West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/49/2012

Smt. Rintu Das Choudhury, W/O- Sri Suman Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Suresh Mondal, Medical Officer(Gynocologist), District Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

05 Dec 2014

ORDER

In brief, case of the complainant / petitioner is that out of her lawful wedlock she became pregnant and was under medical supervision of Doctor Manoranjan Sarkar, M.O. Gynaecologist from 11.10.2011 to 19.12.2011. Said doctor advised her to follow up with USG report. It was seen from the USG report dt. 12.12.2011 that fetus was of 16 weeks. She was advised by the doctor Manoranjan Sarkar on 19.12.2011 to check up after 1 month. On 26.2.2012 at about 3:30 a.m. returning from bathroom complainant expressed that there was vaginal bleeding and pain in the abdomen. Then her husband made a call to Doctor Manoranjan Sarkar when she came to know that Doctor Manoranjan Sarkar is / was at Kolkata. She was advised by the doctor to take admission immediately to the District Hospital Balurghat. Then she was taken to District Hospital Balurghat by a rickshaw. At about 5 / 5:30 a.m. she was taken to the emergency department of the hospital by her husband and in-laws when OP No.1 Doctor Suresh Mondal was the attending emergency doctor. Said doctor took her at the labour room, where on examination he confirmed that both the baby and mother (patient) are in good condition. Said doctor (OP-1) prescribed some medicines and advised her for USG. She was asked by him to attend in his private chamber or nursing home with USG report at 4:00 p.m. As per advice of Doctor Suresh Mondal she was taken to Dishari Clinic Centre at Raghunathpur, Balurghat, where she took some medicines as prescribed. After arrival at Dishari Clinic Centre at about 6:00 a.m. for suggested of USG she was feeling unbearable labour pain when bleeding was started and fluid was coming out. As a result of it, USG could not be done. Delivery was started automatically. Somehow husband of the petitioner / complainant managed to take back her to the District Hospital, Balurghat and she was admitted to the family ward as inpatient where she delivered a dead fetus. It is alleged by the

 

 

                                                                                                Contd…P/3

 

complainant / petitioner that due to gross negligence on behalf of the OP No.1 she delivered a dead fetus. Hence, she has filed the present case against the OPs claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest as compensation.

 

            OP-1 has contested the present case by filing a written version inter-alia denying all the material allegations made by the complainant in her petition of complaint. It is the main contention of the OP No.1 (so far it can be gathered from his written version) that the complainant was admitted at District Hospital, Balurghat on 26.2.2012 at about 5:54 a.m. with complain of slight vaginal bleeding and pain in abdomen as an unbooked case as prior to that she had not been officially examined at District Hospital, Balurghat and as such there was no any record pertaining to her previous treatment. Further more at the time of admission she could not provide any investigation report in relation to her subsisting pregnancy. The complainant/ complainant party gave history of “Amenorrhea” of seven months. On examination OP No.1 found that uterus was in gestation of 28 weeks size without any fetal heart sound. Accordingly, the complainant was advised for USG for confirmation and was allowed temporary DORB for USG. It is the further case of the OP No.1 that the complainant was readmitted at District Hospital, Balurghat at 8:25 a.m. under Doctor R. K. Mustafi who referred her to him.  As per EMO’s note on the relevant document it was found that the complainant delivered a dead baby at USG Clinic. As the baby was delivered outside hospital campus, the complainant was first attended at emergency department at the time of readmission, when umbilical cord was separated at emergency room on 26.2.2012 at about 8:20 a.m. After that the patient was admitted to the maternity ward. Allegation of gross negligence on the part of OP-1 is absolutely false. Present case is malafide one. So, this OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

 

 

 

                                                                                                Contd…P/4

            Although, OP Nos. 2 & 3 filed written statement after appearance, but they did not contest the case. As a result of it, present case was heard on ex-parte against them. The case was also heard on ex-parte against the OP No. 4.

 

            To prove the respective case complainant alone has been examined as PW-1. She has filed certain documents in this case.

 

            On the other hand no witness has been examined on behalf of the OP No.1 or no document has been exhibited on his behalf.

 

            From the evidence and other materials on record we have come to the following finding.

 

FINDING WITH REASONS

 

            Before passing this judgement we have carefully perused the petition of complaint, written version, evidence of the witness and the other materials on record. It is the main contention of the complainant / petitioner (so far it can be gathered from her petition of complaint) that out of her lawful wedlock she became pregnant and she was under supervision of Doctor Manoranjan Sarkar, M.O. Gynaecologist. On 26.2.2012 at about 3:30 a.m. returning from bathroom she expressed that there was vaginal bleeding and pain in the abdomen. Then her husband made a call to Doctor Manoranjan Sarkar and they came to know that doctor Manoranjan Sarkar is / was at Kolkata. She was advised by the said doctor to take admission immediately to the District Hospital Balurghat and she was taken to District Hospital Balurghat by a rickshaw by her husband at about 5 / 5:30 a.m. she was taken to the emergency department of the hospital where OP No.1 was the attending emergency doctor. Doctor Suresh Mondal (OP No.1) took her to the labour room. On examination he disclosed that both the baby and the mother are in good condition and he prescribed her some medicines and advised for USG with a direction to attend in the private chamber or

 

                                                                                                Contd…P/5

nursing home with USG report at 4:00 p.m. It is the further case of the complainant that at the said time she was feeling unbearable labour pain. As the day was Sunday the complainant was taken to Dishari Clinic Centre at Raghunathpur, Balurghat for USG. Ultimately, USG could not be done as the complainant got unbearable labour pain when bleeding was started and fluid came out. Then she was taken to the labour room of the Balurghat District Hospital, where she delivered a dead fetus. It is alleged by the complainant that due to gross negligence / deficiency in rendering service on behalf of Dr. Suresh Mondal (OP No.1) she delivered a dead fetus.

 

            OP-1 did not support the above contention of the complainant. According to him, (so far it can be gathered from his written version as well as from the trend of cross-examination of the complainant) that the complainant was admitted at Balurghat District Hospital on 26.2.2012 at about 5:54 a.m. with complain of slight vaginal bleeding and pain in the abdomen as an unbooked case as prior to that she had not been officially examined at Balurghat District Hospital and as such there was no any record pertaining to her previous treatment. Further more at the time of admission she could not provide any investigation report in relation to her subsisting pregnancy. It is the further case of the OP-1 that the complainant / complainant party gave history of ‘Amenorrhea’ of seven months. On examination he (OP No.1) found that the uterus was in gestation of 28 weeks size without any fetal heart sound. So, he advised the complainant for USG for confirmation and she was allowed temporary DORB for USG. The complainant was readmitted at Balurghat District Hospital at about 8:25 a.m. under Dr. R. K. Mustafi, who referred her to him. As per EMO’s note on the relevant document it was found that the complainant gave birth to a dead fetus at USG Clinic. It is the further contention of the OP No.1 that there is / was no any negligence / deficiency in rendering service on his behalf.

 

 

 

                                                                                                Contd…P/6

            Now, we will consider how far the complainant has been able to prove her case i.e. we will consider as to whether there is / was any negligence / deficiency in rendering service on behalf of OP-1.

 

            It is admitted position that before admission on 26.2.2012 at Balurghat District Hospital the complainant had not been officially examined at the said hospital or she was not under supervision of Doctor Suresh Mondal (OP-1) prior to taking admission at Balurghat District Hospital on 26.2.2012. On the other hand, she was under supervision of Dr. Manoranjan Sarkar. So, it can safely be said that there was no any record pertaining to the complainant’s previous treatment at the hospital at the time of taking her admission. It is the further admitted position that at the time of taking admission complainant could not provide any investigation report in relation to her subsisting pregnancy. So, OP No.1 had no any idea about the gestation of the complainant. It was rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of OP No.1 that Doctor Suresh Mondal did not commit any error in advising the complainant for USG as on examination he found that the uterus was in gestation in 28 weeks size without any fetal heart sound. It was the further submission of the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OP No.1 that had there been any earlier investigation report it would have been possible for OP No.1 to provide necessary treatment to the complainant without any USG. It is further admitted position that the day was Sunday. For that reason OP No.1 suggested complainant for USG out side the hospital compound and released her DORB at 6:25 a.m. It is the further contention of the OP No.1 that the complainant went to USG centre out side the District Hospital where she had delivered a preterm male baby. Then she was brought to the hospital at the emergency department and sister on duty of the emergency department separated the cord of the dead baby at 8:20 a.m. on 26.2.2012, which is reflected in the discharge certificate. It is the further contention of the OP No.1 that the complainant was admitted for the second time at

 

 

                                                                                                Contd…P/7

District Hospital on 26.2.2012 at 8:25 a.m. and she was released from the hospital on 28.2.2012. In support of his above contention OP No.1 has produced discharge certificate issued by the Balurghat District Hospital. We have carefully perused the same. It is clearly seen from the EMO’s note on the discharge certificate that the complainant delivered a preterm male baby outside of the hospital compound. It is further seen from the discharge certificate that the cord of the dead baby was separated at 8:20 a.m. on 26.2.2012 by the sister on duty of the emergency department. It is also seen that the complainant was admitted for the second time at the District Hospital at 8:25 a.m. on 26.2.2012 and she was released from the hospital on 28.2.2012. It is seen from the copy of the PM examination report that the postmortem over the dead fetus was conducted on 27.2.2012 and it was opined by the doctor that a “still born male foetus of 6-7 months of intra uterine age”.

            On the other hand no evidence is forthcoming from the side of the complainant by which it can be said that from Dishari Clinic Centre she was taken to Balurghat District Hospital, where she delivered a dead fetus.

 

            Moreover, it is seen from the record that Doctor Suresh Mondal prescribed ‘Duvadilan’ tablet for the complainant when she first visited the hospital. Ld. Counsel on behalf of OP No.1 submitted before us that such tablet is used for in both the preterm labour and risk of abortion. In support of his contention Ld. Counsel has produced an internet copy in respect of use of such tablet.

 

            Judging in the light of our above observation and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case we are inclined to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case. So, it can safely be said that there is / was no any negligence / deficiency in rendering service on the part of OP No.1. It is to be noted here that no relief has been claimed by the complainant against the OPs 2, 3 and 4.

 

                                                                                                Contd…P/8

                        In the premises, the instant case fails.

             Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

 

            that the instant petition of complaint is dismissed on contest against the OP-1. The same is also dismissed on ex-parte against the other OPs, but in the circumstances without any cost.

 

            Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.