This appeal is directed against the final order delivered by Ld. DCDRF Siliguri on 4/1/2018 in reference with Consumer Case No. 132/S/2014. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the complainant/respondent Dipa Gupta registered a consumer complaint to the effect that since her initial stage of pregnancy period she was undergone medical treatment under the care of Dr. Kabita Mantri. On 12/8/2014 she experienced immense pain of liver. The family members of Dipa again called Dr. Mantri for immediately attending the patient on emergency basis but Dr. Mantri did not attend the calls then the family members of Dipa was compelled to take the patient Dipa to Mitra Clinic and Nursing Home at Siliguri but the nursing home authority refused to admit the patient Dipa without the recommendation of Dr. Mantri as she was under the care of Dr. Mantri. Then the patient was taken to a nearby hospital known as New Ramkrishna Sebha Sadhan where Dr. Mantri attended her and on her recommendation she was again shifted back to Mitra Nursing Home where within 10 minutes Dipa delivered twin babies out of which one female still born. In the evening, of the same day Dipa experienced high blood intermillion fever, painful redness in the left eye with impaired vision and swelling of both lower limbs, legs and back gluteal reasons associated with difficulty in walking and moving and the whole lower part of the body was almost like a paralysis. Dr. Mantri after examining her advised the patient to be consulted with Dr. Sunil Singha, a retinal specialist Dr. Sunil Singha on examination found panophtalmids abd and prescribed some antibiotics and also found the necessity of surgical intervention. On 15th August instant 2014, the patient Dipa also felt severe pain in her lower back area and her left eye was swelling and practically no visibility was there. Seeing the alarming condition of Dipa, her relatives decided to take her to Apollo Hospital at Chennai. But Dr. Mantri resisted it but on the next day the relative of the patient seeing her deteriorative condition, decided to took her to Chennai Apollo for a better treatment by air service. Accordingly she was shifted to Chennai on 17/8/2014 and her treatment was started there and on physical examination at Apollo it was detected that the patient had grown erythematous noduls over left thigh, pain and swelling in both the legs, left eye proptosis with redness conjunctive conjunction and profuse vaginal discharge.
After thorough examination and proper clinical investigation it was detected that all this problems was cropped up due to the infection of the patient’s blood which extended to the whole body affecting major organs like legs, eyes, lungs and others and the dreaded infection was caused by the retain products of conception and dimension as large as 4cm x 3cm in the interior walls of the uterus which were left negligently by the Op No. 1 and was not taken out by the attending Dr. Mrs. Kabita Mantri during the delivery process of the patient.
After a prolong treatment of Chennai Hospital patient Dipa could recover from all problems but the left eye was seriously affected and for that reason she was referred to Sankar Netralay of Chennai where she got admission on 28/8/2014 where it was detected her left eye was completely destroyed due to defective delivery process during the termination of her pregnancy for the careless, reckless attitude on the part of the attending physician Dr. Kabita Mantri. Ultimately through a surgical process and operation her left eye was taken out. So the patient Dipa has registered the Consumer Complaint claiming compensation from Dr. Kabita Mantri as Op No. 1 and the two nursing homes as Op No. 2 and 3. Op No. 1 and 2 that is Dr. Kabita Mantri and family clinic has jointly filed a written version. And the same written version was adopted by Op No. 3 also that is Mitra Clinic and Nursing home. In their written version they have mentioned that the patient Dipa was primarily suffering from infertility after controlled ovarian hyper stimulation and subsequent natural intercourse she conceived in the month of January 2014. Her ultrasound examination shown interrater inviable sex stipulates she was advised to undergo fatal reduction at Calcutta where two fetuses was removed and ultimately reducing the number of live fetuses to two for few days the patient has vaginal spotting. Subsequent follow up of ultra sound detected normal she had anti partum hammarage lasting for a week, the cause of which remain obscure, further ultrasound did not reveal any plasentaprevia and she was managed conservatively. She had labour pain and admitted to the nursing home under care of Op No. 1 that is Dr. Kabita Mantri and through the passage of vaginal route two babies were removed, one was still born female and another was live born male baby in the normal course of delivery.
After post delivery on examination it was detected through placenta and membranes which reveals neither a retro placental clot which could have in this case considering the anti-partum hammarage nor any missing fragnant or incomplete delivery of membrances. After routine check up on 14th August 2014, Dr. Mantri had decided to release the patient on that day, but the patient complained of redness and swelling of the eye with pain for which she was immediately referred to Dr. Suprotik Banerjee MS, who diagnosis it a case of rapidly progressing panophthlamilis and referred her to be seen by a retinal specialist. A detail clinical examination of patient Dipa was carried out with special care by the Doctors to her pelvic parts but there was no bleeding and the uterus was found to be contracted and normal as in the immediate post partum period. On that very day the ultrasound of the abdomen of the patient was done and the report revealed by the radiologist that normalcy was there with empty uterus and no collection was there, on the same day the patient started having fever and severe pain in the legs and the lower backs, her eye condition remained as before and for that reason she was advised to betaken to a better centre and ultimately the patient party took the patient after discharging the patient from the nursing home to take her at Apollo Chennai .
The positive case of the Ops of this case confined to the allegations that the content of the consumer complaint was untenable, vexatious, devoid of any lawful basis and there was no carelessness or medical negligence on the part of the Ops and the patient party that is the complainant and the relatives has filed the instant complaint case only to secure some unlawful gains. The complainant Dipa Gupta was examined in this case where Dr. Kabita Mantri and Dr. KC Mitra were examined as Op No. 1 and 2. Ld. Forum after hearing both sides and after consulting the documents and evidences has decided the case on merit and found that Dr. Kabita Mantri, the Op No. 1 who happens to be the appellant of this case was found negligent to discharge her part of duty as gynecologists as well as specialist in the field of infertility and due to such reckless and negligent role on the part of Dr. Kabita Mantri, the complainant had to lose her left eye in a tender age and she had to suffer mentally and physically and for that reason Ld. Forum has awarded compensation in favour of the complainant/ patient Dipa Gupta asking the Op No. 1 to pay the compensations and being aggrieved with the said order this appeal follows on the grounds that finding of the Ld. Forum was based on wrong conception and the final order suffers from gross irregularity and mistakes and liable to be set aside.
The appeal was admitted on its merit and the consumer complainant as respondent no. 1 and the OP no. 2 and 3 of the consumer complainants that is family Clinic and the Mitra Clinic and Nursing Home as respondent no. 2 and 3 of this appeal cases were informed by notice. The respondent no. 1 Dipa Gupta and respondent no. 3 Mitra Clinic and nursing home has contested the appeal. The appeal was heard in presence of all sides through Ld. Advocates as their legal representatives.
Decision with reasons
During the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellant filed a petition before this Commission, under section 13(4) read with under order 41 rule 27 of cp code, praying for seeking opinion of the medical expert as additional evidence before hearing the argument of the appeal. The petition was turn down at the point of time on the ground that the appellant during the pendency of the consumer complaint case did not seek any permission from the ld. Forum to obtain any final report from medical expert as third party to the case. And at this appellant stage the commission found it was not reasonable to call for further evidence at the appellate stage before hearing the argument of the appeal and the said provisions of adducing further evidences were kept for the disposal during the final adjudication of the appeal. Now we shall have to first consider whether the judgment and final order challenged in the appeal suffer form any error or irregularity or not and secondly the commission shall have to find out whether for want of opinion of any medical expert. the adjudication process of the case was hampered or not. So in order to unearth the truth we shall have to discuss the merit of the case. Admittedly the respondent no. 1 Dipa Gupta since her date of conception was under the treatment Kavita Mantri and time to time the clinical examination through ultra sound was held to ascertain the actual positions of the foetus in the womb and reasonable process of treatment was adopted in this case but it was developed subsequently when the twin child was delivered out of which one foetus still born and then all the sufferings of the patient was started. It is contended on the part of the appellant that on 14/8/2014, the patient complained redness and swelling of her left eye with pain and then the appellant took necessary steps by referring the patient to eminent eye specialist Dr. Banerjee who digonised it a case of rapidly progressing panophthalamatis and refered her to be examined by a retinal specialist and for stop gap arrangement, broad spectrum anti biotic was started intravenously and on the same day dr. Sunil Singh, a retinal specialist examined the patient and advised her to take into a better centre for eye complication and for that reason, the patient was taken to Apollo hospital, Chennai. The appellant on her part had tried level best all along since the very first date of complication arose. She conducted a detail clinical examination of the patient with special care to pelvic parts and found no bleeding in the Uterus. The Uterus was found be contracted and normal as in the immediate post partem period and on that very date that is on 14/8/2014 the ultra sound of abdominal of the patient by a radiologist also detected it to be normal. So, the allegation of the complainant against the appellant for retaining of the products of conception of dimension as large as 4CM x 3Cm in interior wall of the Uterus is totally false and report of ultra sound dated 14/8/2014 supports the contention of the complainant. Her further argument is that for want of any expert opinion Ld. Forum has Judged the matter only on the basis of the allegation levelled against the consumer complaint where no medical evidence could be procured during the process of adjudication before the Ld. Forum. The decision of the ld. Forum was based on purely imagination without appreciating the actual position of the case. He further argued that the eye problem of the patient was a separate reason and that eye problem was not developed due to any fault of the appellant during the course of delivery of child of the patient. She further argued that the decision of the Ld. Forum over the RPOC that is retain products of conception is based on wrong conception and has failed to understand the meaning and purpose of the term RPOC. It is further argued on the part of the appellant that the Ld. Forum has based the findings over the report of appalo hospital (Annexure-A) though the said report has not been proved in the right manner. After going through the report of Apollo hospital, the commission finds that after thorough examination and clinical investigation, the medical experts of appalo hospital found retain product of conception and for that reason they have applied the process of suction evacuation under ultra sound guidance which indicates that there was utter negligence and deficiency of service of the gynaecologist who has done the deliver process of the patient. We konw very well that if there was any part of dead feouteous till remains in the uterus after post delivery there was every chance of infection and for that reason, the patient started to suffer of sever pain in her limbs along with damage of left eye. Ultimately after discharge from appalo hospital, Chennai, she was referred to Sankar Netralaya for her eye problem where the patient had to go through a surgical evisceration of the left eye and ultimately her left eye was taken out on 28/8/2014. So, utter negligence on the part of the appellate is very much reflected in this case and that negligence has to be seen in open eye and that negligence are not necessarily to be proved by the evidence of any medical expert. The maxim res ipsa loquitur is very much attracted in this particular case where, the condition of the patient immediately proves the utter negligence on the part of the attending doctor. Therefore, the finding of Ld. Forum not only based only on imagination but on the basis of cogent evidences which could be adduced by the complainant side during the course of adjudication process and such cogent evidences could not rebutted on the part of the appellant/opposite Parties. So, after all conclusion, the commission find that the decision of Ld. Forum does not suffer from any irregularity and infirmity and also does not attract any interference in the appellate stage. Accordingly the appeal devoids of any merit.
Hence, it is,
Ordered,
That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a copy of this ordered be supplied to partied free of cost and also to be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri by e-mail.
