DATE OF FILING : 26-04-2012. DATE OF S/R : 13-06-2012. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 31-07-2013. Mamoni Roy, wife of Sri Priyankar Roy, residing at Village & P.O. Penro, P.S. Udaynarayanpur, Howrah. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. Dr. Suman Sarkar, c/o. Sneha Nursing Home, village – Amata, P.O. Amta, District – Howrah, PIN – 711101. 2. Sneha Nursing Home, represented by its Director / Manager, Amta, P.O. & P.S. Amta, District – Howrah, PIN – 711401.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs on various categories against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows : At the time of delivery of the second issue ( male child ) on 15-03-2011, the O.P. no. 1 Dr. Suman Sarkar advised the complainant for undergoing ligation operation and accordingly after the caesarian delivery the ligation operation was also done and the patient was discharged. Unfortunately the complainant on 11-03-2012 became ill and consulted the same doctor ( O.P. no. 1 ). At the first instance the doctor suspected Bicoly and prescribed medicine. When the medicine did not yield any relief to the complainant, the patient was taken to Sree Jain Hospital, Howrah. After necessary investigation it was detected that the complainant became pregnant and was bleeding huge internally. It was ultimately detected that at the time of ligation conducted by O.P. no. 1, one tube was operated out of two tubes and the pregnancy was confirmed in the second tube as there was no complete ligation operation. So the doctor was utterly negligent. Hence the case. 3. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in the written version contended interalia that the allegations against the O.P. no. 1 is totally absurd, harassing and motivated. It is further stated that the complainant along with her husband came to the O.Ps. for delivery by caesarean section and expressed their intention for ligation operation. After receiving the consent and signature from the parties separately the successful operation was done on 15-03-2011 and the patient was discharged after proper medical advice on 20-03-2011. After long one year the patient came with the complaint on 11-03-2012 that the lower abdomen was having burning sensation. Accordingly medicine was prescribed with the advice of ultra sonography and urine examination. Thereafter the patient never turned up to the O.P. no. 1 and it is evident from the xerox copies of the documents supplied to the O.Ps.; that the patient developed ectopic pregnancy. 4. The O.Ps. further contended that this kind of pregnancy can always develop even after ligation operation and there is nothing in medical parlance to prevent it. So in the circumstances the O.P. no. 1 cannot be held responsible for ectopic pregnancy after ligation operation. So the case is liable to be dismissed. 5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Whether the O.P. no. 1 is guilty of medical negligence ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have perused questionnaires, the evidence on affidavit and the brief notes of arguments submitted by both parties. Heard the ld. Lawyer of both sides. 7. In deciding the case of medical negligence we cannot be unmindful of the widely respected Bolam Test. The basic principle relating to medical negligence is known as the Bolam Rule. Justice Bolam laid down that the test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill. It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art. In case of medical men, negligence means failure to act in accordance with the standards of reasonably competent medical men at the time. 8. A doctor is not guilty of medical negligence if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men who possess similar skills. 9. Now let us examine how far the act of O.P. no. 1 conforms the standard as prescribed by Justice Bolam. 10. The O.P. no. 1 Dr. Suman Sarkar conducted ligation operation as per Pomeryo’s technique where a loop is made by holding the tube at the junction of proximal and middle third of the tube by a allis forcep through a vascular area in the mesosalpinx no. ‘O” chronic catgut suture is passed and both the limbs are firmly tied together. About 1 to 1.5 cm of the segment of the loop distal to the ligature is excised. And the same procedure is repeated on the other side. 11. Now the basic allegation of the complainant upon which her case rests is that how can she become pregnant when she already underwent ligation operation. In fact, this sort of pregnancy can always develop even after ligation operation and there is nothing in medical practice to prevent it. This sort of pregnancy is called in medical parlance as ectopic pregnancy. 12. Dr. Saraf, Ex-Sheriff of Calcutta and illustrious person having profound medical back ground was present on the date of argument. On our querry Dr. Saraf opined that there is no ligation operation as temporary ligation. All the identical operations are permanent in nature. Such ligation operation cannot be fool proof and there is 0.1% case of ectopic pregnancy that means one case of failure in thousand cases His view is subscribed in the Telinde’s Operative Gynaecology 8th Edition page 503. This authentic book confirms – even after ligation operation the fallopian tubes can reform and reconnect automatically which can cause unwanted pregnancy. This is what happened in case of the complainant who developed ectopic pregnancy. 13. Therefore, we come across that the O.P. no. 1 was not negligent on his part and he acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a body of medical men who possesses similar skills. Furthermore, the complainant cannot raise the issue of medical negligence as she was hale and hearty for long one year. Had there been any medical negligence and defect in operation she could have developed other sort of pain on the operated portion. We cannot support the view of the ld. Lawyer of the complainant that the O.P. no. 1 did not conduct the ligation operation with the permanent method. In fact, there is no procedure of permanent or temporary mode. The technique i.e., Pomeryo’s technique adopted by O.P. no. 1 is universally accepted technique. So the doctor cannot be held responsible for medical negligence. If on the second date i.e., on 11-03-2012 the doctor advised for ultra sonography test to remove the doubt over lower abdominal pain he also cannot be to blame. As per Dr. Erik Fangel Paulsen, the doctor who asked for urine sample and for ultrasound of the abdomen and pelvis in case of such pain was right and justified. When the complainant did not revisit the O.P. no. 1 in spite of his advice, the doctor cannot be held responsible for medical negligence. In the result, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to establish the degree of medical negligence on the part of the O.P. no. 1. He acted according to the medical principle and technique as widely accepted. With this observation both the points are accordingly disposed of against the complainant. In the result, the complaint fails. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 35 of 2012 ( HDF 35 of 2012 ) be dismissed on contest without costs. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( P. K. Chatterjee ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
