DRAUPADI ROUT Vs. SHREE MAA NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainants above -named filed the consumer complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on their part. Opposite party No. 1 is the Nursing Home, namely, Shree Maa Nursing Home, and opposite party No. 2 is Dr. R.C. Dash, Surgeon who conducted operation on complainant No. 1 - Draupadi Rout. Raghunath Rout, complainant No. 2, is the son of the said complainant No. 1. The case of the complainants as per their complaint petition is that complainant No. 1 suspected to be suffering from cancer and came to Cuttack for being admitted to the Surgical Ward of the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital and obtained an outdoor ticket on 10.3.1993. According to the complainants, they were informed by one Mandodari Sahoo that she (complainant No. 1) would get better treatment in a Nursing Home. Both the complainants were persuaded to go to Shree Maa Nursing Home for treatment of complainant No. 1. It is alleged that after complainant No. 1 was checked up in Shree Maa Nursing Home, the disease was ascertained and it was confirmed to be a case of cancer and the doctor advised for operation. According to the complainants, the doctor charged Rs. 10,000 towards Nursing Home charges and the fees of the doctor, which they paid and operation was conducted on 13.3.1993. When the stitch was opened, it was found that the operation was unsuccessful inasmuch as the food leaked at the place of the stitch. At the initial stage after operation, opposite party No. 2 opined that the said defect could be removed by medicine and injections, but, later on, he advised to consult Dr. C.R. Nayak of Acharya Harihar Regional Centre for Cancer Research and Treatment Society, Cuttack. Dr. C.R. Nayak, after examining the patient, advised for radio therapy for at least 30 days. Complainant No. 1 -the patient received radio therapy treatment for three days from 24.3.1993 to 26.3.1993 and approached for admission to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital. On 27.3.1993, she was admitted to the cancer department of the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital. It is alleged that no care was taken nor was any treatment given to the patient. It is further alleged that in the aforesaid circumstances complainant No. 1 was taken to her native village by complainant No. 2 -her son, where the condition further deteriorated. Looking to her deteriorating condition, complainant No. 1 was again brought to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital for further treatment. On examination by Dr. U.N. Panda, who was one of the doctors of the Cancer Institute, the patient was advised for reoperation and fixation of artificial shape. Dr. Panda also opined that unless the above direction was complied with, it would not be possible on his part to take any further step for treatment of the patient. After such advice, complainant No. 2 took his mother to opposite party No. 2 for further operation. Accordingly, complainant No. 1 was operated at Sarala Nursing Home by opposite party No. 2 on 28.4.1993. Though in the complaint petition it is stated that the second operation was successfully conducted, but after the operation complainant No. 1 did not feel substantial relief. At the time when the complaint petition was filed, she was unable to take any food and had become completely bed ridden. During the pendency of the complaint petition before this Commission, complainant No. 1 expired on 25.12.1993. It is incidentally mentioned that it had come to the knowledge of complainant No. 2 that Shree Maa Nursing Home did not possess requisite permission from the Director of Health Services, Orissa for conducting cancer operation or any major operation of such type. The ultimate allegation made in the complaint is that the suffering and subsequently the death of complainant No. 1 was due to the deficiency in service of opposite party No. 2 -doctor as well as opposite party No. 1, which caused physical pain and suffering to complainant No. 1 and mental agony to complainant No. 2, and it is prayed in the complaint petition for award of compensation for the same.

(2.) OPPOSITE parties 1 and 2 appeared and filed written version/show -cause. The allegations made in the complaint petition have been stoutly denied and it has been stated that all possible care had been taken for giving the best treatment available and there had been no deficiency on the part of either the Nursing Home or the operating surgeon in the matter of treatment of complainant No. 1. It has been mentioned in the written version that complainant No. 1 was brought to Shree Maa Nursing Home at a very belated stage of the disease, which was practically in an incurable stage and both the complainants were accordingly told that the possibility of complainant No.1being cured was quite remote. It is further stated that cancer had spread over the mandible for which reason a part of the same was required to be removed as a mode for curing or giving some relief to complainant No. 1. In such cases, after operation various complications arise due to medical reasons. When such complication arose, she was referred to Dr. Nayak, who by advising radio therapy correctly diagnosed the treatment. The allegation that Dr. Panda on examining the patient opined that the operation was not successful has been stoutly denied by the opposite parties. It has been elaborately stated as to the normal consequences of the disease and the treatment given to the present patient. The opposite parties have contended that neither the suffering of complainant No. 1 nor her consequential death was due to deficiency in treatment or any defect in the operation. With the aforesaid averments in the written version, the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.

(3.) THE matter was heard by this Commission on 5.1.1999 and this Commission by its judgment and order of the said date had dismissed the complaint as the Commission did not find any material on record to hold that there was an deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in. carrying on the treatment of or conducting the operation on complainant No. 1, who had by then already expired. Complainant No. 2, being dissatisfied with the aforementioned judgment and order of this Commission carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble National Commission in F.A. No. 579 of 2006. The Hon'ble National Commission in their order dated 7.3.2007 set aside the judgment and order of this Commission dated 5.1.1999 and remanded the matter back to this Commission for fresh disposal giving opportunity to both the parties to file affidavit by way of evidence in support of their respective contentions as also the hospital records by the respondents relating to the patient, medical literature on the subject, as also obtaining opinion from an expert, if deemed necessary, by the State Commission.