West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/25/2014

Sri Shambhunath Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent of Midnapore Medical College and Hospitsal - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President, &

                                            Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.25/2014

                                                        

Sri Shambhunath Sahoo……………….………Complainant

Versus

The Superintendent of Medinipur Medical

                                                            College  and Hospital…………..Opp. Party.

 

Decided on: - 30/07/2015

                                

ORDER

        Bibekananda Pramanik, President- Facts of the case, in brief, is that Ankita Sahoo, aged 11 years, the minor daughter of the complainant Sri Shambhunath Sahoo, met an accident on 11/10/2013 by a two wheeler and due to said accident, her left little toe was seriously injured and she was taken to Medinipur Medical College and Hospital.  The concerned doctor of the said hospital examined her and took her in the operation theater but without any X-ray as well as other examination he picked a needle into the said little toe of the minor daughter of the complainant.  Due to Durga Puja, a major portion of the doctors of the hospital were on leave and there was no orthopedic surgeons in the hospital save and except Dr. A Latif.  After three days from the date of operation of the minor girl of the complainant, he was asked by the hospital to get her release from the hospital and to take her to the chamber of Dr. A Latif.  Being so advised, the complainant took her daughter in his house on the same day but the condition of the minor seriously deteriorated and she was taken to the chamber of Dr. A. Latif on 14/10/2013.  After primary examination, Dr. A Latif opined that the condition of the little toe of the minor was not good and he referred the minor to Calcutta Medical Research Institute.  After examining the little toe of the minor Ankita Sahoo concerned doctor of C.M.R.I. advised for amputation due to gangrenous and on 15/10/2013, the left little toe of the minor girl was amputed.  It is submitted by the complainant that due to negligence and careless conduct of the doctor of the Medinipur Medical College and Hospital, the left little toe

Contd………….P/2

 

                                                       - ( 2 ) -

 

of minor daughter of the complainant was gangrenous and subsequently the said toe had to amputated.  Now, the minor has  become physically handicapped due to such amputation of the left little toe.  The complainant had to incur a sum of Rs.200000/- for her daughter’s treatment.  On 5/01/2014, the complainant met the O.P. and stated everything to him but he did nothing.  Hence, the complaint,  praying for an award of Rs.4,40,000/- for medical negligence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and an award of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost against the O.P.

            Record reveals that after service of notice, O.P. sent an authorized persons namely Smt.Angur Bala Pradhan alongwith desired documents and the said Angur Bala Prachan prayed for time for filing W/O.  Subsequently, no such W/O was filed and none appeared on behalf of the O.P.  for which the case was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against the O.P.  Hence, the ex parte hearing. 

To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit -in -chief and few documents, filed by the complainant, have been marked as 1 to 1/15 for identification respectively.   In his evidence, PW-1 Shambhunath Sahoo has fully corroborated his case in material particulars.  The documents, filed by the complainant, though not proved in this case,  go to show that the minor daughter of the complainant was admitted in Medinipur Medical College and Hospital after such accident and she was also treated there  and the doctor of the hospital picked a needle into the little toe of the minor and thereafter she was released therefrom.  She was thereafter examined by Dr. A. Latif in his chamber and he opined that the little toe of the minor was gangrenous and the patient was referred to the C.M.R.I.  From the medical reports of the C.M.R.I., we find that the daughter of the complainant was admitted there and her left little toe was amputated in that hospital.  Case record further reveals that this Forum vide order dated 26/12/2014, issued notice upon the O.P. directing him to send an expert person to adduce evidence in this case. It is to be mentioned here that on 9/04/2014, the O.P. sent a written “statement of fact” relating to the treatment of the minor Ankita Sahoo by Dr. M.B. Murmur and it was stated therein that after necessary treatment, the patient was kept for observation and further definite management and investigation but the patient party took away the patient on own risk bond on 11/10/2013 at 9.30 p.m. and lost from follow up of the hospital.  It appears from the case record that in spite of notice upon the O.P. for production of the document relating to own risk bond, the O.P. did not care to appear and to produce that particular document.  In the above facts and circumstances and considering the evidence of PW-1 and the documents filed by him, remaining unchallenged, it is held that the O.P. had negligence in treating the minor Ankita Sahoo with due care thereby causing gangrenous on her left little toe, resulting amputation of that little toe in C.M.R.I. Hospital, O.P. is therefore liable to pay compensation for such medical negligence in treating the minor child Ankita Sahoo, the daughter of the complainant.

Contd………….P/3

 

                                                       - ( 3 ) -

 

            Complaint case is therefore succeeds ex parte against the OP.             

                                                 Hence, it is,

                                                                          Ordered,

                                                                  that the case be and the same is allowed  ex parte against the O.P. with cost.  O.P is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost within a month from his date of order.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                  Sd/-

         President                                             Member                            President

                                                                                                        District Forum

                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur