This appeal follows against the final order dated 27/03/18 delivered by the Ld. DCDRF Dakshin Dinajpur in reference to CC Case No. 45 of 2018. The fact of the case in nutshell is that one Shahidul Mullah, the respondent of this appeal, has registered a consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum to the effect that due to some physical problem and appendititis pain he went to the Life Care Nursing Home where one unknown Doctor attached to that Nursing Home detected appendicotary problem and suggested for operation.  After some medical tests, the Doctors attached to the same Nursing Home has operated the appedicotary problem on 12/04/17 but strangely name of the Doctor who operated the same and his registered No. was not mentioned in the prescriptions.  He was discharged from the said Nursing Home after few days. On 26/04/17 the complainant again came to the same Nursing Home where he complained about some physical problems he was sustaining during post operation  recovery period. Some medicines were prescribed but no relief was there. The complainant then attended one Dr.  Ganesh Biruli at Balurghat who has conducted some medical tests and detected the lumber problem of the complainant but his relief could not be cured there so he was compelled to attend the NRS Medical College and Hospital at Calcutta where it was detected that at the time of anaesthesia for operation of appedicotary spinal portion, the injury was inflicted in the back of the complainant. As a result of such injury, the complainant has become inactive and cannot stand and walk without support of waist belt prepared by the Orthopaedics. And he has become handicapped and absolutely there is no chance of recovery from the said injury. The further case of the complainant is that he has become inactive in a very tender age being a day labourer having family and kids. Due to wrong anaesthesia on the part of the physician attached to the OP Nursing home, he has lost every chance to come back to his normal life and daily work. So, he has registered a consumer compliant claiming compensation. The OP Nursing home has contested the case b y filing the written version and contended that the consumer complaint was not sustainable in law as because it has barred by law of limitation and defective for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary party. The positive case of the Op is that the petitioner at the initial stage of his sufferings, he was treated by one doctor Manoj Jha at Malda, where it was detected that he was suffering from appendicitis which was not mentioned intentionally in the consumer complaint. The further case of the OP, is that no operation was there on 26/4/2017 in the Nursing home of the OP, rather he was admitted in the nursing home on 11/4/2017 and after proper investigation the Appendectomy operation was conducted by one renowned physician of north Bengal Dr. HP Mandal and he was discharged from nursing home on 16/4/2017. The Nursing home and the attending Doctor has properly treated the patient with utmost care and no negligence on t heir part and the allegation that his spinal portion of injury was committed at that time of Anaesthesia was not correct one and it is hypothetical and false. The anaesthesia was done by a skilful doctor M Das in a proper manner and all sorts of medical assistance and support system was provided to the patient and no negligence was there on the part of the nursing home and its doctors. So the consumer complainant was liable to be dismissed. The Ld. Forum after recording the evidence and after hearing both sides, has delivered the impugned final order where it was settled by the Forum that a 27 years old and able-bodied man has been turned into a handicapped person due to negligent of treating doctors engaged by the OP nursing home and for that reason, the OP nursing home and its proprietor was directed to pay rupees 5 lakh as compensation including the litigation cost towards the complainant of this case. Being aggrieved with the order, this appeal follows on the ground that the order was misconceived, erroneous and contrary to the law and without proper application of mind and the judgment delivered by the Ld. Forum is an irregular one and is liable to be set aside. The appeal was registered in due time and it was admitted on merit and the respondent after receiving the notice of appeal has contested the case through ld. Advocates. The appeal was heard in presence of ld. Advocate of both sides,

Decision with reason,

Admitted position is that, the respondent S. Mollah suffering from appendititis problem attended the appellant Nursing Home on 11/04/17 where after some clinical tests he was advised for a appendictory operation which was held in the appellant Nursing Home on 12/04/17 and not on 26/04/17 as mentioned by the complainant in his consumer complaint. He was discharged from there on 16/04/17. within a short span of time.  From the date of such operation he realised severe back pain. He again approached the appellant Nursing Home for such back pain where he was advised some routine medicines for conventional treatment but no relief was there from such back pain and he then went to another institution for treatment where MRI was prescribed and MRI report suggests heterogeneous signal changes with enhancement seen from L4-L5 vertebra with perimerginal and periend plate destruction of above vertebra called. Pott’s spine. Destroyed vertebral body component was causing mild pressure on thickal sack para vertebral soft tissue signal changes were seen. After MRI he came to NRS Medical College and Hospital at Calcutta where the said discitics was found and attended doctor opined that such discitics following spinal anaesthesia for apendicotary operation.  Thereafter the patient went to Manipal Hospital for continuance of such treatment. The complainant basically feels medical negligence on the part of the attending Dr of appellant Nursing home on the ground that NRS Medical College and Hospital in discharge certificate categorically mentioned that discitis was developed for heterogeneous signal changes with enhancement seen from L4-L5 vertebra with spots find destroyed vertebral body component which was held due to spinal anaesthesia prior to apendicotary operation which was held on 12/04/17 at the appellant Nursing Home. Now the question is whether such report of NRS Medical College and Hospital is acceptable or not as because no medical expert opinion was sought for from the end of the complainant or from the end of Ld. Forum. Rather the medical officer attached to NRS Hospital was not called as witness to proof such report dated 23/06/17. At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate of the appellant mentions that the treating doctor of NRS Medical College and Hospital was not summoned by the Ld. Forum nor he was added as a party in the case and no corroborative evidence was there to prove the contents of the said report as genuine one.

 He further submits that there was a simple misinterpretation of English language in the finding of the Ld. Forum that the diagnosis discitis following spinal anaesthesia for appendectomy which is simply means that the complainant was found to be suffering from discitis after a spinal anaesthesia for appendectomy. The word ‘following’ has been used as the word ‘after’.

 The said report of NRS Medical College and Hospital nowhere stated that there was a gross negligence on the part of the appellant. The discharge certificate simply denotes the series of events that was evident on record. The complainant was suffering from discitis which was detected after the operation of appendectomy. But such discitis was not occurred due to the said operation.

He further argued that discitis is nothing but an inflammation that develops between the inter-vertebral discs of the spine. These discs are located between the vertebra spaces between them are called inter vertebral discs spaces. Swelling in this spaces can put pressure on the discs leading to pain.

He further argued that in the MRI report of the complainant there was found Pott’s spine. The Pott’s disc is a form of tuberculosis that occurs outside the lungs whereby disease is seen in the vertebra, Tuberculosis can effect several tissues outside the lungs including the spine. So, it is evidently clear that discitis can be caused due to the tuberculosis of spine.

 The Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of his turn during the course of hearing submitted that the word ‘following’ inserted in the first line of the diagnosis by the medical officer of NRS dated 23/06/17 suggests that discitis was the result for the spinal anaesthesia for appendicotary.

He further referred that after post operation MRI shows that due to such anaesthesia injection there was destruction of vertebral body component which causing mild pressure on the thickal sack which was causing the problem of discitis in L4-L5 of vertebra discs.

Ld. Advocate in his argument further mentioned that in a case of medical negligence, there is no need to call the medical expert or to obtain expert opinion in all cases where the negligence is apparent on its face.

He further mentioned that in this case no doctor or physician has been impleaded as because the hospital authority issued the prescriptions and medical papers where the name of the doctors and the registration number was not inserted which was unethical on the part of the Nursing Home Authority. The Hospitals are Intuitions where, people expect better and efficient service. If the hospital fails to discharge their duties through their doctors being employed and by not impleading a particular doctor will not absolve hospital of their responsibilities.

Ld. Advocate of the respondent further argued that the medical officer of NRS Medical College and Hospital was not a necessary party to this case as because he has rendered medical treatment of the patient at first stage who found the discits in the spine of the complainant due to anesthesia injection pushed before the appendectomy operation. The problem of discits was developed for pre-operation anesthesia and this position is well enough to prove the medical negligence on the part of the appellant Nursing Home.

After careful watch of the prescriptions and medical papers of Life Care Nursing Home in reference to the treatments of the respondent Sahidul Mollah, it is found that the name of the doctor and his medical degree as well as the registration number of the attending doctor are not mentioned in the prescriptions which is nothing but shows hazardous treatment on the part of the Life Care Nursing Home and this attitude of the Life Care nursing home clearly implied that the proprietor of the said nursing home has intentionally avoided to mention the name of the doctors and their registration numbers in the prescriptions in order to seal them from their liabilities for their failure on account of not rendering proper medical service towards the patient concerned.

So, the gross negligence on the part of the Nursing Home Authority is clearly established in this case and Ld. Forum without any hesitation has opined that the gross negligence was there on the part of the Nursing Home Authority and there was gross deficiency of service of the Nursing Home Authority due to negligence by the treating doctors and thus liability on the part of the Nursing Home Authority cannot be overlooked. So, in apparent, we find no gross irregularity or miss-appreciation of facts and laws on the part of the Ld. Forum. It is rather established during the course of hearing of the appeal. And so the Commission thinks it fit not to interfere with the order of the Ld. Forum.

Thus, the appeal fails to stand on its leg.

Hence, it is,

Ordered,

That is appeal be and the same, is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and also to be sent to the Concern Ld. DCDRF by e-mail.