Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Mr. Prem Narain, Member
BINAY BHUSAN ACHARYYA - Appellant
Versus
DR. ASHOK DAS - Respondent
First Appeal No. 364 of 2009 against Order dated 31.7.2009 in SC Case No. 103/O/99 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Decided on : 20-09-2016
Deleted, for the Respondent No. 4; Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Partha Sil and Mr. Tavish B. Prasad, Advocates, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Ex parte, for the Respondent No. 3
The main legal point established in the judgment is that medical practitioners are expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. The court emphasized the need for medical practitioners to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and held that non-detection of pregnancy and non-mentioning of problems in the prescription did not amount to medical negligence.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) - [Pregnancy Detection, Medical Negligence, Blood Transfusion, Jaundice, Renal Involvement] - [Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b)] - The court discussed the deficiency in detecting pregnancy, wrong blood transfusion, and non-detection of jaundice and renal involvement. The court emphasized the need for medical practitioners to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and held that non-detection of pregnancy and non-mentioning of problems in the prescription did not amount to medical negligence. The court also found that the allegations of wrong blood transfusion and non-detection of jaundice were not substantiated from evidence and on the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for cases of medical negligence. The court dismissed the appeal based on the correct appreciation of facts, evidence, and law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's wife visited the doctor for medical check-up and treatment. The doctor failed to detect her pregnancy, prescribed wrong medicines, and refused to visit the patient at her residence. The patient's condition deteriorated, and she eventually died due to severe jaundice with renal involvement. The appellant filed a complaint alleging medical negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-detection of pregnancy and non-mentioning of problems in the prescription did not amount to medical negligence. The court also concluded that the allegations of wrong blood transfusion and non-detection of jaundice were not substantiated from evidence and on the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for cases of medical negligence. The court dismissed the appeal based on the correct appreciation of facts, evidence, and law.
Issues: The issues involved non-detection of pregnancy, wrong blood transfusion, non-detection of jaundice and renal involvement, and allegations of medical negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-detection of pregnancy and non-mentioning of problems in the prescription did not amount to medical negligence. The court also found that the allegations of wrong blood transfusion and non-detection of jaundice were not substantiated from evidence and on the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for cases of medical negligence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal based on the correct appreciation of facts, evidence, and law.
ORDER
Mr. Prem Narain, Member - Aggrieved with the order dated 31.7.2009 passed in S.C. Case No. 103/0/99 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (in short 'the State Commission'), the complainant/appellant has filed this First Appeal No. 364 of 2009 before this Commission.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.2.1999, the Appellant/Complainant's wife, Smt. Dalia Acharrya (now deceased), went to the Chamber of Respondent No. 1/Opposite Party-1 for medical check-up and treatment. After examining her, the OP No. 1 failed to detect her pregnancy and wrongly prescribed some medicines. After taking the medications prescribed by OP No. 1, the complainant's wife fell ill and was forced to approach another doctor who detected her pregnancy (second tri-semester) on 6.3.1999. The baby was delivered on 6.6.1999. After the delivery, the complainant's wife again went to OP No 1 for some physical trouble OP No. 1 negligently examined her in the presence of the complainant and stated that there is no disease. He prescribed some medicines wrongly in favour of the complainant's wife without mentioning any disease and observation. After using the prescribed medicines, the complainant's wife became seriously ill. The complainant approached the OP No. 1 to visit his (complainant's) residence for check-up and necessary treatment of his wife, but OP No. 1 refused to attend the patient at her residence. Subsequently, the complainant went to the chamber of OP No. 1 on next day who again prescribed medicines and advised the complainant to admit the patient at Udit Nursing Home under Dr. U.K. Roy (Opposite Party No. 2/Respondent No. 2) if the condition of the patient does not improve. After taking the medicines prescribed, the patient became unconscious, and on 6.8.1999, she was compelled to be admitted at the nursing home under the care of Respondent No 2 who prescribed some medicines after examining the patient and advised to collect 6 bottles of O+ve blood. After the blood transfusion (3 bottles), the patient's condition became serious and she fell unconscious. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 2 prescribed some medicines and an injection, and advised the complainant to collect the same from outside. But after receiving the said injection and medicine, the patient's condition became worse and thereafter, on the advice of Opposite Party No. 2/Respondent No 2, she was referred to Alpha Nursing Home ICCU for better treatment on 7.8.1999. At Alpha Nursing Home, she was detected suffering from jaundice and due to transfusion of blood and other medicines administered by Opposite Party No 2, the kidney and liver were damaged and was attacked with malaria in the brain and the spurious blood infected the whole body of the patient. Finally, on 8.8.1999, the complainant's wife died due to cardio respiratory failure in a case of Hepatic encephalopathy with renal involvement. On 1.10.1999, the appellant filed a petition of complaint against the OPs before the learned Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah. After perusal, it was sent to T/C Golabari P.S. under Cr.P.C. for investigation. T/C Golabari endorsed for investigation. On 6.11.1999, the OPs surrendered themselves before the Court and obtained an order of bail. The appellant filed an application for cancellation of bail before the learned Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Howrah. The said application is pending in the Court awaiting disposal. The Complainant also approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, alleging the medical negligence on the part of OPs. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal vide order dated 31.7.2009, dismissed the complaint filed by the Complainant/appellant on the ground that neither the case of medical negligence has been proved nor the blood transfused by OP No. 2 was got tested by the Complainant for proving the same to be spurious. Aggrieved with the said order, the Complainant/a
