Kasturi Medical Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs Ajayendu Nag

THE Complainant/Respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint against the petitioner/opposite party before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Alipur seeking compensation on account of medical negligence while treating his father who ultimately died. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant had not produced expert evidence to prove negligence on the part of the opposite party/petitioner. It was also observed that the Complainant had not examined Dr. Amitava Roy who opined that septicemia had developed on account of excessive antibiotic injections. The complainant filed appeal against the said order before the State Commission. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum that there was no expert opinion to prove negligence on the part of the treating doctor and the Nursing Home. However, the State Commission found that the appellant - Doctor had neglected his duty as a doctor while giving priority to his commitment. It was observed that the treating doctor had left the patient in hopeless state under the care of Dx. Subhasis Pradhan for treatment during his absence. The State Commission accordingly held the appellant negligent in discharging his duties by leaving his critical patient in order to attend to his prior commitment elsewhere. For this deficiency in service, the appellant was asked to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 within 45 days, failing which 10% interest was to accrue on the said amount for the period of default. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Commission.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner who has placed reliance on paragraph 4.4 of Chapter IV of Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation). On the basis of said paragraph, it has been contended that the appellant had appointed Dr. Subhasis Pradhan to treat the father of the complainant in his absence and as such there was no deficiency in service in performance of duty by the Appellant.

PARAGRAH 1.1.2 of Chapter I of the said Regulation lays down that the prime object of the medical profession is to render service to humanity, reward or financial gain is a subordinate consideration. Likewise, paragraph 1.2 of the said Regulation reiterates that the principal objective of medical profession is to render service to humanity. Paragraph 1.8 of the said Regulation lays down that the physician engaged in the practice of medicine, shall give priority to the interest of patients. The personal financial interests of a physician should not conflict with the medical interests of patient. In this background, we shall now examine the matter. The Appellant has filed copies of Bed Head Tickets relating to treatment of the father of the complainant from 27.12.1996 to 14.1.2007 (Annexure P -1) and copy of Bed Head Tickets from 15.1.2007 to 21.1.2007 (Annexure P -3). There is endorsement in the Bed Head Ticket on 16.1.2007 at 13.00 hours that: "patient clinical condition worsening ....patient''s son was explained about prognosis. He expresses his inability to maintain ICCU costs and declines to put his father on ventilatory support for financial constraints". There is also an entry in the Bed Head Ticket dated 17.1.2007 at 2.40 p.m. wherein it is stated that as patient''s son repeatedly expresses his inability to maintain ICU costs and on account of the same he declined to put his father on ventilator, there is no benefit of his staying in the ICU. Therefore, he can be shifted to ward with proper risk explanation to the party. How the appellant could come to the conclusion that on account of the inability of the patient''s son to maintain ICU cost and declined to put his father on ventilator, there is no benefit of staying in ICU and he should be shifted to general ward, is not quite understandable. The patient, in question, had earlier also taken treatment from the appellant from 22.7.2006 till 14.1.2007 and simply because the patient could not afford to pay ICU cost, the patient could not be ordered to be shifted from ICU on his risk. We have already noted that the prime object of medical profession is to render service to humanity, reward or financial gain is a subordinate consideration. We have already noted that the physician engaged in the practice of medicine, shall give priority to the interest of patients and the personal financial interests of a physician should not conflict with the medical interests of patient. Therefore, medical interest of the patient could not be sacrificed at the altar of personal gain of the Doctor or the nursing home. On the direction of the appellant, the patient was shifted to the ward on 17.1.2007 at 1.30 p.m. The Bed Head Ticket shows that on 18.1.2007 at 2 p.m. patient''s condition worsened. The Bed Head Ticket dated 19.1.2007 at 2.20 p.m. shows that the patient was deteriorating under that there is a note by the appellant "As I shall go out of station from 20.1.2007, I have requested Dr. S. Pradhan to look after the patient during my absence and this arrangement has been communicated to patient''s son and was found to be acceptable to them". The Bed Head Ticket dated 20.1.2007 at 9.30 a.m. shows that the patient is in shock, patient condition is terminal and he will be looked after by Dr. Pradhan from this afternoon. The said endorsement was made by the Appellant. The Bed Head Ticket dated 20.1.2007 at 7.20 p.m. shows that the patient is in extremely poor condition and he ideally requires ICU care but patient''s son has expressed his inability, the said observation are of Dr. Pradhan. Bed Head Ticket dated 20.1.2007 at 9.05 p.m. shows that the patient is gasping, Pulse V Feeble and he ultimately expired on 9.25 p.m. After 7.20 p.m. the patient was not seen by Dr. S. Pradhan but by R.M.O. only. The Bed Head Ticket dated 20.1.2007 shows that patient was in shock and his condition was terminal which facts were noted by the appellant on 20.1.2007 at 9.30 a.m. but still the appellant chose to go for his prior commitment. The appellant nowhere explained in written version filed by him or in evidence as to what was the said prior commitment which forced him to leave a critical patient in the hands of Dr. S. Pradhan. Qualification or experience of Dr. S. Pradhan has not been disclosed anywhere in the written version filed by the appellant or in the evidence. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has stated in paragraph -11 of the written version that on the same night as opposite party No. 1 (appellant) was on a long distance train he got the sad news of the demise of the patient. The fact that appellant was travelling on a long distance train also shows that commitment of the appellant was not urgent. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has rightly found that the appellant was deficient in service in not attending the critical patient whom he had earlier also treated from 27.12.2006 to 13.1.2007 and it was he who fully aware of the problem of the patient, in question. Even if the patient was not in a position to pay the expenses of ICU, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when his continuation in ICU was essential and he was required to be put on ventilator, the patient could not be and should not have been shifted to the general ward from ICU in the light of the Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002, which have been referred above by us. The State Commission has granted meagre compensation of Rs. 50,000 for deficiency in service.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. On the contrary, we find that order in question is just, fair and equitable. In the facts and circumstances, the revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.