State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jiwan Lal Sharma vs M/S. Serampore Surgical Nursing Home ... on 26 February, 2010
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. CC/09/30 DATE OF FILING: 05.05.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 26.02.2010 COMPLAINANT Jiwan Lal Sharma S/o Late Sona Lal Thakur 15, Janata Sarani Hind Motor P.O. Hind Motor, P.S. Uttar Para Dist. Hooghly, W.B. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1) M/s. Serampore Surgical Nursing Home (P) Ltd. 8A, K.M. Sha Street, Serampore 712 201 P.O. & P.S. Sreerampore, Dist. Hooghly 2) Dr. M.K. Roy, M.S. (Cal) Attending Surgeon Serampore Surgical Nursing Home (P) Ltd., 1st Floor 8A, K.M. Sha Street, Serampur P.S. Serampur, Dist. - Hooghly BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sk. Borhanuddin, Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : Mr. R.K. Mukherjee, Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging negligence in his medical treatment by OP1 Nursing Home and OP2 Doctor and claiming Rs.7,03,033/- towards expenditure of treatment, Rs.9 lacs on account of loss in business and Rs.10 lacs for mental tension and loss suffered and interest.
The case stated in the complaint, in brief, is that complainant, a patient of blood sugar, suffered from Perianal abscess.
On 11.7.08 the complainant took admission in OP1 nursing home for his treatment. The OP2 functioning as an attending surgeon in the said nursing home advised the complainant to obtain reports of blood sugar, sonogram of whole abdomen and echocardiogram report. Several other reports were also advised. OP2 after perusing all the reports performed surgery on the petitioner on 12.7.08 at about 5 P.M. for removal of the said abscess. At the night of the same day after the surgery was over, the condition of the petitioner became very serious and beyond control and was senseless in drowsy condition. The OP2 Doctor failed to get the sense of the patient recovered and this was due to wrong treatment by OP2 particularly operation at a time when sugar level of the complainant was 294 MG/DL. The complainant was transferred to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital on 13.7.08 for saving his life under treatment of Dr. Shyamasis Bandyopadhyay and such transfer was without issuance of any discharge certificate or transfer certificate with the observations and remarks by OP. At the instance of the OP2 on 11.7.08, 12,7.08 and 13.7.08 various tests were done at random from different concerns but diagnosis could not be made properly and it diferred from the diagnosis of Apollo Hospital and consequently erroneous operation and wrong treatment was performed. The petitioner took admission at Apollo Hospital on 13.7.08 and was discharged therefrom on 28.7.08 and two surgeries were performed on the petitioner on 14.7.08 and 16.7.08. Apollo Hospital issued a discharge certificate on 28.7.08.
The petitioner was continuing to lie in bed following catheter in rectum and suffered expenditure to keep nurses for day and night. Alleging negligence in medical treatment and for the recovery of the cost the complaint was filed.
After the written version was filed by the OPs and the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit followed by questionnaire and reply and the OP2 filed his evidence on behalf of the OPs followed by questionnaire and reply and parties filed Brief Notes of Arguments, the matter was taken up for hearing.
Heard Sk. Borhanuddin, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and Mr. R.K. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs.
The only contention of the complainant is that after the admission of the complainant on 11.7.08, OP2 performed surgery though his sugar was high as appeared from the report. His condition became serious and, thereafter the patient was shifted to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital as he did not regain sense and it was detected by the OPs that there was post operational gangrene. Written version was relied on for arguing that though the OP2 advised transfer of the patient to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital on 12.7.08 itself, he was actually shifted at 1 P.M. on 13.7.08 and this shows further negligence. Apart from medical literature the judgment in the case of Malay Kr. Ganguly-Vs-Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee reported in 2010(1) C Cr LR (SC) 42 was relied upon.
Mr. R.K. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs contended that materials on record show that the abscess itself was caused due to high sugar and, therefore, had to be removed for controlling the sugar level of the patient. As regards shifting of the patient to other hospital reliance was placed on the records of the case for arranging better treatment which was not available in the OP1.
Reliance was placed on the judgments in the cases of Dr. M. Radhakrishna Murthy-Vs-Parakulam Elishama Babu reported in 2007(3) WBLR (CPNC) 401, Raj Kumar Vishve-Vs-Dr. Vandana Gupta reported in 2007(3) WBLR (CPNC) 695 and Martin F. DSouza-Vs-Mohd. Ishfaq reported in 2009 (3) WBLR (SC) 538.
Considering the above contentions and the materials on record I find that the allegation of the petitioner that he did not regain sense after surgery on 12.7.08, has not been proved. The History Sheet of OP1 shows noting on 12.7.08 at 7:45 P.M. that patient was fully conscious. On 13.7.08 it was noted that patient was sleeping though responding to verbal commands. As regards shifting of the patient to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital also I find that there is no material which indicates that there was any medical negligence on the part of either of the OPs which required shifting. The OP2 Doctor has stated his view and treatment in sufficient detail both in written version and in his evidence. The complainant failed to show any inconsistency there. Therefore, in the background of the specific case of the OPs that the abscess itself having been caused due to high sugar level, its removal was felt required for controlling the level of sugar and, therefore, operation having high sugar report, cannot be treated as negligence.
The petitioner has failed to prove the aforesaid opinion of OP2 was wrong. In the circumstances there is no material to uphold, allegation of medical negligence. The final diagnosis by Apollo Gleneagles Hospital quoted by the petitioner states condition of the patient following operation but did not say that said condition was due to surgery or due to any wrong treatment or wrong surgery by OPs1 & 2. The complainant also failed to prove any experts opinion to show wrong treatment by OPs. Law in this regard as cited by the OPs also supports such contention. The findings in paragraph 135 in the case of Malay Kr. Ganguly (Supra), also does not make out a case of the complainant in the present facts. The medical literature referred to by the complainant being the complications due to sugar as contained in the Text Book of Medicine by Dr. H.R. Naumani does not prove the case of the petitioner. The book of Basic Surgery by Amiya Kumar Sen (Second Edition) has been referred to by the petitioner. But the observation therein that the patients are usually elderly and the gangrene develops and progresses, examination of urine and blood is to give the clue, does not appear to be relevant in the present facts.
In above view of the findings the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(S. Majumder) (Justice A. Chakrabarti) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT