West Bengal

Bankura

CC/36/2017

Anupama Mahaparta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Alok Kumar Sinhababu - Opp.Party(s)

Kunal Kanti Ghosh

07 Mar 2024

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA 

  Consumer Complaint No. 36/2017

                                                         Date of Filing:  03/05/2017                                               

Before:        

                               

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Kunal Kanti Ghosh

For the O.P.s : Ld. Advocate Ardhendu Sekhar Ghosh

 

Complainant

Anupam Mahapatra, S/o Amal Kumar Mahapatra, r/o  Bankati,  Khatra, Bankura

Opposite Party

1.Alok Kumar Sinhababu,  C/o  Lopa Health Care of Vill & P.O.Ratanpur, Dist.Bankura

2.Dr. Sudhangshu Sarkar, C/o Anamoy Hospital of Veer Sidhu-Kanu  Dahar, Gobindanagar Bus Stand, Dist. Bankura   

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

Order No.45

Dated: 07-03-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that after having felt acute pain in lower abdomen he visited O.P. No.1/Dr. at Lopa Health Care who after thorough check up advised urgent admission and accordingly he was admitted on 15/10/2016 at Lopa Health Care Nursing Home and on 16/10/2016 he was operated acute Appendicitis by O.P. No.1/Dr. and was discharged on 23/10/2016 with the advice for rest and follow up action. The Complainant therefore visited O.P. No.1/Dr. on 29/10/2016 for post-operative check up for stitching off and the O.P. No.1 /Dr. endorsed it in the prescription as appendicular perforation. But the Complainant was not relieved of abdominal pain and vomiting tendency and therefore he again visited O.P. No.1/Dr. on 25/12/2016 who suggested for consultation with  Gastroenterologist. In such situation the Complainant attended O.P. No.2/Dr. attached to Anamoy Nursing Home with the pain for last ten days along with vomiting tendency and he was admitted at the said Nursing Home and on 07/01/2017 he was operated Adhesive Intestinal Obstruction with Laparoscopic Adeolisis  and was discharged on 10/01/2017. Getting no relief the Complainant ultimately moved before Christian Medical College, Vellore where he was admitted on 07/02/2017 with the diagnosis Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction with Peritonitis Septic Shock and on 08/02/2017 Exploratory Laparotomy operation was performed and he was discharged on 13/02/2017. The Complainant has approached this Commission with the allegation of medical negligence and deficiency in service in the treatment of O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 doctors claiming adequate compensation for the same.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Contd……p/2

Page: 2

Both O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing separate written version. The defence case of O.P. No.1/Doctor appearing in Para-6 & 7 of W.V. is that Adhesive Intestinal Obstruction is a common complication of Laparotomy operation for appendicular perforation which was performed successfully by O.P. No.1/Dr.  and so, he is not liable for any medical negligence or deficiency in service as alleged.

The defence case of O.P. No.2/Dr.  as appearing in Para-7 of written version is that considering symptoms and diagnosis acute Intestinal Obstruction was found and accordingly operation with conservative treatment was successfully rendered to the Complainant patient. O.P. No.2/Dr. is also not liable for any sort of medical negligence and deficiency in service as alleged.

                                                                                  -: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents on both sides the Commission finds that Open Appendectomy operation was the urgent need as acute appendicitis was diagnosed and so there is nothing wrong in the treatment of O.P. No.1/Dr. As the abdominal pain was persisting with vomiting tendency even after the operation done by O.P. No.1/Dr.. O.P. No.2/Dr. on diagnosis and clinical examination found acute Intestinal Obstruction causing such pain and vomiting tendency and accordingly necessary conservative treatment with surgery was done by O.P. No.2/Dr. to mitigate the sufferings of the Complainant. Such conservative treatment and surgery at the instance of O.P. No.2/Dr. can also not be faulted with in the given situation.

The Complainant was not however still comfortable and as such he moved CMC Vellore for further health management and the Discharge Summary issued by CMC Vellore which is on record does not anywhere find any fault with the treatment and surgery of O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 doctors.

Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant has drawn attention to the aforesaid Discharge Summary under the heading ‘discussion’ where it is stated that Mr. Mahapatra i.e. the Complainant was admitted in the Emergency Department  with acute Intestinal Obstruction in Septic Shock and relying stress on the impression Septic Shock he has contended that the successive operations at the instance of O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 doctors are the causes for development of Septic Shock in the vital organ of the Complainant.

The contention of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is totally mis-conceived as Septic Shock is a medical term used whenever an infection and complication arises out of any surgical operation and is not therefore attributable to the medical negligence of the treating doctor.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Contd……p/3

Page: 3

It is a well settled proposition of law that in medical negligence case the treating doctor must fall short of medical care, skill and diligence. In this case no case has been made out within the four corners of the record to establish lack of medical care, skill and diligence on the part of either O.P. No.1 or O.P. No.2 doctors in the treatment of the Complainant at the relevant point of time. Treatment rendered at CMC Vellore is nothing but better health management and the treatment rendered by the O.P. No.1 / O.P. No.2 doctors cannot be said to be inferior and improper treatments.

Accordingly   the Complainant cannot succeed in this case.

Hence, it is ordered…….

that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but  without cost.                        

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 

 ____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER