Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CALCUTTA
Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharjee, President &
Mrs. S. Dutta, Member
BHUPENDRA NATH DAS—Appellant
versus
MAHARAJ RAM KRISHNA MISSION SEVA
PRATISTHAN & ORS.—Respondents
S.C. Case No. 33/o of 1995—Decided on 16.1.1998
A doctor owes a duty of care to his patient in deciding whether to undertake the case, deciding what treatment to give, and administering that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE', 'SUBJECT': 'Eye Operation', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17'], 'SUMMARY': 'The court held that the medical negligence brought against the doctor and the hospital was not proved. The court found that the operation was successful but the patient got an infection outside the hospital. The court also found that the doctor tried to cure the defect by a subsequent operation, but the defect could not be removed. The court further found that the allegation of wrong treatment by prescribing tuberculous medicine was not proved.'}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an engineer, underwent cataract surgery in his right eye at the Ramkrishna Seva Pratisthan. After the first operation, he was discharged from the hospital without any problems. However, he later developed an infection in his eye, which was treated with a second operation. The second operation was also unsuccessful, and the petitioner's right eye had to be removed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the medical negligence brought against the doctor and the hospital was not proved. The court found that the operation was successful but the patient got an infection outside the hospital. The court also found that the doctor tried to cure the defect by a subsequent operation, but the defect could not be removed. The court further found that the allegation of wrong treatment by prescribing tuberculous medicine was not proved.
Issues: 1. Whether there was any deficiency in medical service rendered to the petitioner by the opposite parties causing damage to his right eye? 2. If so, if he is entitled to the damages claimed by him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the medical negligence brought against the doctor and the hospital was not proved. The court found that the operation was successful but the patient got an infection outside the hospital. The court also found that the doctor tried to cure the defect by a subsequent operation, but the defect could not be removed. The court further found that the allegation of wrong treatment by prescribing tuberculous medicine was not proved.
Final Decision: The case was dismissed on a contest against both the opposite parties but without any cost.
Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharjee, President— This is a complaint of medical negligence filed by one Bhupendra Nath Das under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner's case is that he is an Engineer and was posted in a high rank in the Government Department as well as in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation at Calcutta, feeling some trouble in his right eye the petitioner contacted Ramkrishna Seva Pratisthan, 99, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta-700 026 and on the doctor's advice he was admitted there on 2.8.1993 for cataract operation under the treatment of Dr. M.M. Patra. Dr. Patra performed an operation on the right eye of the petitioner on 3.8.1993 and he was discharged from the Seva Pratisthan on 8.8.1993. It has been alleged that pursuant to the advice of Dr. Patra the petitioner attended the Eye O.P.D. of the Ramkrishna Seva Pratisthan regularly but the operated eye was not cured. The petitioner was thereafter advised the second operation by Dr. Patra with the assurance that the ailment of his right eye will be completely cured after the second operation. So the petitioner was admitted again in the Seva Pratisthan on 17.8.1993 and the second operation was made on his eye. He was discharged from the Seva Pratisthan on 8.9.1993. The petitioner has complained that the black portion of his right eye ball became completely white immediately after the second operation and he felt acute pain in his operated eye. Getting no relief even by the second Operation the petitioner reported the fact to Dr. Ranabir Mukherjee of Eye Care and Research Centre, Biplabi Niketan at 12-A, Dr. Bimal Guha Street, Calcutta-17 who after examining the right eye of the petitioner opined that due to infection the right eye ball of the petitioner was affected and there was septic in the right eye pupil. The petitioner was thereafter advised by Dr. Ranabir Mukherjee to remove his eye ball to avoid further complications of the left eye. Being so advised by Dr. Mukherjee the petitioner was admitted to his Clinic and his right eye ball was removed by Dr. Mukherjee. The petitioner's allegation is that two successive operations performed by Dr. Patra were done in a negligent way and there was prescription of wrong medicines and there was septic in his eye on account of un-hygienic instruments used during the operation. The petitioner alleges to have suffered mentally and physically by the negligent eye treatment made by the Seva Pratisthan and Dr. Patra. He, therefore, has claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,20,000/- (Five lakhs twenty thousand only) as per details given in the petition of complaint.
2. The case is contested by both the Ramkrishna Seva Pratisthan and Dr. M.M. Patra. The Seva Pratisthan is represented by the Secretary of the Pratisthan as opposite party No. 1 and Dr. Patra is opposite party No. 2. Both the opposite parties have filed a written objection denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to them the petitioner attended the O.P.D. of the Pratisthan on 2.7.1993 for the ailment in his right eye by Dr. M.M. Patra and as the petitioner was having a complaint of flat cataract on his right eye the requisite investigations were done as per advice of Dr. Patra and ultimately he was advised admission in the Pratisthan on 12.7.1993. The petitioner got himself admitted in the Pratisthan on 2.8.1993 and on 3.8.1993 his right eye was operated by Dr. Patra successively. The petitioner was discharged on 8.8.1993 without any problem from the Hospital and with proper postoperative advice. The opposite parties deny the allegation of negligent operation in the eye of the petitioner and assert that the petitioner was completely well even after the operation on 3.8.1993 and had no complications till 8.8.1993. It has been alleged by opposite parties that fungal infection was found in his eye which developed during his stay at home and that this was detected on 16.8.1993 when the petitioner attended the O.P.D. of the Seva Pratisthan. A
