Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 30.08.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs. 19,00,000/- by way of compensation for negligent medical service to Kamla Devi along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case till final payment.
2. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.

2. The facts asserted by the complainant are being narrated below in brief :-

1. The complainant is the husband of Kamla Devi who (Kamla Devi) felt serious pain in her abdomen for which she was taken to Shekhar Shaiya Chikitshalaya and Surgicare, Hanuman Nagar, Patna where she was examined by Dr. Kamla Kant Rakesh and Dr. Madhavi on 30.09.2005 who prescribed certain medicine and required U.S.G. abdomen and other Pathological test done prior to resumption of proper treatment. As per their direction examination of blood and urine was got done at Durga Diagnostic Patho Lab by Dr. Sanjay kumar of Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna. U.S.G. Ultrasound of abdomen was done at Chaudhary Digital Imagine and research Centre, Rajendra Nagar, Patna on 01.10.2005 which indicated “Slit right sided by hydronephrosis and hydroureter due to a 5 mm large right distal ureteretic calculus 2.7 cm large hyper echoic nodule in uterine body and fendus anteriorly fibroid”. Examination of blood indicated 9.7 gms of hemoglobin against the normal value of 14.5 gms, 83% neutrophil was found against the normal value of 55-65%.
2. After perusing the test report and U.S.G. Dr. Kumar Kamla Kant Rakesh prescribed certain medicine on 03.10.2005 but there was no relief. Thereafter Kamla devi was taken to PMCH, Patna where she was examined  as a out door patient on 18.10.2005 vide out door ticket no. F-16037 where she was required to undergo certain pathological tests including X-ray, U.S.G.whole abdomen, she was admitted in the department of surgery in the unit of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh on 19.10.2005.
3. During the course of treatment, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh of Patna Medical College advised transfusion of blood to the tune of 500 C.C. but without testing that is, without ascertaining cross-matching the blood was transfused on 28.10.2005 in a very negligent manner which caused immediate breathlessness, rash, itching etc. over the whole body due to which it was subsequently discontinued and thus the lower level of hemoglobin could not be improved. The level of neutrophil which was excessively high could not also be reduced and Kamla Devi was made to undergo surgery under G.A. (Ether) and incision hysterectomy was done. Her bladder was opened and uterus explored but as the operative note says no stone was detected. As the operative note says that bladder was closed within two layers a drain (pipe) was given in pelvis and the wound was closed. The drain given in pelvis was removed on 04.11.2005 under direction of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh.
4. Even after operation the symptom of disease of Kamla Devi did not recede rather there was gradual swelling in stomach and pelvis followed by fever regarding which the attention of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and junior house surgeon attached to him were drawn but they did not take care and the condition of Kamla Devi began worsening. Thereafter on 09.11.2005 the Doctor attending Kamla Devi requested Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, professor of Patna Medical College for seeking his advice but Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh did not visit the cottage where patient was lying under treatment. As her condition began worsening hence pathological test such as Bacteriological examination of urine, W.B.C. hemoglobin, blood urea etc. were directed to be done from Jaipuriar Clinic, Nala Road, Patna – 4 which showed presence of E. Coli, increased Neutrophils 92% against the normal value of 40-75% and decreased hemoglobin of 7.8 gms against the normal value of 12-16 gms.
5. Inspite of the fact that pathological test indicated growing count of neutrophils which may cause infection inside the body without any apparent disease. It is stated that in view of the progressively growing count of Neutrophils which causes infectious inside the human body without any apparent disease and sure to cause repaid infection in an operated body. Kamla Devi ought to have been provided with specific treatment but that was not done and the medicine meant for treatment of malaria was prescribed without ascertaining the patient to be a patient of malaria also.
6. The further grievance of the complainant is that despite aforemention fact, the Doctor had got so many pathological test done at the cost of patient but the doctor never advised or prescribed any test relating to malaria before prescribing the medicine and this shows broad negligence on the part of doctor. The patient continued in the treatment of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh for nearly three weeks without any improvement in her condition rather when her condition became detoriating she was discharged on 14.11.2005 with prescription of medicine to be taken after discharge from the hospital which included the specific medicine (Lariago Ample) to be admistered intra muscularly and with further written advice was to consult physician but oral advice was to consult Dr. Ashok Shankar Singh at his private clinic at Machchua toil Patna. As per aforesaid advised by surgeon, Kamla Devi was taken to private clinic of Dr. Ashok Shankar Singh who also did not take any trouble to know the gravity of the disease and prescribed certain medicines and assured the complainant that everything will be normal.
7. Thereafter, for better Medicare Kamla Devi was admitted to Magadh Hospital at Rajendra Nagar on 23.11.2005 where she was put under treatment of Dr. U.P. Singh who directed fresh pathological test which was done on 23.11.2005 and again on 24.11.2005 and in the report it is mentioned “Masive Ascites with multi Septations and loculation but no calculus was reported on visible part of ureter” for which she was operated at Magadh Hospital on 25.11.2005 at “Post Laporotomy damage to left ureter” with operative note “on opening the abdomen the whole abdomen was full of pus and urine, the ureter of (it) side was found to be badly damaged and there were losts of adhesion, Retroperetoneal and poretoned toileting was done and adhesive were lysed.”
8. It has been further asserted that there was pathological test in Magadh Hospital which showed the level of hemoglobin  as 7.5 gms against the normal value of 12-16 gms and despite this she was made to go under surgery.
9. It has been also asserted that Magadh Hospital in ultra sound showed that there was no calculus in visible part of ureter but final diagnosis contained in discharge ticket shows damage to left ureter. However Magadh Hospital discharged the patient on 06.12.2005 in a bid to conceal there act to medical negligence provided to Kamla devi. The complainant alleged that Magadh Hospital did not hand over the relevant papers with regard to Kamla Devi while discharging her from Hospital. Kamla devi could not be cured and was again taken to Dr. U.P. Singh in his S.K. Nursing Home & infertility research Institute at Tilak Nagar, kankarbagh, Patna and under his advice fresh pathological test were done at the place directed by Dr. U.P.Singh. ultrasound showed among others “encysted fluid collection measuring 22x21x11 cm large around 3 liter in volume” and hemoglobin only 42% which occurred due to negligence in properly sterilizing the internal operative portion of Kamla Devi resulted negative and as such she was admitted on 14.12.2005 at aforesaid Nursing Home and was again operated on 15.12.2005 by Dr. U.P.Singh but the condition of Kamla devi began detoriating and was rushed to Magadh Hospital again on the recommendation of Dr. U.P.Singh but she died on 16.12.2005 at Magadh Hospital at 8:06 due to septicaenia, that is due to blood poisoning shock and cardio – respiratory arrest.”

On behalf of opposite party no. 3 and 5 a written statement has been filed. Opposite party no. 5 i.e. Dr. Ashok Shankar Singh who had denied the allegation of complainant and stated that from the report of medical record it will be clear that wife of complainant was given proper medical care in PMCH and at no point of time opposite party no. 5 even refused to visit the cottage where wife of complainant was admitted. It has been further asserted that wife of complainant was brought to opposite party no. 5 on 15.11.2005. she was suffering from fibroid uterus and right ureteric stone. She had been treated in the department of surgery of PMCH earlier where hysterectomy was done and ureter was exploded for uretic stone. ( annexure – 9 of complaint petition).

In the post operative phase she was suffering from fever, weakness and indigestion. The patient had also culture report of jaipuriar clinic which clearly showed that the patient was suffering from urinary track infection (UTI) 10,000/- colonies per ml, sample of E.Coli. The patient also had a history of blood transfusion as told by the attendants of the patient. In these circumstances taking into consideration her post medical history as well as the bacteriological examination and her blood report the appropriate drugs were prescribed by the opposite party no. 5.

In sub para – A, B, C, D, E and F of written statement the opposite party no. 5 has given complete detail of the medicine and the line of treatment provided to Kamla Devi since the date of arrival in PMCH. It has been further asserted by opposite party no. 5 in his para – 5 of written statement that the complainant’s wife was brought to opposite party no. 5 on 15.11.2005. The opposite party no. 5 after prescribing medicine and necessary advice asked the wife of the complainant to visit again after completion of prescribed medicine course or earlier if her health did not improve but the complainant’s wife or complainant never visited to opposite party no. 5 again. The opposite party no. 5 has asserted that there was latches on the part of complainant because he never visited opposite party no. 5.

Opposite party no. 3 Dr. U.P. Singh has also filed written statement denying the allegation of the complainant. He has further stated that deceased Kamla Devi was treated at various hospitals by different Doctors hence he restricted his reply to only those parts that directly concerned him. He has stated that the ultrasonography report of the patient at the time of her admission in Magadh hospital clearly showed multiseperated collection with no calculus in ureter. It also showed that the abdomen of the patient was full of pus and urine. Since the patient Kamla Devi was suffering from acute abdomen, immediate surgery was required. However her hemoglobin level was extremely low hence she was given blood transfusion on 23.11.2005 the day she was admitted in the hospital and again on 24.11.2005. Third unit of blood was given to her on 25.11.2005. The complainant has concealed the fact of her blood transfusion only to mislead this court. The medical records of the patient being annexed amply prove the falsity of the statements of the complainant and his malafide intentions. The records make it clear that the patient was operated upon only after transfusing three units of blood. Thereafter on 29.11.2005 the patient become absolutely normal and all her tubes were removed, the house surgeon noted down in his report that there was no pain at present and patient had flatus. From 02.12.2005 the patient was given oral diet. She was discharged on 05.12.2005 after removal of all stitches and was advised to come for checkup after one month. The complainant alleges that he was not provided the relevant papers at the time of the patient discharge, which again is a blatant lie, since he himself received the discharged summary and all investigation papers from the hospital and put his signature after receiving the same. It has been further asserted that the patient Kamla Devi was again brought to S.U. Nursing Home on 14.12.2005. when her ultrasonography report showed inserted collection measuring 3 liter in volume. Since the patient had developed peritonitis, immediate laprotomy was required. The complainant alleges that though the patient’s hemoglobin level was only 42% she was operated upon. It is stated that the danger in such cases is in delay and not in the operation. Report published in various medical journals being annexed herewith clearly show that there is no evidence that anaemia delays in healing. Further it will be clear from the annexures that hemoglobin level is no longer a criteria requiring blood transfusion and that necessary transfusion is not only a waste but high level of hemoglobin can be harmful. The report of various medical journals dealing with the treatment with shock clearly shows that nowhere blood has been advised in treatment of shock. The treatment of shock is to treat the cause, not to give blood transfusion.

We have narrated the case of both sides briefly in order to record our findings. From record it further appears that out of six opposite parties only opposite party no. 3 Dr. U.P. Singh and opposite party no. 5 Dr. Ashok Shankar Singh have filed written statement. Other opposite parties have not filed any written statement.

The complainant has alleged negligency on the part of opposite parties and asserted that line of treatment as given by opposite parties was not accepted method in medical science to be adopted in the treatment of wife of the complainant Kamla Devi who died on 16.12.2005. He has further asserted that Magadh Hospital has not given relevant papers at the time of discharge. On behalf of complainant several pathological report as well as medical prescription of various Doctors have been annexed in order to show negligence on the part of opposite parties. Opposite party no. 3 Dr. U.P. Singh and opposite party no. 5 Dr. Ashok Shankar Singh have denied the allegation of the complainant and have given complete detail of their line of treatment with name of the medicine as well as reason of using the medicine. On behalf of opposite party no. 3 several pathological report as well as record of Magadh Hospital including Doctors’ s progress report etc. have been filed in support of their line of treatment as well as the bonafide action taken by him in the case of complainant’s wife. It will not be proper for us to narrate and discuss the counter view of the parties but it is worth mentioned that opposite party no. 3 and 5 are Doctors and being expert their opinion carries much weight.

The facts asserted by opposite party no. 3 and 5 have not been countered by complainant by filing rejoinder and necessary documents which may prove that the fact asserted by opposite party no. 3 and 5 and the documents annexed by opposite party no. 5 by way of annexures are not worthy of any evidence and hence these can not be relied. The complainant has filed only written arguments repeating the same fact which is nothing but a surmises and conjecture and based upon the apprehension and presumption of the complainant who is not expert rather than a lay man while the documents annexed by opposite party no. 5 and view and facts asserted by opposite party no. 3 and 5 can not be brushed side in absence of cogent evidence. There is no report of any independent agency having specific knowledge in the field of medicine and surgery to prove that line of treatment adopted by opposite party no. 3 and 5 and other opposite parties are against the medical norms and has been used against the guide line of medical counsels and established medical procedure.

It is needless to say that it is duty of complainant to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt with cogent evidence which is lacking in this case.

It goes without saying that it has been held in cantena of decisions that the medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.

From the written statement of opposite parties it appears to us that they have taken reasonable care and exercise reasonable degree of skill and as such they cannot be saddled with the stigma of negligence on the basis of assertion and documents filed by the complainant.

No purpose will be served in repeating the same fact again and again.

In view of the fact and discussion we find no substance in the allegation of the complainant and as such this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.

                             Member                                                                              President