To-day is fixed for admission hearing.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant files hazira.

Heard the Ld. Advocate. Perused the complaint and the documents thereto.

The case of the complainant is, in brief, that her husband was admitted on 17.08.2018 at about 12:00 noon to 12:30 PM to the OP-Nursing Home with a complaint of stomach pain and vomiting tendency.  Her husband had never such symptoms previously.

In the bed, six types of tablet were given to the patient.  But when his pain increased and breathing problem started, a saline bottle was fixed to the patient by the nurses and some medicines were injected.   Under the instruction of the attending doctor, nebulizer was given to the patient. 

But all of a sudden, a loud sound from the said nebulizer occurred and at around 5:00 PM the patient was seen to be in restlessness and then died. The father-in-law of the complainant lodged a diary with the Siliguri, Police Station vide G.D. No. 953/2018 complaining death due to medical negligence.  At approximate 06.30 PM, the doctor declared the patient dead.

The complainant is of the view that death of the patient occurred due to application of wrong medicines and that too, in overdose, treatment on symptom basis without trying to reveal the actual disease, carelessness of the attending doctor & nurses.  But the complaint does not specify anywhere what the cause of action actually is.

The post-mortem report No. 1500/18 dtd. 18.08.18 of the North Bengal Medical College in C/W Siliguri P.S. U/D case No.- 266/18 dtd. 17.08.2018 says that the death was due to diseased condition of liver as noted therein - a natural cause.

The complainant states further that the guardians of the deceased requested the OPs to provide them with the treatment details including medicinal particulars and the pathological reports but the OPs did not give those documents which are properties  of the patient party, violating the medical norms.  The complainant prays for appointment of a medical expert at the later stage of the proceeding of the case for a correct finding of the medical negligence causing her husband’s death.

Thus the post-mortem report (confirming the natural death of the complainant’s husband) contradict the complainant’s allegation of medical negligence causing her husband’s death. Yet, without challenging the postmortem report itself, the complainant’s demand for appointment of a medical expert for a correct finding of the cause of her husband’s death appears to be a paradox.  And challenge of a post-mortem report is a matter of medical jurisprudence and does not fall within the ambit of the Forum.

Thus the inadequecies in the complainant hit its admissibility and hence the case is not allowed to be proceeded with.