Sri Apurba Mondal,

s/o lt. Gourpada Mondal,

Vill Changail, Dowari Para,

P.O. Changail, P.S. Uluberia,

District – Howrah,

PIN  - 711 308.-----------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1)      The Director,

Sister Nivedita Diagnostic Centre & Poly Clinic,

Mohini Complex, Uluberia Station Road,

Bazar Para, P.S: Uluberia,

Howrah 711316.

2)      The Director,

Sister Nivedita Hospital,  

Mohini Complex, Uluberia Station Road,

Bazar Para, P.S: Uluberia,

Howrah 711316.-------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant  U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) against the o.ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S  2(1) (o),2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. for payment of all the diagnostic charges as incurred for his four years son Sri Arindam Mondal together with Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation along with other order/s as he entitled to.  

2.               The brief facts of the case is that Sri Arindam Mondal, son of Apurba Mondal ( herein the complainant ) was suffering fever and  admitted into the hospital of o.p. no. 2 as per advice of Dr. Nayan Ranjan Dey on 28-07-2013. Subsequently as per advice of the doctor he contacted with o.p. no. 2 on 29-07-2007 and made U.S.G. tests of whole abdomen including blood tests. As per U.S.G. and blood tests report as supplied by the o.p. to the complainant it is noticed that the  gall bladder “is thick walled with single mobile calculus measuring 13.9 mm” since in G.B.Lumen – impression – Cholelitjoasis suggested serum lipase, with this and as it is stated the complainant met Dr. N.R. Dey with this USG Report and consulted with doctor who advised for operation against existing stone as per USG report supplied by the o.p. no. 2. The complainant’s son  subsequently discharged from the hospital of o.p. no. 2 on 01-08-2013 after being consulted, with  prescribed some medicines and further suggested / refer pediatric surgeon, department of any teaching hospital. As per advice of the doctor of o.p. no. 2 the complainant further consulted with Dr. P.K. Mishra, the Pediatric  Surgeon, who subsequently checked his son and advised for further USG Tests and accordingly tests have been carried out at  ECO X-ray and Imaging Institute, Kolkata – 700071, and also other tests at Dr. Tribedi & Roy, Diagnostic Laboratory, Park  Street, under which it is noticed that the “gall bladder is normal in shape and  size, walls are smooth and regular, lumen is clear”, appendix could not identify – clinical correlation is suggested. This report is being authenticated by  Dr. V.K.  Sharma, Radiology.

3.               Considering the above the wrong diagnosis of USG Report of o.p. no. 2 caused mental agony with tremendous harassment including financial loss against incurring huge expenditure made by the complainant resultant the complainant filed the present complaint against the o.p. seeking for relief and compensation. Hence the case.

4.                The o.ps. have contested the case by filing written version contending interalia that the case is not maintainable and has filed just to harass the o.ps. for illegal  momentary gain and the case is defects of parties. Moreover, the doctors have not made parties and in absence of all the necessary parties, the case cannot proceed. It is further  opined by this answering o.p. that the patient was treated up to 30-07-2013 with USG and other examination were done and medicines were administered according to the advice of the attending doctor and after recovery the patient was discharged with an advice to take an opinion of a Pediatric Surgeon, Department of Teaching Hospital and thereafter the petitioner did not make any contract for which question of illegal acts or deficiency on the part of the o.p. no. 1 does not hold good against which the said complaint made by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.   

5.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)                    Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps against wrong diagnosis ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Perused the evidence, documents \adduced by both the parties.  Considered.

7.               Admittedly, on 29-07-2013 the USG Tests were carried out in respect of the son of the complainant by the o.p. no. 2 as per advice of doctor on the same date resulted necessity for operation of the said appendicitis against the report as annexed as marked A authenticated by Dr. A.  Mitra, M.D. ( Radiologist ).

8.               It is not in dispute that the o.p. no. 2 made USG Test as per doctor’s advice followed by further USG to clear his doubt which is in contradiction with each other.  The complainant as it stated that after receiving the USG Report so supplied by o.p. no. 2 became upset and further sought advices of the visiting doctor o.p. no. 2 namely Dr. Nayan Ranjan Dey who subsequently referring for a further opinion from a Pediatric  Surgeon, Department of Teaching Hospital, with further prescribed medicines on 01-08-2013. As per advice of the doctor and to remove his doubt over the report  consulted  with Dr. P.K. Mishra, a Pediatric  Surgeon, who subsequently advised for further USG Report and necessary blood tests. Accordingly necessary USG and blood tests were carried out by a reliable diagnosis centre at Kolkata wherein it  is noticed that there is no such abnormality and the gall bladder is normal in shape and size. Walls are smooth and regular, lumen is clear – advice clinical correlation.

9.                From the above it is to be concluded that each and every report is carefully scanned before issuance yet there may occurrence of bonafide in the rarest case as every human is subject to error for which the doctor of o.p. no. 2 suggested for further opinion from other like this instant case from a  Pediatric  Surgeon.

10.           It is better if the complainant made parties to the doctors but as a lay man he was at that time at a loss as to what to do as the case was happened to his minor children ( 4 years ).

11.           Considering all material of records and as argued on behalf of the complainant and o.ps. we hold our considered opinion that the o.p.no. 2 is liable for negligence of duties for wrong  diagnosis including responsible for authentication of diagnostic tests as made through the diagnostic centre of o.p. no.2 of the complainant’s son  which tantamount gross deficiency in service. As the loss of the complainant was not major till he will entitled to get a relief for his prolonged mental agony for the wrong diagnosis of the o.ps.

            Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

           In the result, the complaint succeeds.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 350   of 2013 ( HDF 350 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.ps.

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally be directed to pay Rs. 5,240/- the cost of expenditure incurred in diagnosis the tests to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be  further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for prolonged mental pain and agony and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The entire amount of  Rs. 12,240/-  ( Rs. 5,240+5,000+2,000) is directed to pay to the complainant within the stipulated period failure of which the above mentioned sum will carry an interest @ 9% till full realization.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                          

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.