HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, MEMBER

The instant Complaint Case is directed by the Complainant against the OP No. 1-Hospital and the OP No. 2 – Doctor alleging deficiency in service and resultant medical negligence and with prayer for compensation of Rs. 30.00 lacs, reimbursement of cost of treatment being Rs. 4.00 lacs and litigation cost of Rs. 40,000/-.

The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the materials on records, are that the Complainant with complaint of chest pain visited the OP No. 2-Doctor on 28.8.2013 at OP No. 1-Hospital, and the OP No. 2-Doctor, after perusal of ‘Coronary Angiogram Report’ dated 20.8.2013, advised for by-pass surgery.  Accordingly, the Complainant got admitted at OP No. 1-Hospital on 2.9.2013 and the OP No. 2-Doctor conducted CABG (Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting) on 5.9.2013 at OP No. 1-Hospital and discharged the Complainant being the patient concerned on 13.9.2013.  After discharge the condition of the Complainant did not improve, rather the Complainant suffered from persistent pain in chest and legs.  Then the Complainant on 28.3.2014 got admitted at Ruby General Hospital Ltd. under Dr. P.K.Hazra, who diagnosed “INFERIOR WALL MYOCARDIAL INFRACTION, COMPLETE HEART BLOCK, POST CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFTING WITH LEFT VENTRICULAR FAILURE WITH COMPLETE HEART” and “PTCA was done under cover of Temporary Pacemaker” as revealed from the “DISCHARGE SUMMARY & CERTIFICATE” dated 2.4.2014 of Ruby General Hospital Ltd. It is alleged in the Petition of Complaint that further complete heart block after CABG on 5.9.2013 by OP No. 2-Doctor at OP No. 1-Hospital clearly indicates deficiency in service and resultant medical negligence on behalf of the OP No. 2-Doctor and the OP No. 1-Hospital.

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that subsequent “PTCA with stenting to RCA” on 28.3.2014 at Ruby General Hospital Ltd. after CABG on 5.9.2013 by OP No. 2-Doctor at OP No. 1-Hospital conspicuously indicates deficiency in proper and diligent medical service and resultant medical negligence on behalf of the OP No. 2-Doctor.

The Ld. Advocate also submits that as the medical negligence on behalf of the OP No. 2-Doctor is apparent from the subsequent operation being ‘PTCA with stenting to RCA’ on 28.3.2014 at Ruby General Hospital Ltd., so no expert-opinion is necessary in the case on hand as is well-settled.

The Ld. Advocate further submits that the OP No. 1-Hospital is also vicariously liable for its failure to ensure proper and diligent care and service on behalf of the OP No. 2-Doctor who was attached with the OP No. 1-Hospital for providing proper and diligent service to the patient.

The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Complaint Case should be allowed and the reliefs claimed be awarded.

On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for OP No. 2-Doctor submits that the Complainant has not been able to establish any prima facie case of medical negligence on the basis of any expert-opinion and hence, the instant Complaint Case is based on surmise and conjecture.

The Ld. Advocate also submits that the Discharge Summary of Ruby General Hospital Ltd. has not mentioned that there was any mistake in CABG done by OP No. 2-Doctor.

The Ld. Advocate further submits that the aforesaid submission clearly indicates that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on behalf of the OP No. 2-Doctor and hence, the Complaint Case on hand should be dismissed.

The Ld. Advocate for OP No. 1-Hospital submits that as the negligence on behalf of the OP No. 2-Doctor is not established, so there is no vicarious liability on behalf of the OP No. 1-Hospital and hence, the Complaint Case concerned against the OP No. 1-Hospital should be dismissed.

Heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.

“DISCHARGE SUMMARY & CERTIFICATE” dated 2.4.2014 of Ruby General Hospital Ltd., as available on records, reveals “Postoperatively patient developed Left Ventricular Failure” which clearly indicates deficiency in proper and diligent service and resultant medical negligence on behalf of the OP No. 2-Doctor and vicarious liability on behalf of the OP No. 1-Hospital.

In view of the aforesaid discussions the instant Complaint Case deserves to be allowed, and the same is allowed accordingly.

The OP No. 2-Doctor is directed to pay to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of this order, Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as compensation for suffering, harassment and mental agony of the Complainant and the OP No.1-Hospital, which is vicariously liable, is also directed to pay to the Complainant within the aforesaid period Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) as compensation, failing which both the OPs will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the Complainant for the entire period of default.