BIBEKANANDA PANIGRAHI Vs. PRIME HOSPITALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Justice A.K. Samantaray, President -The complainant Bibekananda Panigrahi has filed this consumer complaint against the opposite parties, namely, the Prime Hospital Ltd., Link Road, Cuttack, Dr. Maheswar Sahoo, Ice Factory Road, Cuttack, Professor and H.O.D., Department of Surgery, SCB Medical College and Hospital and Dr. Susanta Kumar Das, working as a Surgeon in the Department of Surgery, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack claiming compensation for the alleged deficiency in providing adequate medical service to his deceased father Premananda Panigrahi and conducting wrong diagnosis and incorrect operation on him. The said compensation has been prayed to be awarded in favour of the complainant to be paid by opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite parties 3 and 4 have been arrayed as proforma opposite parties and no relief has been sought as against them by the complainant.

(2.) THE case of the complainant, as stated in the complaint petition, is that his father (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") complained stomach pain and approached opposite party No. 2 for medical attention and necessary therapeutical diagnosis as well as consequential medical attention. Opposite party No. 2 was acquainted with the deceased due to their close connection in their personal life and he suggested to the deceased to consult him at the Prime Hospital where the latter would be attended to and necessary medical care would be rendered. Under such promise and arrangement, on 3.8.2006 the deceased was advised by opposite party No. 2 to meet him in the outdoor of the said hospital and on examination, opposite party No. 2 was prima facie satisfied about the inflation of the appendix. Opposite party No. 2 suggested to the deceased for some pathological tests such as ultrasound of the appendicular mass, x -ray of abdomen and other tests relating to haemoglobin, blood sugar, urea, bleeding time, clotting time and differential count of the blood. Accordingly, tests were conducted, and after verifying such reports, opposite party No. 2 conclusively came to diagnose that the deceased was suffering from acute appendicitis. Under such diagnosis, opposite party No. 2 suggested the deceased to be operated. The date of admission into the said hospital was fixed to 4.6.2006. Being advised by opposite party No. 2 to undergo surgery so as to remove the appendix from the body, the deceased arranged money for surgery as well as post -surgery treatment. Since the deceased did not have much time left for getting admitted to the opposite party No. l -hospital, he sent for his son, the complainant, and in a note of emergency requested him to arrange money for the operation as it was required to be undertaken within 24 hours from the time of diagnosis. Accordingly, the complainant arranged a sum of Rs. 50,000 from various sources to meet the medical expenses of the deceased and reached the opposite party No. l -hospital on 5.6.2006 to attend to the deceased when he would be operated. By the time he reached, the deceased had already been admitted to the hospital on the recommendation of opposite party No. 2. The complainant, on his arrival, deposited the requisite amount of money with opposite party No. l -hospital whereafter opposite party No. 2 conducted surgery on the deceased. After surgery, it was found that the appendics was gangrenous and abdomen was closed by layer with drainage. Further, it was reported by the treating surgeon that the operation was successful and there was no need to get worried. It was also promised that after a week's time, the condition of the patient would substantially improve and it may so happen that within 10 days the stitches would be removed and only after taking rest for about a month, the deceased would be able to resume his normal duties as before. The doctor also recommended administration of certain medicines, which were regularly administered to expedite the process of healing.

(3.) IT is alleged that after surgery, when the effect of anaesthesia was over, the deceased complained of serious abdominal pain as well as chest congestion coupled with head reeling and nauseating tendency. The treating doctor being asked about this replied that such symptom and syndromes are quite normal when the patient comes back from the operation theatre because of the unaesthetic effect on the nervous system and that this would subside by efflux of time. On 16.6.2006, stitches were removed from the wound of the deceased. After removal of the stitches, it was found that the wound where the operation was carried out had not healed up properly and it was gapping with pus discharge. When such a situation was there with the deceased, it was suggested to go for daily dressing of the wound with recommended re -schedule of medicines, which included a number of antibiotics with higher degree of doses. It is submitted that after opening of the stitches and removal thereof, the patient is usually suggested to go back home and come periodically for check up till the physician or the treating surgeon gives a green signal for resuming normal duties. However, in the case of the deceased, he was made to stay at the hospital from the date of removal of stitches. Every day, dressing was done, but there was no improvement in the healing process of the wound. Rather, the wound at the site of the surgery was developing from bad to worse. After 15 days, i.e., on 30.6.2006, the doctors of the hospital along with opposite party No. 2 made a thorough investigation on the post -surgery aspect of the deceased. At that point of time, they were not sure about the status as well as requirement of additional medical facilities. Advice was imparted only for continuous dressing of the wound and it was assured that within a fortnight more time, the situation would improve and the deceased would be discharged from the hospital getting completely fit. After about 15 days, there was no apparent improvement in the health condition of the deceased. The doctors of opposite party No. l -hospital and opposite party No. 2 made further examination and check up of the deceased and found that the deceased had developed foecal fistula. Under such circumstance, the attention was deviated from the site of surgery to the fresh complicacy and instead of attending the original would, they suggested the attending nurses and doctors to continue dressing three times a day and prescribed higher antibiotics by way of pills, ointment and intravenous injections, which were too costly. This continued for about 10 days, whereafter the deceased, instead of showing any improvement, started deteriorating. The diabetic condition that he had got alarmingly out of control for which the doses of insulin that was being administered were increased considerable. Opposite party No. 2, it is alleged, turned a deaf ear to the request of the complainant and there was virtually no one to attend to the deceased. Under such circumstance, the complainant had no other alternative than to request opposite party No. 2 to take adequate care of the deceased, who by then had already spent an additional sum of Rs. 50,000 as against the hospital and bed charges including expenses for medicines that were being procured from the store at the basement of the hospital. It is further alleged that opposite party No. 2 visited the deceased and after examining his condition suggested that since post -operational facilities were not up to mark at the opposite party No. 1 -hospital, the patient would he properly taken care of at the nearby nursing home, which was better equipped to meet the contingencies. The complainant, on such suggestion of opposite party No. 2, who also promised to attend to the deceased regularly in the nearby nursing home, shifted the deceased to the said nursing home, namely, Link Poly Clinic and Nursing Home, Arunodaya Nagar, Cuttack on 27.7.2006. After shifting, it is alleged in the complaint by the complainant, at no point of time opposite party No. 2 came to attend to the deceased. Under compulsion, the deceased stayed there for a period of one week. Since there was neither any treatment nor any suggestive note by opposite party No. 2, and the deceased was deteriorating, finding no other alternative, the complainant again shifted the deceased to the Department of Surgery, SCB Medical College and Hospital on 3.8.2006. At the SCB Medical College and Hospital, when the complainant as well as the deceased met the doctors, they were surprised to learn from the doctors, who were the Professors in the Department of Surgery, that the deceased had already been a victim of mistake committed by the surgeon and the operation was not at all a good one resulting in multiple complications in the post -operational phase. It is alleged that the doctors further found that there had been a wrong operation for which the deceased was suffering. The operation that was conducted on the body of the deceased was too poor to be named as a surgery done by a surgeon of repute. The surgery was nothing but an act of a butcher who had opened the abdominal part of the deceased and going amok had removed some organs according to his wish and will. The surgeons in the SCB Medical College and Hospital, specifically opposite parties 3 and 4, opined that apart from operating the appendics, there were many internal wounds which were not taken care of properly, which would cause major problem to bring the deceased to a normal shape. It is alleged that the deceased was admitted to the Surgery Ward of the SCB Medical College and Hospital, given a bed and kept under the direct observation of opposite parties 3 and 4. The deceased survived there in the SCB Medical College and Hospital till 12.9.2006 and during the period of stay showed some symptoms of improvement, but there was no steady improvement, rather his vital organs gradually started failing him and the doctors decided to keep the deceased under life saving system. In spite of relentless efforts of opposite parties 3 and 4, the deceased breathed his last at about 2.30 p.m. on 12.9.2006. It is finally alleged that since due to the callous and careless action of opposite parties 1 and 2 and the wrong diagnosis and incorrect surgery the deceased breathed his last in a helpless condition, the said opposite parties should be held to be deficient in providing medical service and should be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 26,50,000 to the complainant for such deficiency in service.