Medical negligence is established when a professional breaches the duty of care by failing to exercise the standard skill of an ordinary competent practitioner. A mere error of judgment or lack of favorable outcome is not actionable unless the failure to act constitutes a departure from accepted medical standards.

ORDER

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The relevant facts of the case are that Manju Guha Roy aged about 67 years who was wife of the complainant/the respondent no 1/Mr. Himadri Kumar Guha (herein after referred to as “the respondent no 1 ”) was patient of Diabetic Mellitus Type-2 and due to this her both kidneys got damaged. Manju Guha was under dialysis and her first dialysis was started in Belle Vue Hospital, Kolkata. Earlier three dialysis were conducted in a week which later on reduced to two dialysis in a week. Manju Guha was later shifted to AMRI Hospital, Salt Lake for dialysis on 04.11.2014. The complainant used to pay medical charges. The appellant/ the opposite party no. 1/ Dr. Ranjan Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) is a Nephrologist and Head of the Dialysis Unit at AMRI Hospital. The dialysis of Manju Guha on 02.12.2016 could not be done due to failure of the perm catheter. Thereafter son of the respondent no 1 contacted the appellant who advised that the patient be admitted in the hospital for replacement of the catheter but the respondent no 1 suspected that the hospital admission was might be purely for commercial reasons and as such the respondent no 1 lost faith in the appellant. The catheter was subsequently replaced on 05.12.2016 by Dr. S. Chatterjee at Jems Long Clinic Private Limited and Manju Guha was discharged within two hours after completion of the procedure. Manju Guha in the last week of January 2017 developed high fever due to infection from the hospital catheter but the appellant despite being informed did not provide any formal treatment. The respondent no 1 thereafter consulted Dr. Pratik Das, a reputed Nephrologist at NH Rabindranath Tagore Hospital, on 31.01.2017 who after examining Manju Guha and assessing all relevant medical records prescribed Chest X-Ray (PA view), single-use dialyzer and Vancomycin Injection (1 gm) after haemodialysis with 100 ml NS for the following three dialysis sessions. The next dialysis was scheduled for 03.02.2017.

1.1 The respondent no 1 prepared for dialysis on 02.02.2017 by purchasing the prescribed Vancomycin Injection and other required medications. However, on 03.02.2017 when son of the respondent no 1 presented the prescription to the dialysis technician then the appellant directed that Vancomycin should not be administered since it was prescribed by another nephrologist. Consequently, the prescribed dose of Vancomycin was withheld both on 03.02.2017 and on subsequent dialysis dates. The respondent no 1 along with his son on 04.02.2017 met appellant to enquire about the refusal to administer Vancomycin. The appellant stated that he was not bound to follow the prescription given by another doctor. The appellant routinely prescribed a less potent antibiotic, Linezolid 600 mg and never recommended Vancomycin injection. The appellant after a prolonged period of 45 days on 14.03.2017 finally administered Vancomycin injection without reviewing any relevant test reports. The appellant no 1 on the same date advised the respondent no 1 to conduct tests for CRP, full blood count, central blood culture, and peripheral blood culture. The blood samples were taken on same day which indicated that haemoglobin level of Manju Guha was 6.7 g/dl. The appellant despite this critical condition did not advise any immediate blood transfusion or administration of additional Vancomycin doses.

The subsequent dialysis on 24.03.2017 revealed