Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Chittaranjan Biswas
For OP/OPs : Kajal Ghosh for OP No.1
Date of filing of the case :05.08.2019
Date of Disposal of the case :19.04.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.19.04.2023
Complainant Uttam Kumar Singha files the present complaint against the aforesaid opposite parties under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and Medical negligence and praying for an amount of Rs.10,00,000.00(Rupees Ten lakhs) as compensation and Rs.5,00,000.00(Rupees Five lakhs) as costs.
It is the allegation of the complainant that his wife Soma Singha was suffering with abdomen pain and was admitted in the Sunview Maternity and Nursing Home (OP No.1) under Dr. Dipak Das (OP No.3). As per advise of OP No.3 some medical tests were done. After perusing the medical reports OP No.3 had detected that there are tumours in the uterus of Soma Singha. Thereafter, operation upon Soma Singha was done on 05.12.2013 and she was released from said nursing home on 10.12.2013. After ¾ days from the date of said operation Soma Singha felt severe pain at her abdomen and matter was informed to OP No.3. Thereafter, complainant consulted with the Dr. Sudeb Biswas who advised for treatment at any hospital of Kolkata. Thereafter, complainant contacted with OP No.3 who advised for admission at Dum Dum Municipal Hospital Nager Bazar, Dum Dum. Thereafter, complainant admitted Soma Singha at M/s Mercy Hospital & Research Centre, 125/1, Park Street, Kolkata 700 017. Some medical tests were done there. On the basis of aforesaid medical tests they opined that OP No.3 operated stool pipe at the time of operation. Thereafter, treated her for a long period. Lastly said Soma Singha died on 11.03.2014. Dr. Binoy Majumder issued death certificate of Soma Singha on 11.03.2014. Thereafter, Post Mortem over the body of Soma Singha was done at Police Morgue Krishnagar vide U.D case no.193 dated 12.03.2014 vide PM No.246 dated 12.03.2014. Thereafter complainant lodged one complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Business
(3)
Practice on 03.07.2015 vide complaint no.299. But OP No.3 did not turn up on the date of hearing i.e. on 21.07.2015. Hence, the complainant filed this case.
OP No.2 filed W/V and denied the entire allegations of the complainant and further stated that there was no deficiency of service and there was no negligence on his part.
After filing of W/V he is not taking any steps in this record. Hence the case is running ex-parte against him vide order no.11 dtd.16.03.2022.
OP No.1 & 3 appeared in this record on 26.11.2019 but till 09.03.2021 they did not file W/V. On perusal of order dated 09.03.2021, we find that this Commission observed that OP No.1 & 3 appeared in this record on 26.11.2019 and statutory period of 45 days has expired on 10.01.2020. During the said period Covid pandemic was not started. This Commission vide order no. 11 dated 16.03.2022 proceeded the case ex-parte against OP No.1 & 3.
On 15.06.2022 OP No.1 & 3 appeared in this record, filed W/V and prayed for vacating of order of ex-parte hearing which has passed against them on 09.03.2021. Said petition has dismissed vide order no.12 dated 30.06.2022. There is no information in the record that OP No.1 & 3 challenged the order of this Commission before the higher forum. On the other hand they filed a petition on 04.08.2022 praying for appointment of medical expert but they did not take any steps on 26.09.2022 and 24.11.2022. Even they did not file show cause as per order dated 26.09.2022. Said petition was rejected on 26.11.2022.
Trial
During trial complainant filed affidavit in chief on 16.03.2022. He also submitted some documents as per firisti:-
Documents
Complainant produced the following documents viz :
1) Prescription issued by Dr. B. Bhowmik dtd.25.10.13...............(One sheet).......... (Original)
2)Report on Bio-Chemical Examination issued by Medipath dtd.28.10.13 .....(One sheet)..........(Original)
3)Thyroid Function Test issued by Medipath dtd.29.10.13 .....(One sheet)..........(Original)
4)USG of Whole Abdomen issued by Hrik Diagnostics dtd.31.10.13............(One sheet)............(Original)
(4)
5)Report of Biochemistry issued by Health Care dtd.07.11.13............(One sheet)............(Original)
6)Report issued by Sebayan Diagnostic Center dtd.13.11.13............(One sheet)............(Original)
7)Chest P.A. View issued by Lokenath X-Ray Clinic dtd.13.11.13...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
8)Examination Report of Blood issued by Debnath Patbhologycal Laboratory dtd.20.11.13...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
9)Examination Report of Blood issued by Debnath Patbhologycal Laboratory dtd.04.12.13...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
10)Document of New Maternity & Nursing Home in the name of Soma Singha ...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
11)Discharge Certificate issued by Sunview Maternity & Nursing Home dtd.10.12.13............(One sheet)...............(Original)
12)Document of South Dum Dum Municipal Hospital, Nager Bazar, Kolkata dtd. 16.12.13 issued by OP No.3...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
13)Report on Histopathology Examination issued by Medipath dtd.17.12.13...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
14)Examination Report of Blood issued by Debnath Pathologycal Laboratory dtd. 12.12.13...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
15)Prescription issued by Dr. Sudeb Biswas dtd. 15.12.13...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
16)Discharge Summary And Certificate issued by Mercy Hospital dtd. 16.12.13(OP No.2)...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
17)Discharge Summary & Certificate issued by Mercy Hospital dtd. 25.02.14...............(Two sheets)...............(Original)
18)Bio-Chemistry Report issued by Modern View Medical Diagnostics Centre dtd.01.02.14...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
19)Death Declaration issued by Dr. Binoy Majumder dtd.11.03.14...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
20)Certificate of Death issued by Executive Officer, Krishnagar Municipality dtd. 06.06.14...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
21)Miscellaneous Receipt issued by Nabadwip Municipality...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
22)Document of Burning Ghat dtd12.03.14...........(One sheet)...............(Original)
(5)
23)Certificate issued by Suprovat Ghosh,Councillor of Krishnagar Municipality dtd. 12.03.14...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
24)Document of Area Inspector, Food & Supplies Department, krishnagar Sadar dtd. 03.06.14...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
25)Document of Police Morgue, Saktinagar, Krishnagar dtd.12.03.14...............(One sheet)...............(Original)
26)Document of Paper cutting dtd.13.03.14.............(One sheet)...............(Original)
27)Document of Post-Mortem Report.............(One sheet)...............(Certified copy)
28) Application of complainant before Assitt. Director.............(One sheet)...............(Xerox)
29) Application of complainant before Asstt. Director.............(One sheet)...............(Original)
30) Document of Members of the Medical Board issued by Superintendent District Hospital, Nadia.............(One sheet)...............(Xerox)
31)Document dt.30.07.2015 issued by Assistant Director. &FBT............(One sheet)...............(Original)
32) Document issued by Assistant Director, C.A. & F.B.P., Nadia R.O. dtd 08.07.15.............(One sheet)...............(Original)
OP No.1 and 2 did not file any documents.
Decision with Reasons
It is the allegation of the complainant that complainant’s wife Soma Singha due to her abdomen pain admitted in the Sunview Maternity Nursing Home (OP NO.1) under OP NO.3 and on that time some medical tests were done and on perusal of medical reports OP NO.3 stated that there are tumour in the uterus of Soma Singha. Soma Singha was admitted before OP No.1 on 05.12.2013 and OP NO.3 operated him on that date. OP NO.3 discharged her on 10.12.2013. After 3 to 4 days from the date of operation Soma singha was feeling pain at her abdomen. Matter was informed to OP NO.3. and he stated that everything will be normal and he discharged the patient namely Soma Singha on 10.12.2013. Complainant being disappointed consulted with Dr. S. Biswas. He advised for treatment of the patient at any hospital of Kolkata. Thereafter, complainant stated the same to OP No.3 then he advised to shift the patient in Dum Dum Municipal Hospital, Nager Bazar, Dum Dum but complainant did not get fruitful result. On that time, he again contacted with OP NO.3 then he advised for shifting of the patient to Medical College and Hospital. Thereafter, complainant shifted the patient to Merry Hospital i.e OP NO.2. Different medical tests were
(6)
done there and after examination of those tests doctors of OP NO.2 stated that treatment of Soma Singha was done in wrong manner due to medical negligence of OP NO.3 as during operation OP No.3 operated tool pipe instead of operation of the tumour of uterus, thereafter operations were done on two occasions before the OP No.2 and OP No.2 after treatment in two phase discharged Soma Singha from their hospital. Complainant brought his wife Soma Singha at his home and she died on 11.03.2014.
Relating to aforesaid death of Soma Singha one U.D. case was started vide case no.193 but dated 12.03.2014. P.M. over the body of Soma Singha was done on 12.03.2014 vide P.M. No.216 dated 12.03.2014 and the body was burnt at Burning Ghat Nabadwip on 12.03.2014. FIR was lodged vide no.193/14 dated 11.03.2014 u/s 304A IPC.
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and other materials on record.
We have also carefully gone through the affidavit in chief of the complainant. We have also carefully gone through the documents on record.
On perusal of USG report dated 31.10.2013 we find that said USG was done before Hrik Diagnostic. Doctor K.L. Chatterjee consultant Radiologist of the said Institution gave his findings in respect of uterus”-
“Bulky, anteverted and shows inhomogeneous myometrial echotexture. Echogenic and hypoechoic nodular lesions[large one-about 44 mm in diameter] were seen in the myometrium. Endometrial echo appears normal [10 mm]. Uterus measures about 127 mm x 91 mm x 77 mm.”
In respect of ADNEXAE he stated:-
Ovaries are normal in size and echotexture. Right ovary – 7.2 cc and left ovary – 11.8 cc. Thick-walled cystic lesion [about 28 mm in diameter] was seen in the left adnexal region.”
He finally gave his opinion that fibroid uterus, left Adnexal thick in walled cystic lesion-? Tubal lesion.
We find from the record that OP No.3 after considering the aforesaid report of USG advised the patient to take admission before OP NO.1 and Soma Singha was admitted on 05.12.2013 before OP NO.1 under OP NO.3. As per the certificate of OP NO.3 dated 16.12.2013, it is clear before us that operation of Soma Singha was done on 05.12.2013 before the OP No.1 and OP No.3 conducted the said operation. We also find that after completion of operation uterus with cervix and one ovary were examined in a
(7)
computerised laboratory and professor J. Sengupta prepared the report on histopathology after examining the aforesaid uterus with cervix and one ovary and he opined chronic cervicitis . On examination of the said document, we also find that the ovary which was produced before the said laboratory also contained one small cysts multiple intramural fibroid largest measuring 3 cm in diameter present in the uterine body. Cervix was slightly eroded. On careful consideration of the aforesaid three documents it is clear before us that operation i.e TAH+BSO operation of Soma Singha was done on 05.12.2013 before OP NO.1 by OP NO.3.
It is the further allegation of the complainant that OP NO.3 did not conduct the aforesaid operation properly as a result Soma Singha felt severe pain at her abdomen after 3 to 4 days from the date of operation on 05.12.2013. Complainant immediately conducted with OP NO.3 but he advised to take admission before Dum Dum Nursing Home, Nager Bazar, Dum Dum but they did not get any fruitful result there. Thereafter complainant again contacted with OP NO.3 then he advised for admission of the patient before any Medical College and Hospital. Thereafter complainant took away the patient at the nursing home of OP NO.2. Doctors of the OP NO.2 admitted patient Soma singha on 06.12.2013 on that time they arranged some investigations. On the basis of investigation report they felt operation over the body of Soma Singha and lastly after operation of 2 occasions released her on 05.01.2014. Patient Soma Singha was admitted before the OP NO.2 for the second time on 22.02.2014 and she was released therefrom on 25.02.2014.
Let us see discharge summary and certificate issued by OP NO.2 on 05.01.2014. Also perused the discharge summary and certificate dated 25.02.2014.
On perusal of CECT SCAN of whole abdomen of Soma Singha which was done at OP NO.2 on 12.12.2013, Doctor S. Das, M.D consultant Radiologist prepared his report and stated therein:-
“UTERUS-Not seen
“There is wound dehiscence at the surgical site on the left side with air pockets in the subcutaneous tissue. Anterior abdominal wall muscle deep to the surgical site is swollen, and there appears to be fistulous communication between this site and the abdominal cavity. Patchy opacity suggesting collection seen deep to bladder which also showed gas bubbles.
IMPRESSION
Post operative follow up study showing
(8)
- Wound dehiscence at the surgical site
- Air pockets in the subcutaneous tissue
- Fistulous communication between subcutaneous tissue & peritoneal cavity
- Collection of pus
? Small bowel injury”
On the basis of the said report and other investigations report doctors of OP NO.2 treated the patient Soma Singha for the period from 16.12.2013 to 05.01.2014 they mentioned their diagnosis in the Discharge Summary and certificate dated 05.01.2014-which reads an under:-
Diagnosis:
- Iatrogenic Proximal ileal injury with entrocutaneous
- Fistula I full thickness necrosis if entire lower quadrant
- Anterior abdominal wall-static TAH.
HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: A 40 years old female patient was admitted with C/o foul smelling discharge from the operated site, Post-TAH on 09.12.2016. The Pt. Was underwent TAH on the 05.12.2013 for fibroid uterus in a local nursing home. She was discharged on 11.12.2013 but foul smelling discharge from the operated site present since 09.12.2013. She was then admitted in a hosp in Dum-Dum on the 15.12.2013 for the same complaints and was discharged on 16.12.2013 and brought to our Hospital. NO H/O Fever/ vomiting/obstruction.
They also found pfannenstein incision with surrounding tissue in duration and cutaneous neurosis. They also found liquidity stool from the wound. They managed the patient surgically on 20.12.2013 under GA and on 24.12.2013 under GA. During the period of said treatment wound dehiscence at the surgical site, air pockets in the subcutaneous tissue fistulous communication between subcutaneous tissue and peritoneal cavity are collection of pus.
From the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that OP NO.2 during their treatment for the period from 16.12.2014 to 05.01.2014 conducted investigation over the body of patient Soma singha and found wound dehiscence at the surgical site.
We failed to understand that OP NO.3 being a renowned and competent doctor how conducted the surgery. We failed to understand that as to how air
(9)
pockets were detected in the subcutaneous tissue. We also failed to understand as to how stool was dictated in the place of wound.
On careful consideration of aforesaid medical report it is clear before us that OP NO.3 did not perform his duty properly during the operation of Soma Singha which was held on 05.12.2013 at nursing home namely M/s. Sunview Maternity and Nursing Home (OP NO.1). As a result Soma singha suffered a lot and compelled to take shelter to OP NO.2 and compelled to take the burden for further two operations on 20.12.2013 and 24.12.2013. Doctors of OP NO.2 treated Soma Singha till 25.02.2014. On perusal of death certificate dated 11.03.2014 we find that said Soma Singha was expired due to severe anaemia, due to post operated complications.
From the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that OP NO.3 did not conduct the surgery of OP NO.3 in proper manner and we compelled to say that the surgery of OP NO.3 upon Soma Singha which was held on 05.12.2013 are nothing but a clear case of medical negligence.
Accordingly we are of the further view that the OP NO.1&3 should be asked to pay adequate compensation.
In the result present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP NO.1 and 3 with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to be paid by OP NO.1 &3 in favour of the complainant and present case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP NO.2 but without any order as to cost.
OP NO.1 and 3 jointly or severally are directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) in favour of the complainant within one month from this date failing which aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from this date to till the date of actual payment.
(10)
OP NO.1 and 3 are further directed to comply the aforesaid order within one month form this date failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties as free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) ..................... ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
