Sri Biswa Nath Konat, President.
Sri Nitish Debnath being an ill-fated father has filed the instant case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite parties alleging deficiency and negligent act in providing medical service as to unfortunate death of her girl child with a prayer for issuing direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay of Rs.4,79,118/- as cost of medical treatment, compensation, cost of litigation and reliefs on different heads as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The facts of the case in brief as culled out from the record are that on 01. 04 2011 the complainant took his daughter namely Moumita Debnath aged about 17 yrs. To the MJN Hospital, Cooch Behar for her medical treatment who was suffering from high fever, vomiting etc. The attending doctor i.e. Opposite Party No. 3, Dr. J. Bhattacherjee finding her physical condition admitted her but after admission without visiting/checking the patient, verbally referred her to the NBMCH. Observing the deteriorating condition of the Patient, the complainant without taking any risk admitted her at Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre (here in after Nursing Home), Cooch Behar i.e. Opposite Party No.1 under Dr. Biswajit Das (here in after O.P no.4). Surprisingly, the O.P. NO.4 left station without prior intimation to the patient party during the course of treatment leaving the patient uncared and the Nursing Home Authority engaged Dr. Debashis Halder i.e. O.P No.2 for her treatment. On 09.04.2011 Dr. Halder prescribed one medicine after taking over the charge of the patient. The complainant purchased the said medicine and handed over it to the on duty Nurse. After 15-20 minutes of consuming the said medicine, the patient became senseless with foaming from the mouth. Observing the serious condition, the on duty nurse made contact with the O.P. No.4 over telephone and as per his telephonic advice the said nurse applied one after another medicine to the patient. At the said crucial period, Dr. Debashish Halder, was under charge of the patient never come for a single moment to visit the patient. Gradually, the condition of the patient become worse and on 10. 04. 2011, her right eye was found to be closed.
The complainant categorically alleged that neither any Doctor nor any nurse of the Nursing Home had ever provided any treatment to the patient in such a state of health of the patient in spite of repeated requests. Moreover, one Dr. attached with the Nursing Home, unnecessary called him in his chamber and rebuked him and endorsing the view that his patient might not survive. Being astonished and finding the critical condition the complainant made contact with Dr. B. Das who assured him that after a minor operation of the right eye of the patient she will be feel better within a short period. On 18.04.2011, his daughter started suffering from respiratory trouble and even at the stage; minimum service like facility of oxygen was not provided to the patient by the Nursing Home Authority. Incidentally, for want of proper care and medical service his daughter breathed her last on that very day at about 1-45 p.m. only for the negligent activities and callousness, lack of proper treatment of the doctors and poor service rendered by the nurses attached with the Nursing Home.
In such a situation, finding no other alternative, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking redress and relief(s) before this Forum.
The instant complaint filed on 07-09-2012 and the complainant has filed three I.P.Os of Rs.100/- each. The value of the complaint at valorem Rs.4,79,118/- and the complaint registered vide No. DF-59/2012.
It appears that on prayer of the Complainant the name of the O.P. No.3, Dr. J. Bhattacharjee has been deleted by order dated 11.06.2013 and the rest Opposite Parties in their turn contesting the case by filing separate W/V. The Opposite Party No. 1 being the proprietor of the Nursing Home in contesting the claim of the Complainant challenging the maintainability of the complaint. After made a long denial ultimately he admitted that the patient was admitted in his Nursing Home under Dr. B. Das and all sorts of service and proper treatment was provided to the patient. This O.P categorically averred that when Dr. Das on emergency went to Kolkata he referred the patient to Dr. D Halder and there is no question of appointment of Dr. Halder by this answering O.P. as such he has no negligence at all and no deficiency in service from the part of this O.P. This O.P. assailed that he always kept vigil over to all its patients and provided best service to the patient and in this way, this O.P or his Nursing Home compelled the complainant to continue the treatment of the patient in this Nursing Home. The further assertion of this O.P is that considering the health condition of the patient the attending doctor referred the patient higher centre twice on 11.04.11, 12.04.11 but the complainant failed to do that and decided to continue the treatment in this Nursing Home. After observing the critical condition of the patient this O.P took all sorts of measure for survival of the patient. Since there is no medical negligence on the part of this O.P. as alleged, prayed for dismissal of the case with cost as deem feet by the Hon’ble Forum.
The Opposite Party No.2 in its turn denied the entire allegations of deficiency in service and allegations of medical negligence as pleaded against him. This O.P categorically assailed that the patient was under his treatment for the period from 05.04.2011 to the morning of 08.04.2011. In course of his treatment, he diagnosed the disease of the patient was a case of Tubercular Meningitis and then he took second opinion from Dr. Anindya Kr. Roy, M.D. Neuro physician who also endorsed identical opinion. In such situation drug 4 Regime being appropriate one was prescribed to the patient as such he has not under the obligation of medical negligence and concluded his version with a prayer to dismiss the case.
O.P. No.4 by filing a separate written version contested the case contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form, facts as well as in law. This answering O.P categorically pointed out that after admission of the patient he prescribed necessary medicine and advised for some test of the patient. It is not within the knowledge of this O.P that Dr. J. Bhattacharjee i.e. O.P. No.3 of M.J.N. Hospital without examining the patient referred her to Uttar Banga Medical College and Hospital. As he had preoccupied schedule, he left the station on 04-04-2011 referring the patient to Dr. Debasish Halder, O.P. No.2 and inform the patient party accordingly. It is fact that for the period from 04-04-2011 to 08-04-2011 the patient was under the treatment of Dr. D. Halder and he rendered proper medical service with due care. The O.P. No.2 diagnosed the disease of the patient as Tubercular Meningitis; he also took second opinion of Dr. Anindya Kr. Roy, MD. Neuro, who opined the same and as a result O.P. No.2 prescribed the drug Regim which is a common medicine in case of Tubercular Meningitis. After returning and joining his duty, the O.P. No.4 taken over charged of the patient and by perusing the test report, the opinion of doctors, he continued treatment as per guideline of medical science and literature. It is false and duplicated statement of the complainant that the O.P. No.1 and this O.P did not allowed to take the patient for better treatment and forced him to continue the treatment of the patient in the Nursing home of the O.P. No.1. The actual state of appears is that on 11-04-2011 and 12-04-2011 this answering O.P advised to take the patient higher centre but on both occasions the complainant refused to take the patient. It is also not correct that on 09-04-2011 the O.P. No.2 handed over a prescription to bring the medicine because the Dr. Halder last visited the patient on 08.04.2011 till return of this O.P. Further contention of this O.P that he himself and other attending doctors rendered proper and adequate medical assistance to the patient in course of their treatment and inform the patient party as to the physical condition of the patient. Even on 18-04-2011 time to time proper medical support was given to the patient considering the critical condition of the patient. Finding the critical condition the patient was referred to higher centre but the complainant did not follow the advice rather made request to continue the treatment of the patient in the nursing home. As such there was no deficiency in service or medical negligence as alleged. By putting all this as above this O.P also prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
Evidence on affidavit has been filed by the complainant but there was no new point came out for consideration. It appears from the record is that the conduct of the agent of the Opposite Parties is not so good. On several days the Ld. Agent remained absent even on the dates for argument also. No written Argument has been filed by the Ld. Agent of the Opposite parties. The case has been registered on 07.09.2012, the matter is delayed on several ground and before delivery of Final Order this Forum intend to procure an Expert Report. After elapsing more than one year this Forum received the Expert Opinion from the North Bengal University on 29.05.2014. After receiving the said report this Forum has given opportunity to the parties to argue the matter on Expert Opinion but the Ld. Agent for the Opposite Parties failed. Heard the Ld. Agent for the Complainant. This Forum is a considered opinion to delivered the Final Order on the view of Expert Committee by not delaying the case further considering the fate of the record.
During the course of processing the Final Order, this Forum needs to have an ex-part opinion and for this purpose on 27-08-2013 vide Order No.32, a requesting letter along with 72 No. of documents in connection with the case forwarded to the Superintendent, North Bengal Medical College and Hospital for procuring an ex-part opinion from their end. After elapsing so many months and sending so many reminders, ultimately on 30-05-2014 this Forum received an ex-part opinion from the Superintendent, North Bengal Medical College and Hospital.
Peruse the documents ex-part opinion and heard the argument advanced by both the Ld. Agent at a length. To reach a just and reasonable decision the following necessary points came out for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the petition is a “Complaint” & Sri Nitish Debnath is the Complainant, as a “Consumer” of the O.Ps?
- Whether this Forum has financial/territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint i.e. disputes in the petition of complaint and try the same?
- Whether the O.Ps have contributed negligence/deficiency in service towards the complainant?
- Whether the death of the daughter of the complainant due to the medical negligence of the O.P. Dr. (s) and the Nursing Home authority?
5. Whether the Complainant proved his case against the opposite parties?
6. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Undisputedly, the minor daughter of the complainant took admission at M.J.N. Hospital on 01-04-2011 with high fever, vomiting etc. It is also not in dispute that by not getting proper medical assistance from the end of M.J.N. Hospital the complainant bound to admit his daughter in a private nursing home at Cooch Behar namely Subham Hospital and Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. The point of the dispute is that whether during the course of treatment at Subham Hospital the daughter of the complainant breathed her last on 18-04-2011 due to not providing proper medical service to the patient and not taking due care to the patient and negligent manner of service of the nurse and staff of the O.P. Nursing Home.
On perusal the vast record, it appears that in the instant case previously argument was fully heard on 12.08.2013 and before to reach a just decision this Forum relying on the ratio of the principles laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010CTJ page 868 (SC) (V. Krishna Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and another) is of the considered opinion that expert opinion is required to be procured before concluding the fate of the complaint by Final Order in as much as the said report is felt to be really helpful to this Forum to have a light to adjudicate the claim of the medical literature and materials on record. To procure the said report this Forum vide order No. 32 dated 27.08.2013 send a letter to the Superintendent of North Bengal Medical College and Hospital with copy of documents for enabling a report of Expert Committee. Surprisingly, after elapsing so many dates and after repeated reminder even an order of Show Cause to the Superintendent of NBMCH, ultimately on 29.05.2014 this Forum received an expert opinion also show cause of the Superintendent of NBMCH. This Forum did not delivered the Final order in due time only want of the said report. After perusing the report, the date was fixed for further hearing on the point of expert opinion on 13.06.2014 but on that date the ld. Agent for the O.P Nos.1, 2 & 4 has filed a petition praying further date for argument as the ops are out of station, which is not a cogent ground. Heard the argument on the opinion of expert from the Ld. Agent for the complainant but no original documents have been filed by the complainant. It also appears that the parties have filed no W/A. Hence, one more date is fixed for the same i/d Final order i.e. on 24.06.2014. On the date fixed O.Ps were also absent, complainant has filed some documents and date was fixed for Final Order on 24-06-2014 then the President of this Forum transferred and new President joined on 03-07-2014 and the argument again heard before the bench on 28-08-2014, after adjournment on 01-08-2014 on a petition of the Agent for the O.Ps. The date of Final Order fix upon 09-09-2014 but on that date the matter was adjourned due to lack of quorum. Finally, this day is fixed for delivery of Final Order.
Point No.1.
This petition has been filed against the O.Ps in relation of poor service rendered by the O.Ps as such this petition is a complaint. The complainant admitted his daughter in the Nursing Home of the O.P. No.1 with a desire to get proper medical service/treatment by the O.P. No.2 & 4, the doctors attached with the Nursing Home of the O.P. No.1 and for this purpose; he paid certain charges to the O.Ps. In view of the status of the Complainant and his relationship with the O.Ps, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant being the father of the deceased Moumita Debnath is the Consumer as per provision of section laid down in the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The complaint value of the instant case is Rs.4,79,118/- i.e. within Rs.20,00,000/- and all the O.Ps are residing within the territory of the Cooch Behar district. Therefore, certainly this Forum has pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to try the instant case.
Point No.3.
The minor daughter of the complainant took admission on 01.04.2011 with high fever, vomiting etc. at the M.J. N. hospital under Dr. J. Bhattacharya who after primary treatment referred the patient to North Bengal Medical College & Hospital without any proper test and investigation as alleged by the Complainant. Observing the worst condition of the daughter the complainant hurriedly shifted the patient in a private Nursing Home of Cooch Behar under O.P No.4, attached with that Nursing Home. There also by not getting proper and adequate treatment the daughter of the complainant died on 18.04.11 only when she 17/18 yrs. old.
Peruse the report of the expert committee comprising of three eminent doctors of NBMCH also the treatment sheets/particulars of the deceased Moumita Debnath. The said committee comes to the following conclusion.
A.Regarding Diagnosis:
- Clinical history and relevant clinical examination findings have not been properly written down in the OPD tickets as well as the BHT in most of the entries. Hence, the clinical picture is not clear from the available papers. Here it should be noted that as per available medical evidence in the form of published literature suggestive clinical findings, CSF features, radiological findings and T.B. Meningitis.
- Important necessary investigations like CT Scan of Brain although advised and prepared for (requisition for 01.04.2011present) was probably not done. CSF ADA level was not done (possibly due to lack of investigative facilities). Bilateral hilar congestion in Chest X-ray was not followed up or sputum for AFB was not checked as per the available papers.
- From available records, the patient seems to have been suffering from Chronic Meningitis, which in India in majority of cases is due to Tuberculosis which was suspected by the attending physicians. However, no confirmatory test like T.B. PCR in CSF was done (however, this test is costly and not always available.
- Though serum electrolyte was advised, no record of reports is available. SGOT/SGPT, CBC, LFT, serum cretinine were not done or repeated following admission.
B. Regarding management and application of Medicines:
- On 01.04.2011 the patient was referred from MJN hospital to the higher centre NBMCH, which the patient’s relatives did not comply.
- Again, on 12.04.2011 she was referred to a higher centre from Subham Hospital, Cooch Behar, which as per the Doctor’s note the patient’s relatives could not afford.
- No note on the patient’s body weight is available anywhere in the records. Hence, appropriate dosage of the drugs administered could not be calculated at present.
- On suspicion of T.B. Meningitis, treatment was started with 4 drug regimen of Anti-Tubercular Drugs as well as steroid which was appropriate.
- In case of additional thought of virul meningo encephalitis Intra-Venus acyclovir (Zovirax) should have been better rather than via oral route.
6. The Informed Consent Form should have been signed in presence of at least two witness.
From the report of the expert committee, it is crystal clear that the patient was treated as a T. B. patient without any test or clinical investigation, which is must to diagnose T.B. Meningitis. Moreover, the drug Zovirax 400mg which was consumed by the patient as per prescription/BHT dated 13.04.11 is not a medicine of T.B. Meningitis. It appears from the NET http;//www.rxlist.com/zovirax-drug.htm that Zovirax 400mg tablets contain acyclovir (also splet aciclivir), an antiviral agent used to treat infection with Herpes Simplex virus that cause cold sores (HSV-1), genital herpes (HSV-ll) and shingles or herpes zoster (vericella virus); to relieve painful symptoms and help heal blisters; also to prevent recurrent infection. In connection of this drug the doctors of Expert Committee opined that “In case of additional thought of viral meningo encephalitis Intra-Venus acyclovir (Zovirax) should have been better rather than via oral route.” It is very much astonishing that without any confirmation, the O.P doctor advised to consume the said medicine orally and that may caused serious condition of the patient. Besides, it is not transparent that without blood test, i.e. Hematocrit, Lymphocytes, Sputum test, Sedimentation Rate (ESR) & X-Ray of Chest PA of the patient how Dr. B. Das or Dr. D. Halder prescribed medicine Rifa -1-Kit for T.B. being a general physician; but not being a T.B. specialist also without any test as recommended/guided by the Medical Journals.
It is pertinent to mention that on 07.04.11 Dr. Roy with another medicines Rifa 1-6 Kid also prescribed by Dr. B. Das and on 08.04.11 by Dr. D. Halder i.e. O.P. No. 4&2 respectively but surprisingly in the expert report there is no comments of the said drug. This combination medication contains anti-tuberculosis agents, prescribed for pulmonary tuberculosis. This drug is to be taken by the patient in the following manner:
Patients weighing less than 44 kg – 4 tablets.
Patients weighing bet. 45- 54 Kg – 5 tablets.
Patients weighing grater than 55 Kg – 6 tablets.
This tablet should be taken by mouth, 1 hour before or 2 hours after a meal with a full glass of water. There is no record of body weight of the patient in the BHT. Thus, it is reasonably be presumed that the patient handled by the Doctors in a negligent manner they prescribed various medicines for her recovery and those were admittedly administered but that could not help her to survive and ultimately on 18.04.2011 breathed her last. The doctors of Expert Committee opined and rightly observed that there is no note of the body weight of the patient in the BHT, which is essential before consuming the drug as described above.
On perusal, the vast documents in the record it appears that since the period of first time admission in the MJN Hospital the patient was negligently handled by the on duty doctors of Hospital and Nursing Home. It appears from the Annexure “B” that on the date of admission i.e. on 01.04.2011 the patient was referred to the NBMC&H with a diagnosis (provisional) Psychosis but there is no note or advice of the on duty doctor even no test was done or advised before referred the patient. Therefore, it is reasonably being presumed that the patient was deprived from taking proper service from the said hospital. The complainant made party the on duty doctor J.N. Bhattacharya but he bound to expunge his name due to unavailability of proper address.
Annexure “A” series is the treatment sheet/prescription and the Annexure 1to 28 are the BHT of the patient during the course of treatment at Subham Hospital, reveals that from 01.04.11 to 07.04.11 the patient was prescribed some common drugs of Acidity, Gastritis, Decentry etc. As per Expert’s Report the patient was admitted on Subham Hospital on 01.04.2011 under Dr. B. Das with a provisional diagnosis of encephalopathy and was advised antibiotics, anti-malarias, vitamins and steroid (Decadron). Simultaneously CT-Scan of brain, Japanese Encephalitis Serology, CBC, Fasting Blood Sugar, Malaria Antigen, Serum Electrolyte and Cretinine tests were advised on 01.04.2011. However, the detailed history and clinical findings were not written in the BHT and it is not clear that the CT Scan was done or not. The CSF ADA level report is not present. On 05.04.2011 Dr. D. Halder and on 07 provisionally diagnosed the disease of the patient “Tubercular Meningitis” based on available investigation reports. However, this Committee opined, “no confirmatory test like T.B. PCR in CSF was done.”
The ld. Agent for the Complainant vehemently argued that not being the patient of T.B. the patient was treated by the drugs recommended for the T.B. It is evident from the record also corroborated with the Expert Committee’s report, that the disease of the patient not diagnosed properly, the management and the application of medicines also by not following recommended guidelines as such on consuming the said medicines the serious illness associated with various symptoms of abnormality cropped up. Moreover, the patient was treated by the doctors on suspicion, remarked by the Expert Committee “From the available records the patient seems to have been suffering from Chronic Meningitis which in India in majority of cases is due to Tuberculosis which was suspected by the attending physicians.”May whatever it be, before administered any particular medicine for particular disease the doctor should have confirmed about the disease of the patient what was not done in the case of the complainant’s daughter. It is fact that the Opposite Party Doctors referred the patient twice in the Higher Centre but the Complainant failed, does not mean that incapability of the patient party to move the patient in higher centre invites the unfortunate death of the patient as and when/until and unless she was in admission in a Private Nursing Home under the Opposite Party doctors.
The Expert committee also opined that some testes might have been done which were not available possibly due to lack of investigative facilities, costly and not always available. Though from the record of Subham hospital and Diagnostic Center Pvt. Ltd. it appears that it is a Multi Speciality Hospital in where all the facilities should remain for which the O.P. No 1 cannot evade it’s liability for rendering poor service to the patient, poor investigation facilities/nursing facilities/ poor infra-structure etc.
Point No. 4.
In ruling reported in 2005 CTJ 1085 (SC) (CP) (Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjub & Anr.), a three judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, discussed the law of negligence under Tort Law, in extensor. It was held that essential components of negligence, as recognized, are three: “duty”, “breach” and “resulting damage”, that is to say:
“(1) the existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant; (2) the failure to attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, thereby committing a breach of such duty; and (3) damage, which is both casually connected with such breach and recognized by the law, has been suffered by the complainant. If the claimant satisfies the court on the evidence that these three ingredients are made out, the defendant should be held liable in negligence.”
The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in (Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital management committee, 1957) I WLR 118 holds good in its applicability in India, the Hon’ble court inter-alia, came to some conclusions one of them as follows:-
A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill, which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession.
In another ruling reported in 1969 (I) SCR 206 (Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi –Vs- Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole) the Supreme Court, dealing with a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, observe that a person (doctor) who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that: (i) he is possessed of skill and knowledge for that purpose; (ii) when consulted by a person, such a person owes a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; (iii) a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and (iv) a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any these duties would give a right to the patient of action for negligence against the doctor.
In the case in hand it is already proved that during the course of treatment there is lack of due care in administration of medicines, in performing necessary tests, and the treatment done by the doctors on suspicion not confirmation which caused “damage “of the patient and she breathed her last on 18.04.2014.
Report of Expert Doctors and the materials available on record, we are constrained to hold the opinion that the death of the Complainant’s daughter due to the medical negligence of the Opposite Party Doctor and the Nursing Home authority.
Point No.5.
In the light of the discussion made here in before and the decision/citation stated above we are come to a conclusion that the complaint proved his case beyond any reasonable doubt against O.P. Nos.1, 2 & 4 as to providing poor medical service and deficiency in service towards his daughter.
Point No.6.
As the medical negligence of the O.Ps is already proved, the Complainant is entitled to get relief. Accordingly, the O.Ps are invariably liable to just and reasonably to compensate the complainant. It is hardly possible to measure the extent of mental pain & agony of a father who lost his child at a very early stage of life and to assess compensation for premature death of his daughter and in such situation we have to rely upon guesswork.
We find that the mode of conducting the instant case of the O.Ps’ agent is dismal, volatile of the provisions of the Act, Rules & C. P. Regulations, by remaining absent without step in spite of having on record, not filing the written argument etc. For which he deserves suitable punitive cost simultaneously, the O.P. is also liable for dragging the proceedings of the case by taking more than one adjournments without cost, of course the Forum allowed such adjournments to provide facility to the parties to assist the Forum to try the case smoothly but it has been misused by not filing the original documents, relied on by the respective parties.
We find that the complainant has claimed compensation on following heads:-
Bill for Subham Hospital - Rs. 47,118/-
Bill for Sisters - Rs. 6,000/-
Bill for examination - Rs. 1,000/-
Mental harassment - Rs. 90,000/-
Compensation for death of - Rs.3,00,000/-
her daughter
Travelling allowance - Rs. 5,000/-
Litigation costs - Rs. 10,000/-
Funeral costs - Rs. 20,000/-
Total - Rs.4,79,118/-
Out of which he has failed to submit any bill for sisters and examination of her daughter. He is also not entitled to get any bill for traveling allowance and funeral expenses.
We find that he has claimed Rs.47,118/- as bill of Subham Hospital. It appears from the original bill/voucher that he has paid total Rs.46,504/- as medical bill of his deceased daughter. So, he is entitled to get Rs.46,504/- as medical bill instead of his claim of Rs.47,118/-.
However, he is entitled to get Rs.90,000/- for mental harassment, Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for death of his daughter and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs.
So, ultimately he is entitled to get totaling Rs.4,46,504/- including litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is succeed in part, on contest against the contesting O.Ps with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- be paid by the O.P. No.1, 2 & 4 jointly and/ or severely to the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 is liable being the proprietor of Subham Hospital for rendering poor medical facilities and the O.P. No.2 & 4, the doctors attached with this Nursing Home are also held liable for medical negligence during the course of treatment to the complainant’s daughter which caused unwanted death of the patient. As a result the Complainant do get an award of Rs.4,36,504/- towards medical negligence, mental pain & agony be paid by the O.Ps jointly and/or severally within 45 days of this order, failure of which O.Ps are to pay @ Rs.100/- each for each day’s delay & the accrued amount, if any shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
