GANDHI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Vs. TARUN KUMAR SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Superintendent, Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Kalyani Nadia against the judgment and order passed in a case of medical negligence thereby directing the said Gandhi Memorial Hospital to pay compensation for an amount of Rs.1,00.000 and litigation cost of Rs.2,000 to the complainant for death of his mother because of deficiency in service on the part of the said hospital in the treatment of his mother.

(2.) THE materials on record clearly reveal that on arrival of the patient (mother of the complainant) at Gandhi Memorial Hospital on being referred to by Santipur State General hospital, the attending physician who initially examined the patient at the Emergency Ward, advised for ECG and Blood Sugar Test. On the next day the cardiologist who attended the patient also advised such ECG. Fact remains that no ECG was done on the patient in spite of the advice given by the attending physician who examined the patient first and the attending cardiologist who attended the complainant on the next date. The defence plea that there was no deficiency of service so far as the proper treatment of the patient is concerned was on the basis that the patient was administered proper medicines on the basis of ECG that was done at Santipur State General Hospital on 29th March, 2008 and further ECG was not absolute necessity.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of this case we are not at all convinced with the argument as advanced on the basis of the said plea of defence taken in the complaint case. If no further ECG was necessary as because ECG was done at Santipur State General Hospital on the previous day of 29th March, 2008 then, it has not been explained, why such ECG was advised by the attending physician on the night when the patient was brought to the opposite party hospital being referred to by the Santipur State General Hospital and also by the cardiologist who attended her on the very next morning. It is common knowledge that in an acute coronary syndrome in an aged patient functioning of the heart changes very quickly and serious patients are generally put under monitor for the purpose of continuous reading of heart functioning. In the absence of such reading there cannot be proper medical management of the patient. Furthermore, no expert medical practitioner has been examined to prove that further ECG of the patient was not needed. It is therefore clear that there was serious deficiency of service by the hospital authority in not doing the ECG in spite of the advice given by the attending physician who examined the patient on her arrival to the hospital as well as by the cardiologist who attended her on the next day after she was admitted to the hospital.