District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur

Surya Sen Sarani Municipal Building, 1^st Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101.

Telefax: 03522-270013

Consumer Complaint No.:29/2007

Complainant Vs Opposite Party / Parties

Swapan Kumar Choudhury S/O Lt. Akhil Ch. Choudhury Vill : Kaldighi, Hospital More, P.O & P.S: Gangarampur, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur

1. Dr. P. K. Sarkar, M.S. (General Surgon) 2. Dr. A.K. Paul Both C/o Sandhya NursingHome Subhash Pally, P.O & P.S: Gangarampur, Dist:-Dakshin Dinajpur.

Order No.: 10

Dt. 07.04.08

Present:- (1) Sri S. K. Ghosh - Presiding Member

(2) Samiksha Bhattacharya - Lady Member

Counsel(s) :-(1) Sri Biswarup Chatterjee - Advocate for Complainant.

(2)Sri Sajal Ghosh - Advocate for OP Nos. 1 & 2

This is to consider an application U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation and for Rs.80,000/- for causing mental pain and agony etc.

The fact of the case, in brief, is that Nanda Choudhury, wife of the complainant felt in ill with pain in her abdomen on 28.06.2005 and she was brought at Balurghat. She was examined by Dr. L. Saha Medical Officer of Balurghat District Hospital. On scrutinising all the test reports the concerned doctor opined that Nanda Choudhury was suffering from cholecystetis having stone in gallbladder and that would be removed through operation. That as the complainant is a poor fellow he requested the said doctor to operate the patient at Balurghat Hospital, but the doctor told that it was not possible for him to do the operation at Govt. Hospital within 1 and 1 ½ month from the said date. The complainant made contact at nearby Sandhya Nursing Home, Gangarampur wherein the opposite parties are being attached. The wife of the complainant was admitted in the said Nursing Home on 19.07.2005. The patient was brought into the OT. On that very date Dr. P.K. Sarkar suddenly appeared before the complainant from OT and stated that the patient had appendicitis which should also be removed in one operation otherwise it will be hardship and danger for the patient. On being convinced the complainant gave his consent to operate the patient for removal of both the unwanted substances from her body.

The doctor did not suggest to wear an belt to the patient immediate after operation. After elapsing of about 4/5 months, the wife of the complainant again felt in pain in her abdomen in regular intervals. The complainant brought the patient to Dr. P.K. Sarkar and an examination he opined that the patient was suffering from hernia OP No.1 advised the patient to wear belt in her abdomen in belated stage. But the said pain of the patient was increasing day by day. Thereafter Dr. Somnath Chatterjee advised the complainant to cause Ultrasonography and E.C.G. of the patient. Thereafter the patient was admitted in a Basanti Seva Kendra at Balurghat on 16.06.2006 and operated for second time by Dr. Somnath Chatterjee by way of laparoscopic Adhesionolysis on 21.06.2006. Thereafter the patient was suffering from pain in her chest, she was again admitted into Balurghat General Hospital. During treatment the concerned doctor disclosed that the patient was attacked with mental disease and as per such observation the treatment of the patient was going on under Dr. Ritabrata Chatterjee. After necessary tests, it was revealed that the patient was not at all suffering from any mental diseases. Complainant also stated that there is a gross medical negligence on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2. The wife of the complainant became disabled and physically unfit due to negligent work of OP Nos.1 &2

and hence the application.

OP No.1 Dr. P.K. Sarkar contested this case by filing written objection stating inter alia that firstly the patient was examined by Dr. L. Saha, Medical Officer, Balurghat District Hospital. But no prescription has been placed in this case. However, after clinical examinations of the patient and after getting relevant investigation reports i.e. ECG, Ultra Sonography, blood test etc. the patient was admitted in Sandhya Nurshing Home, Gangarampur. Necessary operation for cholecystecomic was made for removing gallbladder. Before such operation on documents of previous treatment could have been placed by the patient party. The operation was done at a very low cost. The patient party did not clear the actual charge of the operation. OP No.1 also stated that regarding removing of Appendicitis, a man with medical knowledge knows very well that this gland has a limited function in human body but having potential danger. In many cases it is removed at the time of any abdominal operation as a profile active measure. For such removal of appendicitis no extra charges was taken by the patient. It is also stated that the problem of Hernia is not the outcome or after effect of operation. It may arise anytime to any human being. OP advised the patient as per the norms and procedure. OP also stated that Dr. Somnath Chatterjee made operation by way of laparoscopy Adhesiolysis on 21.06.2006. Actually it is not clear what substances were removed by this operation. All the documents of Diagnosis and operation are required to be place for expert opinion. Specially the patient has been operated by a specialist surgeon.

Therefore no definite allegation could have been made by the party with any positive reason. There is no proof that the patient sustained ailments due to any laches in operation. Rather it is with the ill-intention of collecting money by putting blame on a reputed surgeon and to defame him.

OP No.2 also contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that he examined the diagnosis report of Dr. L. Saha done upon the patient of Balurghat Hospital and accordingly consulted with Dr. P.K. Sarkar. On joint consent with Dr. Sarkar the patient was admitted for operation. Ultimately operation was done jointly by Ops and there was nothing wrong in cholecystecomic operation. Though the patient was advised for post operative check up but he did not turn up. The complainant neglected the advice of the OP. There is no connection of present ailment of the patient with her previous operation and allegation made by the complainant is totally false and with an intention of making wrongful gain.

In view of the contentions of the parties following points arose for consideration:

1. Whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Ops?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons:

Point No.(1) & (2) : Both parties file relevant documents at the time of hearing which are kept with the record.

We heard the contentions of the both parties and perused all material documents produced before the Ld. Forum with reference to relevant provisions of law.

It is admitted fact that Nanda Choudhury wife of complainant took admission in Sandhya Nurshing Home on 19.07.2005 under care of OPs Doctors for operation of cholecystetis and appendicitis. Operation was done on 19.07.2005 and discharged on 27.07.2005.

Ld. Forum peruse the original copy of Admission Form and consent of the patient viz Nanda Choudhury. The complainant endorsed his declaration on the back side of Admission Form that “I notice the sample of gallbladder of my wife after operation and I take it into my home with due care and knowledge”. Thereafter he signed along with mentioning date 19.07.2005 and time at 5:30 p.m.

Sujit Choudhury son of the complainant also endorsed his declaration on the backside of Admission Form that “I return home taking my mother in fit condition from nursing home” and he signed along with mentioning date 27.07.2005 and time at 10:43 a.m. The Ld. Forum also peruse the original consent form.

The complainant understood the 1 to 14 No. points of the Consent Form and gave his consent in writing for operation of his wife viz Nanda Choudhury on the back side of the said form. Thereafter he signed on the said form before operation on 19.07.2005 for and on behalf of his wife Nanda Choudhury as well as he signed as a witness. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant raised no objection at the time of hearing in respect of Admission Forum and consent of the patient.

So, it is clear from the above discussion that the patient Nanda Choudhury was brought into home after operation in fit and sound condition. The Ld. Forum peruse the discharge certificate vide No.116/06 dt.21.06.2006. It is also fact that the patient was admitted in a Nursing Home named Basanti Seva Kendra of Balurghat on 16.06.2006 and operated for the second time by Dr. Somnath Chatterjee by way of laparoscopic Adhesiolysis on 21.06.2006. On the said discharge certificate Dr. Chatterjee endorsed “POST OPERATION ADHESIONS (OMENTUM) UNDERNEATH PREVIOUS MINICOLESTOETOMY APPENDICITIS SCAR AND LAPAROSCOPIC ADHESIONOLYSIS DONE” The Ld. Counsel for the complainant stressed upon the quoted words in capital form mentioned above and argued that there is a gross medical negligence on the part of OPs. Doctor.In this respect the Ld. Forum gave direction to Dr. Somnath Chatterjee for his appearance as an expert in Medical Science vide order No.7 dated 27.02.2008. Thereafter on 14.03.2008 Dr. Somnath Chatterjee appeared before the Ld. Forum and declared his opinion as a Medical Expert in open ejlas in presence of both parties.

Opinion of Dr. Chatterjee as a Medical Expert

“Adhesion can be happened during the course of disease anytime or after the operation. This is a normal phenomenon. Adhesion cannot be found by any usual investigation except by laparoscopy. It is not possible for Dr. P.K. Sarkar regarding laparoscopic investigation. Pain can be the first symptom for all hernias that may develop in normal course or after operation in any where of the human being”.

Que.: Ld. Forum put a direct question to Dr. Somnath Chatterjee. “Is there any fault or gross medical negligence on the part of OPs Doctors?”

Answer of Dr. Chatterjee: “There is no fault or gross medical negligence on the part of OPs Doctors.”

From the above discussion the Ld. Forum comes into conclusion that it is not proved that the patient sustained ailments due to faulty operation of OPs Doctors. Thus, the Ld. Forum hold and conclude that there is no fault or gross medical negligence on the part of OPs Doctors. Hence.

O R D E R E D

That the Consumer Complaint No.29/2007 is dismissed without cost.

That there is no fault or gross medical negligence on the part of OPs Doctors.

That the consumer complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The case could be disposed of within 3 months and 5 days.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

By order of this Forum

I agree