Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/39/2016

Uttam Kumar Badhan S/O-Mathura Prasad Badhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.S.J.Patel - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.Agrawal

28 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 39 OF 2016

Uttam Kumar Badhan ( 36 Yrs.),

S/O: Mathura Prasad Badhan,

RO/PO: Bagdehi, PS: Laikera,

Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha…………………..…………..………..….…..…..……. Complainant.

     

                                           Versus 

 

1. Dr. S.J.Patel, Director, Jagyseni Hospital, Jharsuguda.

 

2. Dr. Reena Naik, Medical Officer, Jagyseni Hospital, Jharsuguda.

 

3. R.K Nayak, Pathology Incharge, Jagyseni Hospital, Jharsuguda.

 

4. Dr. S.K Lath, Visiting Doctor, Jagyseni Hospital, Jharsuguda.

 

5. Dr. Priyadrashi Sahoo, Anesthesia, Jagyseni Hospital, Jharsuguda.

 

6. Dr. G.Choudhury, Jagyseni Hospital, Jharsuguda.

 

7.  Sangram Patel, Jagyseni Hospital, Jharsuguda,

 

8. Dr. Rakesh Kaushik, Jagyseni Hospital, Jharsuguda.

 

9. Director Ispath General Hospital, Rourkela,

Dist: Sundargarh, Odisha.

10. Director Amri Hospital, Bhubaneswar,

Dist: Khurda, Odisha…………………................................................... Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                          H.S.Agrawal, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.1 to 8             P.K. Patel, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.9                    Self (Ex-Parte).

For the Opp. Party No.10                  Suman Rautray, Adv. & Associates.

 

Date of Order: 28.12.2017

 

Present

                                           1. Shri Sundar Lal Behera, President.

                                           2. Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member.

                                           3. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member (W).

                                           

Shri Sundarlal Behera, President:- This complaint alleges medical negligence against the Director, Medical Officer and Pathology Incharge of Jagyaseni Hospital namely Dr. S.J Patel, Dr. Reena Naik and Mr. R.K.Nayak respectively along with 8 numbers of more O.Ps, though it  alleged against the 8 others specifically.

                                                                                                                             

1. Very briefly, the facts leading to filing of this complaint are that the complainant above named is a husband of one Tara Badhan(since diseased), took the deceased to the Hospital of O.P.No.1 and 2, on dt.10.02.2015 for consultation, necessary treatment and for obtaining proper guidance of O.P.No.1 who is a consultant in obstetrics and Gynecology wherein O.P.No.1 and 2 both jointly treated her and suggested for some medicine on restriction of regular consultation fee and thereafter as per their advice the deceased was taken regularly for medical checkup on the deceased wife of the complainant was pregnant, on dt. 27.03.2015, dt.25.04.2015, 20.05.2015 and 29.07.2015 and during this period Number of tests i.e. blood test and ultra Sound test were done as the Doctor estimated the expected delivery date as on dtd. 10.10.2015.  All the test including Ultrasound test were done by O.P.No.1 with help of O.P.NO.3 technician of the Hospital on payment of require charges.  On dt.21.09.2015 at about 8.15PM while the deceased felt pain in her abdomen she was taken to the Hospital and as per the direction of O.P.No1 and 2 she was admitted into the Hospital as 9.51.PM.  As an indoor patient of the O.P.No.1, Doctor obtain blood of the deceased for some test and gave injection to her but without waiting for the blood test report, O.P.No.1 decided to perform lower segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) of the deceased, deceased was taken into O.T at 10.20PM and thereafter O.P.No.1 accompany by O.P.No.2,5,6, and 7 operated the deceased negligently without taking any care without any female Nurse and sweeper wherein the deceased delivered a female child at 10.27PM.  It is alleged that due to negligent in conducting LSCS within 7 minutes of the entry into the O.T and due to wrong medicine injected by O.P.NO.1 after operation the urine output of the deceased decreased and was completely stop since the next date i.e. dt.22.09.2015 noon.  Despite complain of the deceased’s attendant present there in regards to the problem raised, both the O.P.No.1 and 2 did not care the same till 8 PM due to which the body of the deceased got efflorescence and deceased did not able to breath smoothly.  The complainant ascertain is that at about 10.55 PM when the visiting doctor of the Hospital  Dr. S.K. Lath / O.P.No.4 visited the deceased and prescribed some medicine after conducting ECG test of the deceased, wherein it appeared that calculation of heart beat was not possible, he suggested for providing oxygen to the deceased but both the O.P.No.1 and 2 did not care to provide oxygen nor any medicine and when the condition of the deceased become critical on the request of attendant of the deceased they refer her to a higher Hospital  for better treatment and discharged the deceased from the Hospital at 5.20AM on dtd.23.09.2015.  After discharge from the Hospital the deceased was taken to IGH Rourkela and got her admitted there at 8.55.AM on the same day where the doctor after examining the deceased and undergone for some test expressed their inability to do any further treatment due to the most critical position of the deceased and as per their advise the deceased was taken to AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar by Ambulance service wherein she got admitted there at 1.36 AM on dt.24.09.2015 but despite careful treatment given by the doctors there life of the deceased could not be save and the deceased was expired on dtd. 08.10.2015 at AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar. 

 

The complainant also claim to have spend Rs.10,50,000/- only towards treatment of his wife and further alleged that O.P.No.1 did not furnished Nursing chart of the deceased on demand and without providing the service of any Anesthesia charge thereof as well as extra charge then the cost of medicine sold by the O.P.No.1 and 2 has been realized from him. He further alleged that the O.P.No.1 and 2 had engaged O.P.No.3 into their Hospital as technician who is not having prescribed qualification.  According to the complainant excess use of injection of Snytocin in 11 liters of drips within 7 minutes for operation is likely to damage the

kidney of the deceased and the same was carried out by O.P.No.1 before operation. 

 

Alleging various medical negligence especially on the part of O.P.No.1 and 2 specifically, he sought for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only with medical expenses amounting to Rs.10,50,000/- only and for further compensation from O.P.NO.1 to 8 of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards costs.

  

2. On being notice O.P.No.1 ,2, 3,5,6,7 and 8 have appeared before the Forum who filed their joint written version and contest the case.  O.P.No.10 also file its written version and contested the case. O.P.No.9 suffered ex-parte proceeding.  The O.P.No.4 did not file his version nor contested the case.O.P.No.1 in his written version denied to have any medical negligence in respect to the deceased due to admission of the complainant that it had provided careful treatment to the patient and having no claim against it sought for direction of the case against the O.P.No.10.  Joint written version stated aforesaid contention that entire allegation made by the complainant in his complaint petition against them are false except the admission given treatment and undergoing operation conducted in the hospital.  According to them the wife of the complainant i.e. deceased had not regularly visited to the hospital of the O.P.No.1.  Being pregnant lady she had not taken any consultation in any hospital during period from 32 to 40 weeks and she should have had monthly check up upto 28 weeks of pregnancy, thereafter every two weeks till 38 weeks and then weekly till delivery of the time.  Their claim is that the deceased had not taken any check up during last two months of pregnancy in any hospital or to any physician and as the patient was more than 35 years, conceived for first time, she is required more medical treatment and care.  Again contend that deceased Tara Badhan when brought to the hospital there was leaking of fluids two days prior to coming to their hospital as disclosed by her.  They claim the patient had Mild CPD(Cephalo-Pelvis-Disprortion) and she required immediate surgical intervention for delivery of the child otherwise life risk of both the mother and child was involved and on receipt of consent from the complainant and the deceased the technician of the hospital had taken blood sample for necessary test.  Their claim is that as the Amniotic fluid had drain out there was risk of safe normal delivery of the patient and her child, hence surgical intervention was failed suitable and she was operated and a child took birth.  In their written version they further added that sufficient trained staffs are their in the hospital to take proper care of the patient, as per medical science LSCS was done having no irregularity, even the O.T doctor have prescribed medicine for the patient and direction was given to the Nurse to administered those medicine in post operation room which is highly equipped with latest machine and oxygen.  After LSCS operation the deceased patient and the newborn child were shifted to post operation room for proper care where rest medicine were administered to the patient.  They claim that there was two liter of urine output upto 12.30PM of the next day and then when it was decreased the hospital required medicine specialist Dr. Lath to look after the patient who prescribed Lasis which was administered to the patient and the urine output did not became satisfactory and for this reason, the doctors of the O.P’s hospital advise the complainant shifted the patient to a higher center for better evaluation and management. 

 

Rebutting the allegation of the complaint they submitted that due to absent of any concrete opinion of expert or else of the hospital who had attendant the patient in a post operative stage medical negligence cannot be proved.  Their further stand is that allegation relating to non-delivery of nursing chart is not true as it never demanded and at the time of discharge of the patient all necessary documents had

been given to the complainant for reference to the hospital referred by them.  They further denied to have charged more towards cost of medicine and tests as alleged by the complainant, relating to educational qualification of the O.P.No.3 Mr. R.K.Nayak, Pathologist their stand is that Sri R.K.Nayak has passed M.Sc, MLT, qualification required for pathologist having regd.no.1212/ 09 and experience much in conducting various test for the patient.

 

Rebutting the allegation in regard to administration of injection Syntocinon variance in discharge report with the RTI information, the O.Ps. stated that while giving treatment to the deceased patient in O.T 5 unit(1Amp) Syntocinin in 500ml of RL and 5 units (1Amp) of Syntocinin in 500ml of DNS was given in one liter of DNS and send to the post operative ward wherein rest 10 unit was given. They further clarified that Syntocinin is known as Oxytocin which is use to induce labour or strength labour contraction during child birth.  In reply to the other i.e. inject of high dose of medicine,  the same is denied and claimed that problem noticed were due to severe negligence of the complainant himself.  Lastly the O.Ps. challenged the adminisibility of the complaint due to wants of any expert opinion to hold medical negligence on their part, while giving treatment during pre-operation stage, during operative stage and during post operative stage of the deceased patient.  According to the O.Ps. due to non-production of any concrete evidence to established the medical negligence on the part of them, the complaint shall be stand dismissed.

 

3. Brief resume of evidence produce by the complainant are Xerox copies of medical prescription and test report of the deceased, Xerox copies of discharge certificate of the deceased issued by O.P.No.1, Xerox copies of discharge certificate of the deceased  issued by O.P.No.9, Xerox copies of discharge certificate of death summary of deceased issued by O.P.No.10, medical bill issued by O.P.No.1, medical bill issued by O.P.No.10, office copy of pleader notice to O.P.No.1 by the complainant through his nephew Nirmal kumar Badhan, reply of O.P.No.1 towards the pleader notice and copies of RTI Report.

 

4. On behalf of the O.Ps. copies of documents i.e. admission form , admission note , O.T note sheet, other attached sheets , bedhead ticket, consent for operation and surgical and other reports have been produce to established the plea’s  taken by O.Ps. in their joint written version.

 

5. Various decisions have been filed by the complainant as well as opponent in support of their respective cases. They are also filed their respective written argument.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the contesting parties including materials evidence produce on their behalf and after hearing of the learned counsels for the contesting parties.  It is noticed that the complainant being the husband of the deceased patient has approach this Forum with a complaint of medical negligence against Doctors, Hospital and staffs who alleged to have neglected in treatment of his wife while she was admitted into the hospital in the matter of severe pain in the conceive stage.  In this case neither the complainant nor the opponent had filed their evidence by way of affidavit nor have referred medical literature in order to sustain their respective pleas.  Second law is that in case of medical negligence cases heavy onus rest on the person who alleged medical negligence on the part of hospital, attending doctors ad staffs of the hospital.  Accordingly in this case in hand also heavy burden lies on the complainant to established his allegation levelled in the complaint against the opponent Doctors and staffs.  Various allegations has been made by the complainant but has failed to produce any evidence to established those.  The complainant has produced medical prescriptions, test reports, discharges certificate including medical bill towards expenses including towards cost of medicine, charge paid for the tests etc, but has not made available a single evidence in order to established his allegation towards medical negligence of the opponent hospital including treating doctors and staffs.  On the other hand the opponent director and medical officer of Jagnyaseni Hospital, Jharsuguda with others opponent through their reply mentioned in show cause have denied any negligence made by them while treating and operating the deceased patient in their hospital, who have vary clearly have claim to have maintain proper care while providing treatment and during operation what is required for a competent hospital and doctors.

 

7. If we discuss the allegation as per the complaint, the complainant submitted that without waiting for the blood test report the O.P.No.1 had done L.S.C.S of his deceased wife and thereafter operated her with his team very negligently without taking care has not been established by any evidence when those have been denied by the opponents.  Further allegations relating injection of wrong medicine to the deceased at O.T which stopped the urine output has also not been proved by any evidence.  Further charging of extra charge towards the costs of medicine made available by the O.P Hospital has not been proved by any clear-cut evidence.  The complainant’s allegation against the O.P.No.1 to the fact that he did not perform the operation by using fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill and should not have made any experiment from bringing the child forcefully from the womb of its mother which was not necessary is also not established. So on the whole all most all allegations relating to medical negligence against opponents Hospital, doctors, and staffs when those have been specifically denied by the opponents has not been proved by the complainant due to wants of clear and cogent evidence and also on production of anything contrary to the medical literature.  On the other hand the action taken by the opponent in affording treatment even to the patient and undertaken the operation and the method of treatment adopted by them cannot be stated to be medical negligence on their parts. Apex Court judgment reported 2011(1) Apex Court Judgment 023(SC), relied upon by the opponent has clearing the meaning of medical negligence which means a simple lack of care and error of judgment of an accident is not proof the negligence on the part of medical professionals. So long a Doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot hold liable for negligence merely because a better alternatives cause or method of treatment was also available or simple.  Because a more skilled Doctors would not have chosen to follow a resort to the practice or procedure which the accused follows.  In this case as we have mentioned above the complainant could not adduce any evidence to established negligence of the opponents Hospital, Doctors and staffs, we find not merit in this complaint of the complainant.  Under the above facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the materials on record due to wants of concrete proof of, the complaint is dismissed with no costs to either parties.       

                                

Accordingly the C.C case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 28^th day of December 2017.Free copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule. 

 

          I Agree.                                     I Agree                                                                                                           

                                         

       A.Nanda, Member (W)          S.K.Ojha, Member                        S.L.Behera, President  

                                   

Dictated and corrected by me.

 

     S.L.Behera, President