HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY,MEMBER
The instant Complaint Case, U/s 17(1)(a)(i) of the C.P.Act 1986 is directed by the Complainant being wife of the patient since deceased, with allegation of deficiency in service and resultant medical negligence against the OPs, and also with prayer for compensation of Rs.23,64,575/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs sixty four thousand five hundred seventy five) including the cost of treatment with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the Complaint Case till the date of passing the order, and also with prayer for further interest @12% per annum for the period from the date of the order till the date of actual payment.
Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the materials on record, are that the husband of the Complainant was admitted on 27/12/2012 to Peerless Hospital and B.K.Roy Research Centre with the problem of “frequent micturition” where “bed sore” developed in the patient concerned. After few days of release from the said hospital the patient again suffered from “micturition” when the patient was admitted to M/s May Fair Hospital Pvt. Ltd. on 19.1.2013 where the condition of the patient having not improved during three days stay there, the patient was taken to Command Hospital (EC) where vacant bed having not been available the patient concerned was admitted to OP-1-Research Centre on 22.1.2013 under the treatment of OPs- 2 and 3- Doctors who for arresting Bed Sore advised for “Plastic Surgery in the nature of grafting from the Thighs” which was done on 11.2.2013 for about 4-5 hours . After such operation when the patient concerned was taken to Bed the patient concerned was found to be “completely unresponsive” as revealed from the Petition of Complaint. After the said operation on 11.2.2013 the patient was shifted to ICU on 13.2.2013 and after a couple of days “both hands and chest” of the patient concerned was put under bandage as revealed from the Petition of Complaint. Ultimately on 25.2.2013 the patient concerned expired due to “SPETICAEMIA WITH MULTIORGAN FAILURE, GRADE IV INFECTED PRESSURE SORE, ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY AND HYPERTENSION” as revealed from the Death Certificate (13-01-22-0005880) dated 25/2/2013 of OP-1 Research Centre, as available on records. It is alleged in the Petition of Complaint that due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of the OPs , particularly on behalf of Op-1, the husband of the Complainant had to succumb to death.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that after “Plastic Surgery” by OP-3 Doctor at OP-1 Research Centre on 12.2.2013 when the patient concerned was taken out of OT, the patient was found “unresponsive”, and thereafter on 13.2.2013 the patient was shifted to ICU for mechanical ventilation , which clearly indicates deficiency in service as well as defect in Plastic Surgery.
Ld. Advocate further submits that “Septicemia, acute kidney injury and hypertension” being the causes of death of the patient concerned as noted in the ‘Death Certificate’ dated 25.2.2013, have not been noted in any of the Prescriptions of the patient concerned, which clearly indicates deficiency in diagnosis as well as medical negligence on behalf of the OPs-2 and 3- Doctors and vicarious deficiency in service on behalf of the OP-1- Research Centre.
Ld. Advocate also submits that as in the Prescription concerned with admission there was no noting of “kidney infection” so kidney infection developed in course of treatment by the OPs 2 and 3-Doctors at OP-1- Research Centre, which also indicates deficiency in service on behalf of the OPs 2 and 3- Doctors and unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP-1 -Research Centre.
Ld. Advocate continues that in the Prescription concerned there was no noting by OPs 2 and 3-Doctor of “Septicemia” , which also indicates deficiency in service and resultant medical negligence on behalf of the OPs 2 and 3- Doctors.
Ld. Advocate also submits that as the OP-1-Research Centre has failed to ensure careful and diligent service on behalf of the OPs 2 and 3 Doctors who were engaged with the OP-1- Research Centre for providing careful and diligent service, so the OP-1 Research Centre is also vicariously liable for death of the patient concerned.
Ld. Advocate concludes that the aforesaid submission indicates the deficiency in service and resultant medical negligence on behalf of the OPs 2 and 3-Doctors and unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP-1 Research Centre, and hence the instant Complaint Case should be allowed and relief of compensation as prayed for be awarded in view of the permanent loss of company of the patient concerned, since deceased.
On the other hand, ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that Ops 2 and 3- Doctors treated the patient concerned with standard treatment protocol and hence there was no deficiency in service and medical negligence on behalf of the Ops 2 and 3 -Doctors.
Ld. Advocate continues that the ‘kidney injury’ is not related to ‘Plastic Surgery’ and Ops 2 and 3-Doctors who performed the Plastic Surgery should not be held liable for ‘kidney injury’.
Ld. Advocate also submits that ‘Diabetes Mellitus’ the patient was suffering from, was duly taken care of by Ops 2 and 3-Doctors , which indicates careful and diligent service on behalf of the OPs 2 and 3- Doctors.
Ld. Advocate also submits that the patient concerned had history of earlier Diabetic Mellitus and Bed Sore and infection in ureter for which the OPs 2 and 3- Doctors cannot be held liable .
Ld. Advocate continues that the instant Complaint Case suffers from non-jonder of parties being Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy Research Centre and May Fair Hospital Pvt. Ltd. where the patient was admitted.
Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission the instant Complaint Case should be dismissed.
Heard both the sides, considered their respective submissions and perused the materials on record.
Prescriptions dated 22/1/2013, 23/1/2013, 25/1/2013, 29/1/2013, 3/2/2013, 4/2/2013, 15/2/2013, 21/2/2013, 22/2/2013, 23/2/2013, 24/2/2013 and 25/2/2013 as available on records , do not reveal any noting by the OPs 2 and 3-Doctors of ‘clinical symptoms’ of the patient concerned and diagnosis of the disease by Ops 2 and 3- Doctors in view of the ‘clinical symptoms’.
In no Prescriptions as referred to above there is any mention of suffering of the patient concerned from “SPETICAEMIA WITH MULTIORGAN FAILURE, GRADE IV INFECTED PRESSURE SORE, ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY AND HYPER TENSION” as noted in the ‘Death Certificate’ as causes of death, and such absence of noting of diagnosis in the Prescription clearly indicates deficiency in service and resultant medical negligence on behalf of the OPs 2 and 3-Doctors. In this context reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in HardwariLal –Vs- Dr. A.K.Agarwal and Dr. Anil Kumar Agarwal, reported in IV (2017) CPJ 218 (NC) wherein it was held “the Prescription/slips do not record any symptom of the disease ……..determine the question of medical negligence”.
It is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sabita Garg –Vs- Director, National Heart Institute , reported in 2014(4) 258 (SC) that the Complaint Case should not be dismissed for non joinder of parties.
The foregoing discussions and referred decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission lead to the conclusion that the instant Complaint Case deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly.
The OPs 2 and 3-Doctors are directed to pay to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of the order, Rs.8 lakhs each (Rupees eight lakhs) as compensation for permanent loss of the complainant of the company of the patient concerned and resultant mental agony, and OP-1 is directed to pay to the Complainant within the above mentioned period compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs (Rupees seven lakhs) , failing which the OPs shall be liable for payment of interest @ 9% per annum to the Complainant for the entire period of default.
