TANDRA PAL Vs. KUNAL SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint was filed by the complainant who is the wife of one Amal Pal (hereinafter referred as the 'patient') who was admitted in SSKM Hospital, Kolkata and it was detected that he was suffering from Coronary Artery disease with Diabetic Malitus. The patient was advised to undergo bypass operation. The patient met the OP1 and certain tests were done by OP4 on the advice of OP1. The patient was admitted in Rabindra Nath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences on 3.10.2005 and operation was done there on 8.10.2005. After holding certain tests it was found that the patient was unwell and was not recovering and then the complainant along with her relatives informed OP4 to call OP1 but it was found that OP1 was out of station. On 15.10.2005 OP3 and Dr. Atanu Saha diagnosed the disease of the patient upon detection of clots and blood in pericardial cavity and no obvious bleeding side was found. The said doctors without taking permission from the petitioner reopened the Sternotomy and clots and blood were evacuated and Haemastasis was confirmed and requisite intervention was done. The patient died on 24.10.2005. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint alleging medical negligence against OPs and claim was made for compensation of Rs. 25 lacs and for costs. OPs 1, 2 and 3 filed a joint written objection and the OP4 filed a separate written objection. Complainant filed evidence on affidavit in respect of which questionnaires and replies were filed.

(2.) AT the time of hearing the complainant was found absent and on behalf of the OP1 and 4 Ms. K. Mukhopadhay, the leanrned Advocate appeared and advanced argument on merit contending that the complainant has no material at all showing any medical negligence against the OPs. It is contended by the OPs that the second operation showed bleeding but it was not a post surgery bleeding. The learned Advocate also contended that medicine was administered and due care was taken of the patient both on the surgical table and after operation. It is contended that the expert being Dr. Shubhankar Bhattacharya was not even cross -examined and, therefore, his evidence stood acceptable. The learned Advocate further showed from the answer of the complainant to Question No. 4 put to her that the patient was suffering from the disease for a long time more than ten years. The learned Advocate further showed the steps taken by the OPs during and after surgery of the patient and it is argued that there was no negligence on the part of the either of the OPs.

(3.) CONSIDERING the contentions on the materials on record and as argued on behalf of the OPs, we find that the patient was suffering for a long time and his disease was properly diagnosed and surgery was done. There is no material showing any deficiency in service of the OPs or any negligence on their part in the matter of the treatment of the patient. Infection itself does not show negligence on the part of treating doctors or the nursing home which was taking care of the patient. The notes of argument filed on behalf of the complainant was considered thoroughly as no oral argument was advanced on behalf of the complainant but contents also do not show any specific nature of complaint made showing from the materials on record including the evidence that there was any laches or negligence on the part of any of the OPs. Even in reply to specific question No. 19, the complainant only vaguely referred to culture and sensitivity test of urine, instead of pointing out any medical negligence shown from microbiology report.