State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Tapan Mukherjee vs Sri Suvankar Ganguly on 23 November, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/253/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/01/2013 in Case No. CC/214/2004 of District North 24 Parganas DF, Barasat) 1. Dr. Tapan Mukherjee Uma Medical Research Institute (P) Ltd., V.I.P. Road, Teghoria, Kolkata-700 059, P.S. Rajarhat, Dist. North 24 Pgs. 2. Uma Medical Research Institute (P) Ltd. V.I.P. Road, Teghoria, Kolkata-700 059, P.S. Rajarhat, Dist. North 24 Pgs. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Suvankar Ganguly S/o Late Santosh Kumar Ganguly, 61/1, Ramkrishna Pally, P.S. Nimta, Kolkata - 700 051, Dist. North 24 Pgs. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. D. B. Chaudhuri, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Arijit Karmakar, Advocate ORDER
23/11/15 HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24-Paraganas in CC 214 of 2004 allowing the complaint directing the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.6 lakh to the legal heirs of Late Santosh Kumar Ganguly by depositing the same along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that Santosh Kumar Ganguly, since deceased, was his father who was suffering from pain in lower abdomen and rectum. Having consulted OP No.1 on 01/03/04 and after completion of pathological tests and on the advice of OP No.1 the patient was admitted in OP No.2 Nursing Home on 04/06/04. On 07/06/04 the OP No.1 did the operation and told that the operation was successful. But, subsequently, the Complainant came to learn that second operation would be performed by OP No.1. Thereafter the Complainant noticed that the patient sustained burn injuries around the rectum and its surroundings. In spite of second operation the condition of the father of the Complainant deteriorated. The Complainant had brought it to the notice of the OP No.1 who told that 'it will be alright shortly'. Dr. Soumitra Sengupta of the OP No.2 gave out that while giving ray outside the rectum as well as the back portion of the hip of the patient, the back portion and outside the rectum of the patient was burnt causing burning sensation. The OP Nos.1 and 2 suggested that the patient should be taken back home and the dressing should be made. Accordingly, on 12/07/04 the Complainant took back the patient to their residence and engaged Sri Jeevan Nandy and Smt. Anima Chowdhury of North Dum Dum Municipality Hospital for the purpose of dressing. But the condition of the patient deteriorated further. Since there was no improvement in the condition of the patient the Complainant, his mother and brothers called in Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury, Dr. Manish Pradhan, Dr. Kanika Mitra in the OP No.2 Nursing Home and they examined the father of the Complainant and prescribed medicines. The Complainant was kept in dark about the second operation and it was not explained as to why and how the patient sustained burn injuries. Dr. Soumitra Sengupta gave out that the accident took place while operating the patient, but did not disclose the details of the incident. The OP No.1 suggested for skin grafting on the hip and back portion and outside the rectum of the patient and called in Dr. Rupnarayan Bhattacharya. Dr. Tapan Mukherjee, the OP No.1 demanded huge sum of money and Dr. Rupnarayan Bhattacharya opined that skin grafting was not possible. Ultimately the patient died on 24/08/04. Under the circumstances, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the patient suffered bleeding from rectum and it was a case of suspected malignancy. It is contended that urgent colonoscopy and biopsy were advised, but it was not followed. Subsequently, on 05/06/04 colonoscopy was done and the patient was diabetic. It is submitted that the consent form was duly signed. It is submitted that laparotomy was done on 07/06/04 followed by biopsy and it was detected that there was malignancy. It is submitted that as regards operation done by OP No.1 there was no allegation and as per standard medical practice and procedure seitz bath was advised. It is contended that the patient was discharged on stable condition. It is submitted that as many as 13 doctors treated the patient, but none of them was impleaded. It is contended that no expert evidence was adduced and no medical literature was filed. It is submitted that the Learned District Forum made out a third case. It is submitted that Santosh Kumar Ganguly, since deceased, was a psychiatric patient. As per the discharge summary on first admission, advice was given, but the instructions mentioned therein were not properly followed. It is submitted that for the second time operation consent form was duly signed. It is submitted that during seitz bath the patient sustained burn injury as he was a patient suffering from carcinoma. It is submitted that Medical Board was formed and all the doctors agreed on the line of treatment done at the OP Nursing Home. It is submitted that after second operation the patient expired as it was very advanced stage of carcinoma. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the decisions reported in 2013 (3) CPR 270 (NC) [Skariah Mathai & Ors. vs. Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre]; 2012 (4) CPR 98 (NC) [V. K. Suri vs. Dr. Sushma Aggarwal & Anr.]; 2009 CTJ 581 (SC) [Dr. C.P. Sreekumar vs. S. Ramanujam]; 2010 CTJ 241 (SC) [Kusum Sharma & Ors. vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors.]; 2004 CTJ 175 (NC) [K. S. Bhatia vs. Jeevan Hospital & Anr.].
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that seitz bath was done in a very hot water instead of lukewarm and, as such, the patient sustained burn injuries and it was due to the negligence on the part of the OPs. It is submitted that it was not a case of any maniac disorder. It is submitted that from the papers on record it would appear that even after suffering burn injuries seitz bath was not withheld.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. From the materials on record it is evident that the patient was admitted at OP No.2 Nursing Home where the operation was done and during his stay at OP No.2 the patient sustained severe burn injuries in buttock and around the rectum. It is the contention of the Appellants that according to the standard medical practice and procedure seitz bath was advised and the patient was psychiatric and had been suffering from carcinoma. From the page no.185 being the annexure to the Memo of Appeal, that is, the discharge summary issued by OP No.2, it appears that the date of admission was 04/06/04 and the date of discharge was 12/07/04. From the summary of the case as mentioned in the said discharge summary it clearly appears that there were post operative accidental injuries over buttock while taking seitz bath. From page no.202, that is, the treatment sheet dated 09/06/04 it appears that there were blisters over buttock area. At page no.203 dated 09/06/04 it was mentioned that there was accidental burn with blister. From page no.288, that is, the treatment sheet dated 08/07/04 it appears that advice was made to contact Dr. Rupnarayan Bhattacharya for opinion regarding burn wound at buttock. From the papers on record it is clear that the patient sustained severe burn injuries while undergoing treatment at OP No.2 Nursing Home. From the medical papers issued by OP No.2 it is evident that while under the care and custody of the OP Nursing Home the patient sustained such injury and it has also been reflected on several dates in the treatment sheet that there was accidental burn injury while taking seitz bath.
As regards the operation done by OP No.1 there is no specific allegation against the OP No.1 and the allegation was specifically raised about sustained burn injuries at the OP Nursing Home. It is also evident that the OP No.1 in view of such burn injury made necessary advice to contact Dr. Rupnarayan Bhattacharya for opinion regarding burn wound at buttock. It is the specific contention of the Complainant that Dr. Rupnarayan Bhattacharya after examining the patient expressed that skin grafting was not possible. Such being the position, we are of the considered view that that there was no negligence on the part of the OP No.1 while doing operation. On the other hand, it was due to the negligence and serious deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 Nursing Home, the patient sustained the burn injuries which could not be cured and he ultimately he succumbed to the injuries on 24/08/04. Under the circumstances, we modify the impugned judgment as hereunder.
The Appeal is allowed in part. The OP No.2 of the complaint/Appellant No.2 herein is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh (five lakh) and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) to the Complainant/Respondent within 60 days from this date failing which simple interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue from the date of default till realisation. Other directions passed by the Learned District Forum are set aside. The impugned judgment stands modified accordingly. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER