Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

            The opposite parties No. 3 to 5 filed its written version and denied all the allegations. They stated that the complainant has filed the instant case by suppressing the material facts with the intention to malign the reputation of the Nursing Home run by the opposite party No.3 and the Doctors and tried to make money by instituting a false case against the opposite parties. The specific case of the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 is that on 25/05/2015, the 4 years old son of the complainant was brought to the Nursing Home with fractured wrist joint. When the deceased son of the complainant was brought to the Nursing Home he was hemorrhaging badly and was almost in a condition where the recovery of the patient was beyond control. The deceased son of the complainant was immediately attended by Dr. Sabyasachi Santra (opposite party No.2) at the Nursing Home without any delay and with utmost care. The concerned Doctor considering the urgency in the matter advised the patient party for his immediate admission in the Nursing Home without delay and the prognosis was explained to the patient party. The blood sample was taken without any delay and sent for examination. After getting blood examination report the concerned Doctor decided to do surgery of the wrist joint of the patient. Before the concerned Doctor who started surgery after applying anesthesia the patient breathed his last and his life could not be survived / saved although there was utmost care and due diligence of the team of the attending Doctors. There was no delay and / or negligence on the part of either of the Nursing Home or the Doctors concerned. The further case of the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 is that before taking admission in the said Nursing Home the patient party has already delayed in bringing the patient in the Nursing Home which causes death of the patient.

Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainant  has submitted that the case is quite maintainable and there are contradictions in the evidence of the opposite parties, so, the case of the opposite parties cannot be considered as true. We find that there are substance in the submissions as made by the Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainant. Opposite party No. 2 Dr. Sabyasachi Santra has answered in his reply that no operation could be performed on Shubham Kuila. The patient was admitted under him. Closed reduction under anesthesia (MUA) was done ( if failed then K wire fixation) MUA could not be done as the patient was deteriorated after induction of anesthesia by the anesthetist and the patient expired in spite of severe resuscitation. Whereas the opposite party No. 2 in his reply clearly and categorically stated that surgery was done after application of anesthesia. This apart, opposite party No. 2 in his reply has stated that no operation was done on Shubham Kuila, only anesthesia was applied by the anesthetist. Whereas the opposite party No. 1 Dr. Madhusudan Maity has replied that surgery was done after anesthesia. This apart, opposite party No. 2 in his reply has deposed that condition of the patient was deteriorated after induction of anesthesia by the anesthetist whereas anesthetist Dr. i.e. Dr. Madhusudan Maity has replied that patient was stable after anesthesia was applied. The opposite party No. 2 has replied in his reply that condition of the patient was recorded in the OT Note but no OT Note is produced by the opposite parties who are the custodians of the operation theatre note. This apart, opposite party No. 2 has stated in his reply that operation could not be performed whereas the opposite party No. 1 Dr. has stated that surgery was conducted by Dr. Sabyasachi Santra, opposite party No. 2. Therefore, it appears to us that no corroboration nexus is found in the reply made by the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 as referred to above.  As there are noticeable discrepancy in the replies made by the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 we are reluctant to place any reliance on the version of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2.

Complainant has filed post mortem examination report of Shubham Kuila. The post mortem examination report discloses that the stomach content is the sign of feeding of child patient causing aspiration. From the above it is clear that before applying anesthesia no investigation has been done by the opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 whether the patient was in empty stomach or not which was necessary to enquire before applying anesthesia. Hence it is proved beyond doubt that opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 have not taken all reasonable care to their patient. There was gross negligence on the part of the Doctors causing death of Shubham Kuila, son of the complainant.