REENA BHATTACHARYA Vs. NARAYAN CHOWDHURY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint filed by Mrs. Rina Bhattacharya residing at D -12, Digantika, Block -AH, Sector -2, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700 091, against Dr. Narayan Chowdhury residing at CD -148, Salt Lake, Sector -I, Kolkata -700 064 and two others for alleged medical negligence being the treating doctors.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly are that the complainant was suffering from post -Menopausal bleeding for which she consulted OP No. 1, Dr. Narayan Chowdhury, who after conducting certain pathological tests and xray advised the patient to undergo abdominal hysterectomy at Belle Vue Clinic. After consulting the said pathological reports, xray and ECG he advised the complainant to undergo a D and C operation at the said Belle Vue Clinic, Kolkata. However, D and C operation under G. A. was done by OP No. 1. After the operation the tissues were sent to the laboratory for diagnostic tests. But since there was insufficient tissues, the diagnostic laboratory could not make any report and suggested for repeat test. However, on 12.3.01 OP No. 1 further advised her for total abdominal hysterectomy and it was done on the same day at the said nursing home without conducting any further D&C. She was released after inserting Foley's Catheter and was advised to keep it for one month. At the end of the first week after operation the complainant noticed that urine started to leak frequently and gradually the same became continuous instead of occasional leaking. In view of the above development OP No. 1 referred her to Dr. S. D. Mukherjee, Urologist, at Divine Nursing Home, Kolkata, for undergoing cystoscopy with dyetest. On 4.5.01 IVU test with Indwelling catheter was done. She was advised by OP No. 2 to continue with the catheter for three weeks with the expectation of natural healing. But after expiry of the said period when the catheter was removed the problem of dribbling of urine started again. After the dyetest was done by OP No. 2, Dr. S. D. Mukherjee, a small fistula was detected, but that could not be repaired by OP No. 2. However, since the problem of dribbling of urine continued the complainant's case was referred to Dr. B. N. Chakraborty, OP No. 3, by Dr. S. D. Mukherjee, OP No. 2, in consultation with OP No. 1, Dr. Narayan Chowdhury.

(3.) OP No. 3 again conducted dyetest and detected fistula at the right corner of the vault of vagina. The complainant contended that she came to know about the existence of fistula for the first time after such detection by OP No. 3 and had also come to know that her bladder had suffered multiple injuries during hysterectomy. They referred her to OP No. 3 though they were fully aware of Vascico Vaginal Fistula allegedly just to shift their responsibility to OP No. 3. On 21.6.01 OP No. 3 made transvaginal repair of V. V. F. at the Institute of Reproductive Medicine at Salt Lake, for which she had to be admitted there for about 14 days. But in spite of repair of V. V. F. dribbling of urine did not stop and it continued day and night. OP No. 3 again conducted dyetest on 4.10.01 after which leakage of urine from vagina was detected. On 11.10.01 transvaginal repair of V. V. F. was again done by OP No. 3 for the second time and the complainant was hospitalized for about 13 days and a small fistula at the left corner vault of the vaginal bladder was repaired in two layers and the vaginal wall had also to be repaired. However, in spite of undertaking all the tests and operations dribbling of urine did not stop completely. The complainant having not received the desired result after treatment by three doctors left for Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad where repair of V. V. F. was again done by Dr. V. Rajagopal and she was released after 12 days, but she was at Hyderabad for 33 days for regular consultation with Dr. Rajagopal.