AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakh for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the compliant and directed OPs 1 and 2 to pay Rs.5000/- each, as compensation.
The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement and confirmed the order of District Forum. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred.
The facts in brief, are that the complainant''s uncle, Shri Samar Roy Chowdhury, the patient, fell sick on 31.10.2005, after consuming biryani. Initially, he was treated at home, thereafter, admitted at BMRI ( OP-1) next morning i.e. on 1.11.2005 in ICCU under the care of Dr. Sudarshan Chakraborty, OP 2. It was alleged that OP 2 prescribed medicines over telephone without attending to the patient. Thereafter on 4.11.2005, the patient became critical. The hospital authorities tried to contact OP 2 , but OP 2 did not turn up, till 4.30 p.m. Hence, the patient was shifted to AMRI, Dhakuria, Hospital, but the patient, ultimately, expired at 7.25 a.m on 5.11.2005. Hence, the complainant alleged that the patient expired due to negligence and irresponsible conduct of OP 2.
We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the evidence on record. The evidence clearly goes to show that the patient was examined by consultant Pulmonologist Dr. Dasgupta, on 2.11.2005 made diagnosis as Acute Exacerbation of COPD. Patient was kept under observation of OP 2 and OP 3. The patient was shifted in ICCU, where OP 3 and Dr. Pinaki Das were monitoring the patient properly. Thereafter, the patient was shifted to AMRI Hospital by the relatives of patient, on their own risk.
The OP 2 has stated in his written version that, the patient was a known patient of advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ( COPD), with hypertension. This time he was admitted on 01.11.2005 at about 10.30 a.m. and had been examined by the OP 2. The patient had a history of food poisoning together with breathing difficulty. Though diarrhea was controlled, but respiratory distress persisted. On 02.11.2005, in the morning, he attended to the patient, at that time, though, his respiratory troubles were there, yet, he was responding in a better way. In the evening, he visited the patient again, when his BP was found improving and he was advised to start usual anti-hypertensive medicines from 03.11.2005. At that time, the patient also started taking some fluid and soft food through mouth, I.V. line of fluid was also advised to be taken off from 03.11.2005. Since 03.11.2005 the patient remained under joint care of the OP 2 and 3. On 03.11.2005 the OP 3 visited the patient in the evening and he was found in a stable condition. On 04.11.2005 at about 12.30 a.m. the patient suddenly developed severe respiratory distress but proper care was taken in the ICCU by the OP 3 and Dr. Pinaka Das. At 4.20 a.m. on the next morning ,while the patient was in a comparatively stable condition, the relatives of the patient took away him to AMRI Hospital, on their own risk.
The main argument is focused on the quantum of compensation. As per OP 1, the patient became critical due to heart attack at 12.30 p.m. on 4.11.2005, which further caused severe irreversible respiratory distress.
The District Forum and the State Commission held OP 1 and OP 2 liable ,for careless handling of the patient to some extent and directed them to pay Rs.5,000/- as a compensation. In our view also, the deterioration of condition of patient was not due to failure of alertness by OP 1 and 2. The other doctors and OP-3 were present in ICCU and gave proper care and necessary treatment to the patient while the OP 2 was absent. Hence, at some extent it amounts to careless attitude or abandonment. It reveals wee bit negligence on the part of OP-2 for which he must be burdened with some compensation.
We are of considered view that the compensation awarded by fora below appears to be on lesser side. Thus, on the basis of forgoing discussion, we award lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, which is to be paid jointly and severally by OPs 1 and 2 to the complainant, within 60 days, otherwise, it will carry further interest @ 10% per annum till its realization.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.