IMPORTANT POINT
Medical Negligence – The allegations of medical negligence have also been duly examined by the Medical Experts and the lapses of OPs in providing treatment to the patient have been established.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against order dated 01.06.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 8 of 2019. In this, the Appeal by the Respondent/ Complainant was partly allowed, thereby setting aside the Order dated 22.01.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Purba Bardhman (“District Forum”) in CC No. 87 of 2010, wherein the Complainant’s complaint was dismissed.

2. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are denoted as per the Complaint before the District Forum. Mohd Nasim is the Complainant. The Life Line Nursing Home & Polyclinic is referred as OP-1 (Petitioner No. 1 herein), Dr. Sandip Ghosh is referred as OP-2 (Petitioner No. 2 herein), Dr. Arunima Chowdhury is referred as OP-3 (Petitioner No. 3 herein).

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that his mother, Jibabesha Begum, was admitted to Life Line Nursing Home (OP-1) on 10.06.2008 for gallbladder surgery, as per the advice of Dr. Sandip Kumar Ghosh, Surgeon (OP-2). She was operated upon at 4.00 PM on the same day by Dr. Sandip Kumar Ghosh (OP-2) and Dr. Anunima Chowdhury, anaesthetist (OP-3), along with Molla Kasem Ali, one of the proprietors of the nursing home and some other unidentified doctors. OP-2 & 3 were responsible for his mother’s death in the operation theatre, and death occasioned due to medical negligence. He contended that five of her teeth were broken during the procedure and she died due to anaesthesia reversal failure. Further, the OPs attempted to deceive them by transferring the deceased to the ICU posthumously and OPs filed a false criminal case was filed against him and his brothers. His brother lodged a complaint against OPs at Burdwan CJM Court, leading to exhumation of her body for post-mortem examination. The OPs operated illegally, violating the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act 1950 and its regulations. The nursing home was unlicensed under the Act and that his mother’s death was due to the negligence of the attending doctors. No proper consent was obtained for the abdominal surgery. He also filed complaint with the Chief Medical Officer, Burdwan and West Bengal Medical Council, alleging negligence and ethical violations by the OPs. He contended that her condition was inadequately evaluated, and the complications and procedures were not explained adequately. He thus filed CC No. 87 of 2010 before the District Forum, seeking compensation of Rs.20,000/- for treatment, Rs.7,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.30,000/- for litigation expenses.

4. In reply, OP-1 contended that the Complainant lacked any cause of action. All necessary formalities under the WBCE Rules, 2003 were duly observed and requisite permissions from competent authorities were obtained to operate the Nursing Home. Asserting its reputation and standing as a well-known institution, OP-1 stated that choices of all patients for treatment are respected. As regards the present case, OP-1 clarified that the Complainant’s mother was admitted to the Nursing Home on 10.06.2008 based on the recommendation of OP-2, who subsequently directed the operation. OP-1 facilitated the process, with OP-2 enlisting OP-3 for anaesthesia, conducted operation. Despite comprehensive treatment and efforts, the aged patient who was suffering from various ailments, died on 11.06.2008. OP-1 argued on its limited role both before and after the surgery and asserted its obligation to comply with medical advice and directions from attending physicians. OP-1 vehemently denied any deficiency in service or negligence, asserting that all requisite treatments were provided in pursuit of the patient’s recovery.

5. In reply, OP-2 asserted that there was no cause of action to file the case against him and denied that the patient’s death was due to any negligence by the OPs and maintained that the