainant for any further treatment and the complainant was also advised to consult the o.p. no.1 on 22.8.08.
Immediately after being discharged on 11.8.08 several complications started and/or arouse e.g. extreme weakness, pain in abdomen, continuous nausea with occasional vomiting, anorexia, palpitation and thereby complainant was totally unable to do anything and o.p. no.1 was immediately contacted to attend the complainant and to advise him for post operation care and treatment, but o.p. no.1 refused to see the complainant before 22.8.08. On refusal by o.p. no.1 the complainant was forced and compelled to seek opinion from another doctor, because these complications continued and his condition started to deteriorated each day.
Considering the grave and serious situation of the patient, the complainant was rushed to TATAMemorialCancerHospital at Mumbai on 18.8.08 for evaluation. The complainant was admitted in the hospital on 18.8.08 under the supervision of Dr. P.J. Sukla.
Complainant underwent several investigations at while under treatment and he was under treatment upto 29.8.08. A gross non-invasive IVC filter was inserted on 26.8.08 at the said hospital to save the life of the complainant due to post operation complication arising out of the surgery done by o.p. no.1 and who is solely responsible for the condition of the complainant. The complainant was found to have ‘Stage IV Cancer’ of the stomach and was advised to take Palliative Chemotherapy, with Taxol + Caboplatin for 4 (four) cycles.
It is interesting to note that o.p. no.1 posed as an ‘Oncologist Surgeon’ and also suggested and persuaded the complainant for surgery to be done by him. Subsequently the complainant came to know that o.p. no.1 is not a surgeon and having no requisite qualification to be a surgeon or to conduct a surgery, there was no doubt a deficiency on the part of o.p. no.1 for having conducted this surgery imperfectly, inadequately and the service executed by him towards the complainant contained shortcomings and this act of deficiency, insufficiency, deliberate and willful negligence by o.p. no.1 caused injury to the complainant and the said injury was/is fatal an life threatening in nature.
The remarks and notes of TATAMemorialCancerHospital, Mumbai goes to prove that the surgery concluded by o.p. no.1 gave rise to post operation complications for which a gross non-invasive IVC filter was inserted on 26.8.08 at the TATAMemorialCancerHospital, Mumbai to save the life of the complainant.
Complainant was only 36 years old and his life was literally ruined due to the surgery performed by o.p. no.1 who should have referred the complainant to a surgeon who is competent and also specialized knowledge / skill in that particular area, but on the contrary o.p. no.1 mislead the complainant for wrongful gain and subsequently performed the operation himself, which give rise to severe complications which was fatal in nature. Above all Microlap Nursing Home being o.p. no.2 should not have allowed o.p. no.1 to perform the operation of the complainant, knowing the facts of his ailment; this is an unfair trade practice on their part. Both o.p. nos.1 and 2 are liable and responsible for the malpractices and negligence as well as deficiency of services on their part and the Microlap Nursing Home are responsible for its vicarious liabilities. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. no.1 did not have any negligence on his part. There is nothing to note that o.p. no.1 operated upon the complainant as has been alleged by the complainant.
On perusal of the entire materials on record including evidence and questionnaires and replies we find no deficiency on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate to prove his case and complainant is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost.
