PRASANTA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY vs JAHAR DEBNATH

THE complainants have approached the Commission claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for negligently causing untimely death of late Smt. Jaba Roy and for gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as follows : The complainant No. 1 is the father, complainant-2 is the husband and complainant-3 is the minor daughter of one Smt. Jaba Roy since deceased.

Opposite party-1 is a registered medical practitioner and claims himself to be a Gynaecologist having his Chamber at Municipal Road, Kalna in the District of Burdwan. Opposite party-2 is the proprietor of Rajlaxmi Nursing Home at Madhuban where he carries on the business of providing medical care and/or facilities with the help of Medical Practitioners, Nurses and other Attendants.

COMPLAINANT-2 married the said Smt. Jaba Roy on 31.1.1991. Within 3 years of her marriage she suffered two unfortunate sequence of mis-carriage. Accordingly, from the year 1994 she was under regular medical care and treatment of Dr. Sircar also a Gynaecologist attached to a Clinic at Calcutta till the month of November, 1995. The said Jaba Roy conceived for the third time in September, 1995 and on the advice of the said Dr. Sircar she shifted to her father''s place at Dhatrigram, Kalna. The said Dr. Sircar referred Mrs. Roy to opposite party-1 for medical care and treatment. Thereafter, opposite party-1 regularly examined the deceased and on 31.12.1995 advised Ultra-sonography examination of her Gravid Uterus. As the condition of the deceased was delicate after two mis-carriages Dr. Sircar had advised her to regularly consult opposite party-1 which she did on payment of professional fees @ Rs. 25/- per consultation. In course of such medical examination at regular intervals opposite party-1 assured complainants-1 and 2 that he expects normal delivery of the deceased. On 5.5.1996 opposite party-1 examined the patient again and asked complainant-1 to bring her again on 16.5.1996. On the said date, opposite party-1 again examined the deceased and declared orally that the condition of the patient was as expected. He asked her to report again on 19.5.1996. On that date too opposite party-1 assured the complainants 1 and 2 that there would be normal delivery and there was nothing to worry about the condition of the patient. On 22.5.1996 opposite party-1 telephonically requested the deceased to come to his Chamber for routine medical check-up on examination of the deceased opposite party-1 advised her admission in the Nursing Home on deposit of Rs. 2,000/- as advance. On that date at about 6.00 p.m. opposite party-1 told the complainants that he expected normal delivery but suddenly at about 7.00 p.m. opposite party-1 came to the Nursing Home and told that delivery of the baby would be done on the same day by Caesarean Section at 9.30 p.m.

THE general anaesthesea was administered to the patient and she delivered a female baby by Caesarean Section. At about 10.30 p.m. the opposite party-1 left the Nursing Home. On 23.5.1996 after regaining consciousness the patient complained of acute pain in her abdomen but opposite party-2 turned a deaf ear to her complaint. According to the complainants, opposite party-2 misbehaved with the patient, did not provide her with a catheter for urinating but insisted on the patient to sit up with the help of her mother and untrained Ayah for urinating. It is the case of the complainants that as a result of such maltreatment, the patient''s surgical wound got ruptured and she started bleeding from the wound and her condition deteriorated. The opposite party-1 visited the patient at about 2-30 p.m. and with the knowledge and consent of the complainants re-opened the surgical wound. After coming out of the operation theatre opposite party-1 reported to the complainants that the condition of the patient was satisfactory. The condition of the patient dateriorated. She was bleeding profusely. Opposite party-1 on 24.5.1996 at about 1.10 a.m. again re-opened the surgical wound without taking the help of any Anaesthetist. The condition of the patient having become extremely critical, opposite party-1 recommended that the patient should be shifted to Calcutta for treatment. According to the complainant, opposite party-1 did not inform them about the specific nature of ailment nor did he recommend the name of any hospital or nursing home to which the patient should be removed for proper medical treatment. Thereafter, the complainants brought the patient to Calcutta and having failed to get her admitted in some of the hospitals and nursing homes in Calcutta ultimately succeeded in getting admission in Woodland Nursing Home, where she expired within a few hours of her admission.

ACCORDING to the complainant, opposite party-1 was guilty of negligence of the worst type resulting in the untimely death of the patient.

IT is alleged that the nursing home was not properly equipped, and suffered from insanitary condition. There were no trained attendants/Nurses etc. Consequently, the patient breathed her last on 25.5.1996. The complainants alleged that the death of the patient was caused by gross negligence and contrary to medical ethics. Initially, the complainants filed a case before the President of the District Forum, Burdwan claiming compensation but later on had withdrawn the same and filed this present case before this Commission.

The case is contested by the opposite parties by filing a written version wherein alleged negligence and deficiency in service were denied and disputed. It has been specifically stated that the complainants having filed one case before the District Forum, Burdwan for recovery of Rs. 5.00 lakhs cannot again proceed with this litigation until and unless the same is withdrawn.

ACCORDING to the opposite parties they rendered completely gratuitous service to the patient and as such no action against them lies. ACCORDING to the opposite parties, opposite party-1 did not take any sudden decision of Caesarean section but the decision for Caesarean section was taken due to- (1) Bad obsteritaical history with recurrent miscarriage; (2) less foetal movement which caused foetal jeopardy; (3) persistent discharge of aminotice fluid - thus including potential risk of infection; (4) mild hypertension (140/90) which may further aggravate foetal compromisation.

It is claimed that the decision for emergency operation was taken so as to save the life of patient and baby and the condition of the patient was conveyed to the complainants with full explanation. Opposite party-1 had examined the patient twice after operation, once at 10.15 p.m. and again at 11.30 p.m. and noticed that the condition of the patient was satisfactory. According to the opposite parties the operation theatre is well-equipped and no insanitary condition prevailed there.

ON 23.5.1996 one Dr. Samad a renowned Surgeon was sent for and he examined the patient and approved of the treatment. Subsequently, Dr. S. Bhattacharjee (Physician), and Dr. P.N. Datta (Surgeon) and Dr. P. Sircar (Gynaecologist) were contacted over telephone. All of them arrived at the nursing home and recommended blood transfusion. ON their recommendation two bottles of fresh blood were administered and resultantly the condition of the patient improved. ON that night at about 10.00 p.m. again soakage of wound was noticed and Dr. Samad was informed to review the case. According to the opposite parties, the complainant alongwith local M.L.A. were present and requested Dr. Samad to do as much as possible for betterment of the patient. The patient was shifted to the operation theatre where another bottle of fresh blood was administered. Dr. Samad explained to the complainant about the (sic.)I.C. with prognosis and advised to shift the patient to Calcutta. Thereupon the complainants decided to take the patient to Calcutta under Prof. B.B. Sirkar as the patient was previously under his treatment. ON their request, Dr. Sircar was contacted over telephone who advised opposite party-1 to send the patient to Merryland Nursing Home, Calcutta. The opposite parties state that with the consent of complainants-1 and 2 the patient was referred to Dr. Sircar after providing them with a discharge certificate with short case history and treatment notes. They assert that all possible medical care and steps were taken to save the life of the patient. They denied that the nursing home lacked properly equipped operation theatre towards insanitary condition. They denied that there had been deficiency in service on their part in the matter of treatment of the deceased. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party has raised a technical objection to the effect that a complaint petition having been filed before the Forum at Burdwan and the same having not yet been disposed of the present complaint petition is incompetent. According to him the complaint before the C.D.F., Burdwan was lodged on the death of Jaba Roy, the deceased and the present case also relates to the same incident which culminated in the death of the deceased. It appears that the Forum at Burdwan remained non-functional for a long time and as such on the prayer of the complainant the said record was called for by this Commission. The said record is now tagged with the record of this Commission. It appears from the notings in the order sheet of the Forum that the husband of the deceased, viz. Madhusudan Roy prayed for withdrawal of the complaint but no final order was passed. In the meantime, the record was called for by this Commission and it was despatched to this Commission. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the present complaint petition is incompetent. The objection raised by the opposite parties in this regard is over-ruled. The complainants have approached the Commission claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for negligently causing the untimely death of Smt. Jaba Roy. They claimed that there had been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties causing the death of Jaba Roy. It is not disputed that Jaba Roy had two miscarriages within 3 years of her marriage. She was initially under the treatment of Dr. Sircar of Calcutta and when she conceived for the third time she was shifted to her father''s place at Dhatrigram, Kalna, Distt. Burdwan for proper care and management. It is also not in dispute that Dr. Sircar referred the patient to opposite party-1, who is also a Gynaecologist of the locality. It appears that Ultra-sonographic examination of her Gravid Uterus was done. Admittedly, Smt. Jaba Roy was in delicate health. However, on the advice of opposite party-1 she was admitted to Nursing Home on 23.5.1996. Prior to that on 16.5.1996 opposite party-1 examined the patient and advised her to come again on 19.5.1996 for review. On 19.5.1996 he advised the patient to be admitted for close observation which was refused by complainant-1. According to the opposite parties, decision of Caesarean section was taken due to, (1) Obsteritaical history with recurrent miscarriages, (2) Less foetal movement which causes foetal jeopardy, (3) persistent discharge of Aminotice fluid - thus including potential risk of infection, (4) mild hypertension which may further aggravate foetal compromisation. The opposite parties assert that the patient party was informed about the condition of the patient and decision for Caesarean section was conveyed with full explanation.

SUBSEQUENTLY, the patient complained of acute pain in her abdomen and she bled profusely and her condition deteriorated. It is not disputed that the wound was twice opened and stitched up by opposite party-1 but the soakage of blood could not be arrested. It appears that several doses of injection were administered. Blood transfusion was needed. The grave condition of the patient was informed to the patient party. On 23.5.1996 at about 4.10 p.m. Dr. Samad a renowned Surgeon was sent for. Dr. Samad examined the patient and approved the course of treatment already prescribed by opposite party-1. SUBSEQUENTLY, Dr. S. Bhattacharjee (Physician), Dr. P.N. Datta (Surgeon), Dr. P. Sircar (Gynaecologist) were contacted over the phone. All of them arrived at the hospital and recommended blood transfusion. Accordingly, two bottles of fresh blood were given and resultantly, the condition of the patient improved. There was again soakage of wound and Dr. Samad was informed to review the case. On the advice of Dr. Samad the patient was again shifted to operation theatre and one bottle of fresh blood was given to her besides administering certain doses of injection. According to opposite party Dr. Samad explained the condition of the patient to the complainants and advised them to shift the patient to Calcutta. Thereafter, Dr. Sircar of Calcutta was contacted and hurried consultations followed. On the advice of Dr. Sircar of Calcutta it was decided to shift the patient to Merryland Nursing Home, Calcutta. The opposite parties stated that with the consent of the complainant, the patient was referred to Dr. Sircar of Calcutta after providing a discharge certificate with short case history and treatment notes and in transit facilities available by Oxygen, Injection etc. etc. The opposite party-1 talked to Prof. Sircar for admission of the patient in Merryland Nursing Home. The patient party tried admission of the patient at various nursing homes but failed. Ultimately, they got her admitted into Woodland Nursing Home where she expired on 25.5.1996 at 3.50 a.m. The complainants make the opposite parties responsible for causing untimely death of Jaba Roy. It may be mentioned that in the complaint petition there is no averment with regard to specific act of negligence on the part of the attending physician, viz. opposite party-1 at Kalna. From the sequence of events, it would appear that the Doctor was always available for examination and treatment of the patient. The opposite party-1 responded to the call of the patient party every time and tried his level best to save the life of Jaba Roy. He requisitioned the services of one renowned Gynaecologist of the locality and other expert Doctors when the condition of the patient deteriorated. All these Doctors approved of the treatment prescribed by the attending Doctors. There was consultation and the serious condition of the patient was disclosed to the complainant party. It appears that on the advice of Dr. Sircar of Calcutta who had earlier treated the patient, the latter was taken to Calcutta for better treatment and management. The complainants have not produced any expert witness to tell the Commission that because of negligence on the part of the opposite party the unfortunate incident occurred. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is difficult to hold that there was negligence on the part of the Doctor in the matter of treatment of the patient.

THE complainants alleged insanitary condition of the nursing home of whom opposite party-2 is the proprietor. But here again there is no evidence worth the name to establish this fact. Under the circumstances, we hold that the complainants have failed to establish the charge of negligence on the part of the Doctor so as to entitle them to claim compensation. In our opinion, the complainants cannot get any compensation. So, the case fails and is dismissed on contest. Complaint dismissed.