State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Mrinmoy Nandi &Anr.; vs Sri Ashis Bhattacharjee on 28 June, 2012
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND
FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/332/2011
(Arising out
of order dated 04.04.2011 of Consumer Case No. 331/2009 of D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata,
Unit I)
Date of Filing : 22.07.2011 Date of Final Order : 28.06.2012
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1. Dr. Mrinmoy Nandi,
25, Suren Tagore Road,
Kolkata 700 019.
2. Director/Manager/Authorised
Person representing,
Repose Clinic & Research Centre
Pvt. Ltd., 20. C. Broad Street,
Kolkata 700 019.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
Sri Ashis Bhattacharjee,
Siksha Bhavan, Visva
Bharati,
Santiniketan, Birbhum,
Pin 731235.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Sri
S. Coari.
MEMBER : Smt.
Mridula Roy.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Prabir Basu,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. :
In person.
: O R D E R :
No. 8/28.06.2012.
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgement and order No. 16/04.04.2011 by D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata, Unit I in connection with Case No. 331/2009.
Complainants case in brief was that he was detected having stone in gallbladder in his abdomen on 22.02.2005 by USG. Having had consultation with O.P. No. 1 on 07.10.2005 he was admitted to Repose Clinic & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. for surgical operation to remove gall stone. The O.P. No. 1 intimated the Complainant Respondent that a small opening on the upper abdomen would be done to remove the whole gallbladder along with the stone.
Accordingly, the operation was done and the gallbladder was handed over to the patient party. The patient was discharged from the said Nursing home on 17.10.2005. The Respondent had to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the O.P. No. 1 towards his fees and a sum of Rs.9,259/- to the O.P. No. 2. The patient visited the O.P. No. 1 on 21.10.2005 for removing the stitches.
Again, on 31.10.2009 the patient visited the O.P. doctor and after checking him up the doctor issued the fitness certificate to the patient. However, on 25.12.2008 the Respondent consulted a cardiologist, Dr. Satyamurti of Apollo Hospital for his cardiac problem and was advised to undergo various clinical tests including USG of upper abdomen. According to the USG report gallbladder stone was detected and accordingly Dr. Satyamurti advised him to remove the same. It was the specific allegation of the Complainant Respondent that the Appellant doctor had not done the operation completely and issued a fitness certificate instead. Hence, he had filed the complaint case praying for refund of Rs.60,000/-, that is, the amount he incurred for the operation done by O.P. No. 1 and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation.
Notices were sent to the O.Ps but they did not turn up. Therefore, the case was heard ex parte and the Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint with cost against the O.Ps directing them to refund Rs.60,000/- to the Complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which an interest @ 10% per annum to be paid for the default period.
Being aggrieved by this order the O.P. No. 1 preferred this appeal on the ground that the order of the Ld. Forum below was misconceived since the Ld. Forum below failed to understand that he had done a partial cholescystectomy for the better interest of the Complainant and, therefore, he had no deficiency in service as alleged.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
It appears from the record that the Complainant Respondent had undergone a surgical operation done by the O.P. Appellant doctor on 13.10.2005 but after three years he felt unwell and consulted a Cardiologist who advised him to undergo some clinical tests. It was revealed from the clinical tests that the patient had resudial gallbladder with stone. In fact, the treatment summary issued by the AMRI Hospital shows that the same. The Complainant Respondent raised the point that how the gallbladder with stone did remain in his abdomen when the Appellant doctor removed the gallbladder with stone three years earlier. It also appears from the record that the Respondent, before filing the complaint case before the Ld. Forum below, approached the Assistant Director, C.A. & F.B.P. for settlement of the dispute that cropped up in relation to the operation in question. As a bid of an amicable settlement, the Assistant Director, C.A.&F.B.P., Birbhum R.O. sent a letter to the Appellant doctor narrating the matter. In reply, the O.P. doctor stated that according to the patients physical condition/condition of health he had done a partial cholescystectomy in which a part of the gallbladder was removed. In the memo of appeal the O.P. doctor also stated that he had done the partial cholescystectomy which implied that the remaining part of the gallbladder was in the abdomen of the patient. Usually, it does not cause any harm to the patient. But in this case, the residuary part of gallbladder further developed stone after three years of the said operation. Moreover, it appears from the treatment summary issued by AMRI Hospital stating as follows : this time investigation revealed resudual gallbladder with stone.
It is also noted that the Appellant doctor had done the said operation on 13.10.2005 and the clinical test wherefrom it was revealed that the patient had stone in his gallbladder was done last week of December, 2008.
In fact, a long span of three years passed in between the two events.
According to medical literature produced by the Appellant, partial cholescystectomy is not very uncommon. It is well within the standard practice of surgical operation. There is also a possibility of developing calculi in the remaining part of the gallbladder. Still then it is advised to some patients who have certain type of ailment/physical conditions. It has not been proved that the Appellant doctor had done something which was not within the standard practice or he let the patient go without treatment or showed any negligence in course of treatment.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that there was no negligence on the part of the Appellant in treating the Respondent.
In the result, the appeal is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned judgement is set aside. The complaint is dismissed.
LCR be sent down to the Forum below along with a copy of this judgement forthwith.
MEMBER (MR) MEMBER (SC) PRESIDENT