RAMESH CHANDRA GOSWAMI Vs. DIPAK BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is husband of the deceased Arati Goswami. He has approached this Commission claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of his wife on 31.8.1993 due to defective operation performed by the opposite party-1 on 7.7.1993.

(2.) The case of the complainant in short is that his wife Arati Goswami suddenly fell ill on 30.6.1993 due to pain in the abdomen. She was immediately taken to Dr. Dipak Banerjee (opposite party-1) in his chamber for advice and treatment. After examination the said doctor advised for immediate operation for appendicitis. On his advice the patient was admitted to Shush Usha Nursing Home (opposite party-3) on 6.7.1993 at about 10.40 p. m. On the next day i. e. on 7.7.1993 at about 7.45 a. m. Dr. Banerjee performed the operation on the patient with the help of anaesthetist Dr. Sujit das (opposite party- 2 ). Immediately after operation the patient experienced respiratory trouble. The complainant alleges that this occurred due to negligence of the doctor performing the operation, nursing staff and absence of oxygen cylinder in the said nursing home. There is further allegation that no cardiologist was called for. In fact, tune patient lay uncared for about more than four hours in a precarious condition. Dr. Banerjee called Dr. S. K. Chatterjee, cardiologist (opposite party-4) at about 12 noon. Dr. Chatterjee noticed the precarious condition of the patient and advised shifting of the patient to a reputed hospital in Calcutta as otherwise she would be in a state of coma. Dr. Chatterjee further observed that this was a case of cerebral attack. The patient was shifted to Calcutta and admitted in the neurological medicine ward (female) of SSKM Hospital. The patient lay unconscious and she never regained her consciousness. Ultimately she expired on 31.8.1993. According to the complainant Dr. Banerjee being not a gynaecologist had no authority to perform such an intricate operation. Moreover, there was absence of necessary equipments and facilities at the nursing home resulting in untimely death of the patient. The complainant lodged complaint with the West Bengal Medical Council but without any consequence. Thereafter he approached this Commission for redress.

(3.) The case is contested by the opposite parties-1 and 2 by filing a joint written version. It has been stated that he was sent for examination of the patient at the nursing home on 6.7.1993 and he advised immediate operation of the patient considering the seriousness of the ailment. Dr. Banerjee noticed that it was a case of pathological appendicitis. He advised for immediate surgery and also suggested that another surgeon should be consulted for second opinion. But the complainant insisted upon him to perform the operation. The complainant having expressed inability to consult another surgeon and having given procedural consent for such operation. Dr. Banerjee surgically removed the appendicitis of the patient with the help of opposite party-2 after taking all necessary precautions and following approval medical procedures for such surgery. The patient having felt respiratory trouble, Dr. Chatterjee was sent for who arrived on the same date at about 12 noon and advised for hospitalisation. The opposite party denied that the patient died because of negligence Since time was very short and condition of the patient worsened they had no time for detailed pathological examination before the operation.