Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Manojit Mandal, President, Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member and Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Member
Chandra Das (Saha) – Complainant
versus
Bimal Saha, MD Radiologist and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.CC/6 of 2016
Decided on 4.9.2023
For the Complainant:Mr. Barun Prasad, Mr. Subrata Mondal and Mr. Sovanlal Bera, Advocates
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Abhik Kr. Das, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Ms. Saheli Ghosh, Mr. Atish Majumder, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Report of Expert Committee is decisive in cases of medical negligence.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47] – Medical services – Medical negligence – Wrong opinion with regard to USG report – Expert Committee had evaluated report prepared by opposite party No. 1 Doctor and had also examined USG plate based on which report was given – Expert Committee has clearly and categorically stated that USG plate which was examined contained two kidneys – Expert Committee had also given their opinion as to why subsequently one of kidney disappeared – There was no negligence on part of opposite parties and case cannot be labelled as a case of medical negligence – Negligence as alleged against treating doctor or Hospital cannot be substantiated – Complaint dismissed. (Paras 36, 37, 41 and 42)
Result: Complaint Case dismissed.
ORDER
Manojit Mandal, President—The instant complaint case was filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant Mrs. Chandra Das (Saha) for the alleged negligence of the treating doctor and the hospital, causing severe harassment, mental anxiety with no hope for better life of her baby in future. The complainant Mrs. Chandra Das (Saha) has filed the instant complaint case praying for the following reliefs:—
“(i) To admit and register the complaint.
(ii) After hearing please to direct the opposite parties for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.47,00,000/- to the complainant due to medical negligence conducted by them causing severe harassment and suffering.
(iii) To award litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
(iv) To pass other orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Mrs. Chandra Das (Saha) was pregnant in the year 2013 and to examine the condition of the baby in ovary, the complainant approached to the opposite party No. 2 at their hospital on 17.09.2013 and as per advice of Dr. namely Dr. Biswanath Santra, USG, pregnancy and anomaly scan test were conducted on 17.09.2013.
3. Further case of the complainant is that USG report has been prepared by the opposite party No. 1 Doctor who was MD Radio Diagnosis and Consultant Radiologist. The said Doctor in the USG report dated 17.09.2013 has opined as follows:—
(i) There is single live intrauterine foetus of 23 weeks 0 day maturity.
(ii) No obvious foetal anomalies are seen at present.
(iii) Stomach, both kidneys and bladder are normal.
4. Further case of the complainant is that considering the said USG report, the complainant decided to maintain pregnancy and accordingly one male baby was born on 04.12.2013. Subsequently, in the month of August, 2015 the baby namely Snehangshu Das became ill and the complainant visited Prof. Dr. Dipak Ghosh for examination of her son on 21.08.2015. Dr. Dipak Ghosh examined her baby and advised certain tests and examinations like USG, KUB, Urine < RE / ME / CS, Blood TC DC Hbg%, Urine, BT, PT, APTT, INR etc. The complainant immediately conducted all the tests and after perusing the USG report dated 13.08.2015 Dr. Dipak Ghosh was shocked and advised for repeat USG as the USG report dated 23.08.2015 revealed non visualization of left kidney and residual urine about 40 ml and the said report also suggested MR urology and other relevant investigations.
5. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant conducted MRI report dated 27.08.2015 KUB test and other tests as prescribed by the Doctor and found that all the repeated tests clearly stated about non visualization of left kidney and post void study shows 12 ml of residual urine in the bladder. Dr. Dipak Ghosh after examination of all the test reports referred the baby to be examined by Dr. Subhashish Saha at AMRI, Mukundapur on 29.08.2015 for the treatment of MCU and Balanoposthaitis recurrent UTI.
6. Further case of the complainant is that accordingly the complainant brought her baby namely Snehangshu Das at AMRI, Mukundapur before Dr. Subhashish Saha on 30.08.2015 where the said Dr. after examination of the patient advised for admission for the treatment of MCU test, thereafter circumcision and cystoscopy. The baby was admitted at AMRI Hospital on 10.09.2015 where circumcision and cystoscopy were done after GA on 10.09.2015. Cystoscopy showed no PUV bladder trabeculates and bladder diverticulae in 2 (left lateral walls).
7. Further case of the complainants is that due to wrong detection and observation made by the opposite party Doctor as well as Hospital, the complainant suffering with mental agony and her baby also facing acute state of health. The baby namely Snehangshu Das will be disabled for his entire life, will face physical disorder and other physical ailments till his last breath with his one kidney and enlarged bladder. His health became permanently with disorder and there
