SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER

 This is to consider  an application being No. IA/1007/2022 filed by the OP No. 2/Doctor.

The instant Interlocutory Application  has been filed  praying for  appointment of an expert in the matter  and  an opinion  be sought as  to whether there was  actually any deficiency in service by the OPs.

The Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 2 has submitted that   the patient was suffering from and  complaining  of Single Vessel CAD, Ischaemic DCM, Trifascicular Block, Type-II Diabetes Mellitus & Hypertension,  Frequent LRTI (MSSA), IHD, T-II DM, Renal insufficiency, anemia, deficiency anemia, renal Parenchymal disease, Dyseletrolytemia UTI, IHD, DCM, CCF with swelling of hole body, occasional fever  nausea & anorexia etc.

The standard treatment  protocol of this complication   is prolonged and difficult  procedures stretched over a  protracted period of time. The condition of the  patient was very poor and the treatment  is complicated  over a long period of  time. Therefore, to determine whether there is actual medical negligence regarding the treatment   of the patient  by the OPs it is necessary to appoint an expert of Govt. Hospital in the field of concerned department who has  vast knowledge  in this field and experience in treating such kind of complication. Therefore, the  Ld. Advocate  prays for sending the case record with all  treatment papers to any Government Hospital which would form an  expert committee to give their  opinion. Hence he has prayed for  allowing the Interlocutory Application.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted the written objection against the Interlocutory Application.  The complainants have gone through the content of the Interlocutory Application and have stated that the Interlocutory Application  has been  filed with ulterior motive  and mala fide intention.

The  original  Complaint  being No. 174 of 2017 has been filed  on the ground of implantation of a defective pacemaker resulting  to death  of the patient being the father and the natural guardian of the complainants. The instant Interlocutory Application is  in complete derogation of the original complaint application since the contents of the    instant Interlocutory Application is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to mislead   this Commission inter alia stating false and fabricated statements which are contrary to the facts and  circumstances of the original complaint  application.  The Ld. Advocate for the complainants has also submitted that the expert opinion regarding the implantation of the defective pacemaker is already on the record which is evident from running page 28 of the complaint petition. Therefore, there is no need for appointment of an expert and the instant IA is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Upon hearing   the parties and on perusal   of the materials on record it appears that the petition of complaint  has been filed with allegation  of medical negligence. The complainants have alleged  that their father expired  due to negligence on the part of the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 2.  It appears from  running page 28 that  the opinion has been given by the Doctor Arijit Ghosh of AMRI Hospital. If we can  consider the  negligence   on the part of the  OPs No. 1 & 2 only relying upon these document, there would be  no need to proceed with the  case by  following all the stages such as evidences, questionnaire, reply by the parties  and so on.

On perusal of entire materials on record,   we find that  this is an allegation of medical negligence by the Complainant. The Complainants have alleged that their father expire due to implantation of defective pacemaker for wrong and negligent act on behalf of the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 . Therefore,  it would be  closed to collect  a report from the Expert Committee formed by a Government Hospital for proper adjudication of the case. Considering the allegation  as brought  by the complainants ,we  are of the view that  an Expert Committee report would be helpful in coming to the proper  conclusion whether  there was any sort of medical negligence  in the  treatment of the patient or not.  Whether  the sufferings of the patient was due to the implantation of wrong  pacemaker  as alleged by the complainants or not that would be  more clear after receiving  Expert’s opinion.

Hence the application being No. IA/1007/2022 is allowed on contest and the  office is directed to send  the documents along with the application, written version etc. to the concerned authority of IPGME&R and SSKM Hospital, Kolkata for examination of report  about the alleged negligence  against  the OP NO. 1-Hospital and the doctor OP No. 2 The OP No. 2 is  directed to  produce  all the relevant documents  for serving to  those IPGME&R   and SSKM Hospital, Kolkata within 20 days before this Office.  The concerned authority of IPGME&R and SSKM Hospital, Kolkata is requested to examine those documents  by forming  an expert  committee in the  treatment  of the patient and  to  submit its report  by 25.09.2023.

The office is directed to do the needful to collect the relevant documents from the OP No. 2 for sending those documents to the    Superintendent of IPGME&R and SSKM Hospital, Kolkata at once.    

The Interlocutory Application being No. 1007/2022 is allowed on contest and disposed of accordingly.

Fix 25.09.2023 for  report from the Expert Committee.

IA being No. IA/1007/2022 is, thus, disposed of accordingly.