In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.258/2006
1) Prasanta Kumar Kanjilal,
5D, Durgapur Lane, P.S. Chetla,
P.O. Alipore, Kolkata-27, Dist. South 24 Parganas. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) N.G. Medicare & Calcutta Hope Infertility Clinic,
123A, Rash Behari Avenue,
Kolkata-29, P.S. Bhowanipore.
2) Dr. Dipankar Sarkar, MDDM (PGI) Chandigarh
(Cann. Gastroenterologist),
123A, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-29, ---------- Opposite Parties
3) Dr. Debashis Bhattacharya, MBBS, MD,
30-B, Gobinda Auddy Road,
P.O. Alipore, Kolkata-27.
4) Dr. Karmabir Chakraborty,
Kothari Medical Centre,
8/3, Alipore Road, Kolkata-27. ---------- Proforma Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 59 Dated 27/05/2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that wife of the complainant was suffering from gastritis and she was under the treatment of Dr. Debashis Bhattacharya, proforma o.p. no.3 since 4.2.05. On 20.11.05 Dr. Debashis Bhattacharya advised blood sugar (P.P. test), which was done at Profile Diagnostic Centre, 31, Harish Mukherjee Road, and the report was given on 22.11.05 showing Plasma Glucose Post Prandial -76.0 mg/d1 reference range 70-140 mg/dl. It was also shown to Dr. Bhattacharya on 27.11.05. On 27.11.05 proforma o.p. no.3 advised UGI Endoscopy of the patient and examination of blood etc. accordingly on 12.2.05 and endoscopy was done by N.G. Medicare & Calcutta Hope Infertility Clinic / o.p. no.1 on payment.
On 13.12.05 in the evening the report of that UGI Endoscopy was given written by Dr. Dipankar Sarkar / o.p. no.2 of N.G. Medicare showing the flowing results;
Indications
Anorexia & nausea
Esophagus
Normal mucosa lumen and vasculature. No hiatus hernia.
Stomach
Rugal folds, gastric distensibility, & gastric mucosa normal. No erosion, ulcer or tumor. Central, circular normal pyloric opening.
Duodenum
No ulcer or scar. Normal upto D2.
Impression
1.Normal Study.
Said report was signed by o.p. no.2. However, encoscopy photograph was not supplied though full payment was made as demanded for doing the endoscopy.
On 14.12.05 the complainant visited proforma o.p. no.3 at his chamber with the endoscopy report and blood report. Upon seeing the reports proforma o.p. no.3 recorded that endoscopy report given by o.p.no.2 is normal and on that date he expressed his surprise that when the endoscopy report was normal then patient ought to have responded to the treatment, and he referred the patient to Dr. P.K. Sen at Hazra Road.
Complainant then took his wife to Kothari Medical Centre and consulted Dr. Karmabir Chakraborty / proforma o.p. no.4 on 20.12.05 and the doctor advised TC,DC,ESR, chest x-ray and also UGI Endoscopy fresh and the complainant paid consultation fees of Rs.500/-.
Endoscopy Findings
Esophagus : Normal mucosa
GE junction at 36 cms.
Stomach : Multiple erosion at the antrum.
Duodenum : Extensive ulceration at 1st and 2nd part.
Impression : Antral Erosions
Active duodenal ulcer.
Rapid Urease test for H.Pylori – Positive.
Biopsy : taken (Y/N) :- N
Remarks :
On 23.12.05 the complainant with that report and his wife called on proforma o.p. no.4. Upon seeing the report he found that the patient had serious and extensive ulcer and gave a prescription in which he prescribed two types of medicine.
The condition of the wife of the complainant became serious and in the morning of 25.12.05 the complainant immediately took to SSKM (PG) Hospital where the patient died on 25.12.05 itself at 12-05 p.m.
UGI Endoscopy report given by o.p. no.2 on 12.12.05 shows that everything was normal and there was no erosion or ulcer scar in the stomach; but the endoscopy report given by Kothari Medical Centre on 22.12.05, that is within 10 days, shows that in the stomach there was multiple erosions at the antrum. And in the duodenum extensive ulceration at 1st and 2nd part was seen.
Complainant wrote a letter dt.21.1.06 to the o.p. no.1 demanding the photograph of the endoscopy done on the patient. The said letter was received by o.p. no.1 on 20.1.06 itself.
On 2.2.06 Rajesh Goenka, Director of o.p. no.1 gave a reply to the above letter of the complainant dt.20.1.06 and refused to supply the endoscopy photograph taken on the patient ID No-L3401 dt.12.12.05, on the plea that providing an endoscopy photograph to the patient is not stated as mandatory in any text book of Gastro-enterology and is only a recent add-on carried out by some medical centres only.
It is stated that refusal to supply endoscopy photograph of the patient to the complainant is also an example of gross negligence on the part of o.p. no.1. Said endoscopy was done on payment, so the patient party was entitled to get the endoscopy photograph. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.1 and 2 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. nos.1 and 2 in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Proforma o.p. nos.3 and 4 did not contest the case and matter was heard exparte against proforma o.p. nos.3 and 4.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that wife of the complainant was suffering from gastritis and she was under the treatment of Dr. Debashis Bhattacharya, proforma o.p. no.3 since 4.2.05. On 20.11.05 Dr. Debashis Bhattacharya advised blood sugar (P.P. test), which was done at Profile Diagnostic Centre, 31, Harish Mukherjee Road, and the report was given on 22.11.05 showing Plasma Glucose Post Prandial -76.0 mg/d1 reference range 70-140 mg/dl. It was also shown to Dr. Bhattacharya on 27.11.05. On 27.11.05 proforma o.p. no.3 advised UGI Endoscopy of the patient and examination of blood etc. accordingly on 12.2.05 and endoscopy was done by N.G. Medicare & Calcutta Hope Infertility Clinic / o.p. no.1 on payment.
On 13.12.05 in the evening the report of that UGI Endoscopy was given written by Dr. Dipankar Sarkar / o.p. no.2 of N.G. Medicare showing the flowing results;
Indications
Anorexia & nausea
Esophagus
Normal mucosa lumen and vasculature. No hiatus hernia.
Stomach
Rugal folds, gastric distensibility, & gastric mucosa normal. No erosion, ulcer or tumor. Central, circular normal pyloric opening.
Duodenum
No ulcer or scar. Normal upto D2.
Impression
1.Normal Study.
And the said report was signed by o.p. no.2. However, encoscopy photograph was not supplied though full payment was made as demanded for doing the endoscopy.
It is seen from the record that on 14.12.05 the complainant visited proforma o.p. no.3 at his chamber with the endoscopy report and blood report. Upon seeing the reports proforma o.p. no.3 recorded that endoscopy report given by o.p.no.2 is normal and on that date he expressed his surprise that when the endoscopy report was normal then patient ought to have responded to the treatment, and he referred the patient to Dr. P.K. Sen at Hazra Road.
And complainant then took his wife to Kothari Medical Centre and consulted Dr. Karmabir Chakraborty / proforma o.p. no.4 on 20.12.05 and the doctor advised TC,DC,ESR, chest x-ray and also UGI Endoscopy fresh and the complainant paid consultation fees of Rs.500/-.
Endoscopy Findings
Esophagus : Normal mucosa
GE junction at 36 cms.
Stomach : Multiple erosion at the antrum.
Duodenum : Extensive ulceration at 1st and 2nd part.
Impression : Antral Erosions
Active duodenal ulcer.
Rapid Urease test for H.Pylori – Positive.
Biopsy : taken (Y/N) :- N
Remarks :
It transpires from the record that on 23.12.05 the complainant with that report and his wife called on proforma o.p. no.4. Upon seeing the report he found that the patient had serious and extensive ulcer and gave a prescription in which he prescribed two types of medicine.
We further find that the condition of the wife of the complainant became serious and in the morning of 25.12.05 the complainant immediately took to SSKM (PG) Hospital where the patient died on 25.12.05 itself at 12-05 p.m.
From the record we find that UGI Endoscopy report given by o.p. no.2 on 12.12.05 shows that everything was normal and there was no erosion or ulcer scar in the stomach; but the endoscopy report given by Kothari Medical Centre on 22.12.05, that is within 10 days, shows that in the stomach there was multiple erosions at the antrum. And in the duodenum extensive ulceration at 1st and 2nd part was seen.
Thereafter, complainant wrote a letter dt.21.1.06 to the o.p. no.1 demanding the photograph of the endoscopy done on the patient. The said letter was received by o.p. no.1 on 20.1.06 itself. On 2.2.06 Rajesh Goenka, Director of o.p. no.1 gave a reply to the above letter of the complainant dt.20.1.06 and refused to supply the endoscopy photograph taken on the patient ID No-L3401 dt.12.12.05, on the plea that providing an endoscopy photograph to the patient is not stated as mandatory in any text book of Gastro-enterology and is only a recent add-on carried out by some medical centres only.
Further case of the complainant is that refusal to supply endoscopy photograph of the patient to the complainant is also an example of gross negligence on the part of o.p. no.1. Said endoscopy was done on payment, so the patient party was entitled to get the endoscopy photograph.
In view of the discussions made above and going through the experts report of SSKM Hospital Authority communicated vide their memo no.SSKM / MSVP / 10256 dt.22.3.12 we find that medical board has opined that it was difficult for the complainant to substantiate the matter on merit on the basis of clinical circumstances of the case. Considering the above position we are left to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case.
Hence, ordered,
That the instant complaint case no.258/2006 is dismissed on contest without cost against o.p. nos.1 and 2 and ex parte without cost against proforma o.p. nos.3 and 4.
However, having reliance to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission passed in 2012 (4) CPR 12 (NC) in the matter of Chittaranjan Halder vs. M/s Dolphin Nursing Home and Ors. we find it just and proper to direct o.p. nos.1 and 2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) only each on exgratia basis in the context of the peculiar facts and circumstances disclosed on record within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
