Case No. DF 49/2007

Mamuda Bibi,

Vill.- Panthabari, P.O. Chikirhat,

Cooch Behar..………………..................... Complainant

Vs

Dr. A. Hossan,

General Consultant & Physicion,

Vill.- Suktabari,

Cooch Behar. . …………………………………..OP

The brief facts as setout in the Complaint are that on 8.5.2007 Md. Sirajul Hoque was Brought at the chamber of Dr. A. Hossain and got admitted for treatment. The Doctor prescribed medicines for the patient and after consuming the medicines, the condition of patient was deteriorating. As and when the matter communicated to the Doctor, he advised the patient party not to be worried for this. The Doctor told the patient party that strong/ appropriate medicine have been given to the patient. They need not to be worried for applying such strong medicines and ultimately the patient will be recovered. The Doctor left his chamber at about 11 PM.

On 9.5.2007 at about 4 to 4-30 AM the Wife of patient noticed the seriousness of her husband and went to the residence of the Doctor and called him. Observing the deteriorating condition of the patient, the Doctor referred the patient to the M.J.N Hospital, Cooch Behar on the early morning of 9.5.2007. The Patient expired at about 6.55 AM at NJM Hospital prior to start treatment .

The Complt. has said that the OP caused deficiency in service by his negligent and wrong treatment by forcefully admitting the patient at his chamber and assuring best treatment by him. The Complt. also stated that he is a quack Doctor and have no proper qualification for practice as a qualified Doctor.

Therefore, the Complt. has filed the present case against the OP Doctor praying to direct the O.P. Doctor to pay compensation as mentional in the Complaint.
The OP has contested the case by filing W/V contending inter also stated that the case is not maintainable in law.

The OP has stated that it is true the husband of the petitioner namely Md. Sirajul Haque was suffering from strong diarhoea and for that very reasons , he was taken to this OP for getting advice as regards treatment of the said patient but it is denied by this O.P. that the said patient was admitted by the O.P. in his Chamber as because there is no provision for getting admission of patient in his chamber at the relevant time. The O.P. seeing the precarious condition of the said patient advised him to get admission in Hospital for better treatment immediately but the patient party verbally requested him to keep watch of the patient as they were not ready to take him in Hospital ,finding no other way the O.P. had to keep watch of the patient and took sufficient measures /care as far as practicable on his part till their arrival for shifting to Hospital . The patient party took sufficient time to get them prepared for shifting the said serious patient to Hospital as a result of which the said patient become very serious and finally they took the said patient from the O.P. at 4 AM/4-30 AM(approx) and shifted him at M J N .Hospital Cooch Behar and after admission he was treated by the Doctor of M.J.N Hospital and thereafter the said patient was expired at M.J.N Hospital ,Cooch Behar and as such the Doctor of the M.J.N Hospital ,Cooch Behar is the best person to say whether there was any negligency on the part of O.P. or not.


The petitioner did never sustain any loss or injury for death of her husband due to negligency on the party of the O.P. Rather the O.P. took serious mesure in respect of his treatment during his stay at his chamber but the patient party did not take proper case or any step for shifting the patient to Hospital at that moment. Due to negligence part of the patient party ,the said patient was expired on that date at M.J.N Hospital Cooch Behar and as such no responsibility can be fixed up upon the OP and for that very reason the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Points for determination

No(1) Whether the O.P. by admitting the patient at his chamber done irresponsible act on the part of a Doctor proving his gross negligence and deficiency in service?

No (2) Whether Complt.. is entitled to get the relief, as prayed ?

Decision with reasons

Perused the evidences and documents filed by the Complt. Considered.

Deficiency in service – Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2 (1) (g) – Section 2 (1) (0) Complainant’s husband suffering from acute diarrhoea admitted in the chamber / Nursing Home being run by the opposite party Although his condition deteriorated and it became critical, opposite party departed for home leaving the patient at about 11 p.m. – Complt. husband died – Held by all means it was an irresponsible act on the part of the doctor proving his gross negligence and deficiency in service. The prescription shows that the OP admitted the patient at his chamber on 8.5.2007 at 5 p.m. He also prescribed medicines and after consuming of these medicines the condition of the patient worsened. As and when the wife ( Complt.) of the patient reported to the Doctor ( O.P.) about the deteriorating condition of her husband ( patient) she had been advised by the Doctor ( OP) that strong medicines have given to the patient for recovery.

In so far as whether there has been any negligence in the treatment given to the patient is concerned, we find that the complainant has made wild allegation that OP Doctor admitted the patient and kept at his chamber throughout the night while the patient party reported the deteriorated condition of the patient early in the morning, the OP Doctor advised them for shifting at the MJN Hospital, Cooch Behar and the patient expired at the Hospital about 6.55 a.m on 9.5.2007.

From the records and the medical literature produced, we find that there has been deviation from the practices accepted as proper by a responsible medical person skilled in this discipline.

Referring to the Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn. Vol.30 para 35) it has been held as under.

“ The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.”

Despite being in worsen condition of the patient, the OP forcibly discharged him at the early in the morning on 9.5.2007 referring him to M.J.N Hospital, Cooch Behar. Patient died after admission at the Hospital. Complaint filed by the Complt. for compensation and relief to the ld. Forum .Deficiency in service proved through medical negligence under section 2(1) (g) and Sec 2(1) (0) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the case in hand the Doctor who treated and applied medicines on the patient are not fully qualified and experienced whose profession is being questioned . We are, therefore, of the view that medical negligence is proved in this case.

Once, we hold that medical negligence against the OP Doctor does stand proved, the contention of the complainant for compensation and relief for medical negligence can not be denied.

Point No.2: It is decided that the OP caused deficiency in service and so the Complt. is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Hence

Ordered

that the complaint dt. 05.07.07 of the Complt. be allowed with a cost of Rs. 2000/-.

The OP is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Complt. for irreparable loss of her earning family member, mental tension and suffering within 45 days from the date of this order and in default a penal interest @ 10% p.a shall be levied on the unpaid amount till realization.