ORDER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT

1. This formal pursuit of redress exposes a monumental failure of clinical duty, cast in a heavy shadow of gross negligence upon the opposite party no.1 to 6.

2. A profoundly serious allegation of clinical malfeasance forms the cornerstone of this action, directed specifically at the physician designated as opposite party no.1.

3. The grievance brought forth herein articulates a severe and catastrophic departure from standard medical stewardship by the primary responding practitioners.

FACTS IN BRIEF

4. One Arati Sarkar since deceased, the mother of the complainant visited AMRI Hospital with acidity and pain in stomach. She underwent endoscopy and blood test on 30th June, 2011 and Doctor suggested biopsy after completion of endoscopy.

5. After returning home on 30th June, 2011, mother of the complainant feeling some discomfort and vomiting, was admitted to Belle Vue Nursing Home and underwent treatment. The biopsy report dated July 7, 2011 suggested Grade – II Adenocarcinoma. She was discharged from the Belle Vue Clinic.

6. On 11th July, 2011, the complainant consulted another Doctor of Tata Medical Centre who after clinical investigation advised that the symptoms were all showing positivity of cancer and advised to consult any oncology surgeon on account of only OPD Service at Tata Medical Centre. Dr. Manas Kumar Roy attached to Tata Medical Centre has advised pancreaticoduodenectomy and referred the same to Dr. Sandip Chakraborty for further opinion.

7. On the same day i.e., on 11th July, 2011, complainant again consulted Dr. Saikat Gupta/Opposite Party No.1 herein attached to the Apollo Gleneagles Hospital/Opposite Party No.2 herein. Complainant was admitted in the Apollo Gleneagles Hospital from 12th July, 2011 to 09th August, 2011. During that particular period, all test reports suggested “negative for malignancy”. During the admission, the mother of the complainant underwent biliary bypass surgery. All the test reports including FNAC (Fine needle aspiration cytology) suggested “negative for malignancy”.

8. After discharge of the patient on 09th August, 2011, again patient visited Dr. Saikat Gupta/Opposite Party No.1 herein, who referred the patient to consult with the gastroenterology department.

9. On 08th October, 2011, again complainant consulted Dr. Mahesh Goenka attached to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital/Opposite Party No.2 and was advised admission. Dr. Goenka again suggested biopsy and according to that biopsy report, this time, suggested Adenocarcinoma (Grade – II) and the patient was discharged on 14.12.2011.

10. It is alleged that though Adenocarcinoma was confirmed long back in the month of July, 2011 by the Belle Vue Nursing Home but the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 for the purpose of ulterior gain confirmed the “negative for malignancy” on repeated occasion causing wastage of money of the complainant and sufferings of the patient.

11. Again on 17.10.2011, patient was taken to Tata Medical Centre where she was treated under Dr. Dipak Dabkara for three course of Chemotherapy treatment and ultimately expired.

12. Complainant, son of late Arati Sarkar, filed the instant consumer complaint with following prayers :

"a) To admit the complaint case and be pleased to issue notices to the opposite parties by showing causes to them as to why the prayer of the complainant shall not be allowed;

b) To pass an order by directing the proforma opposite party no.7 and 8 regarding affirmation of the various test reports done by them regarding positivity on cancer/adenocarcinoma and also the other observation made by them in report already annexed in the petition of complaint duly prepared and made by them;

c) To pass an order by directing the opposite party no.1 to 6 jointly and severally but to pay the compensation amount of Rs.34,00,000/- to the complainant for causing medical negligence for providing medical services to the mother of the complainant as well as for causing physica