(1.) The present revision has been filed by Asha Devi and three others (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioners') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(hereinafter referred to as the 'State fiommission') in favour of Dr. Sanjay Lal Dass and Dr. Christopher Hansdak (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent Nos. 1 and 2').
(2.) The brief facts of the case according to Petitioners are that on 5.8.2004 late Kailash Prasad Bhagat (husband of Petitioner No.1) fell down while arranging his shop which resulted in dislocation injury/fracture of his left elbow joint and wrist. He was provided first aid by one Dr. Ravi Shankar Prasad after which he was referred to the clinic of Respondent No.l, Dr. Sanjay Lal Das, at Dumka who after charging him Rs.50 examined him and got the X-ray done and concluded that since there was a fracture on the left hand he should be admitted in the clinic of Respondent No.2, Dr. Christopher Hansdak, to get the plastering done. The patient was accordingly brought to the clinic of Dr. Hansdak and in the meantime Dr. Sanjay Lal Das also joined him and both doctors advised that the plastering would need administration of anaesthesia to the patient. They also demanded and received Rs.2,000 as payment for the treatment. Petitioner states that the doctors were informed that the patient had taken his meal about 5 hours ago but they were assured that this would not adversely affect his being given anaesthesia. After two hours, the Respondents/doctors informed the patient's relatives that the plastering had been done successfully and the patient would soon come out of the operation theater in a conscious state. However, when the patient did not come out from the operation theater and the Respondents/doctors refused them permission to meet the patient, the relatives reached the clinic of Dr. Hansdak where they were informed that the patient had in fact died. According to Petitioners, the death of the patient occurred because Respondents/doctors were not qualified to administer anaesthesia and they had also administered a very heavy dose without taking due precautions like ensuring empty stomach and checking other parameters to ensure that the patient was fit for being administered anaesthesia. Petitioners therefore, lodged an FIR at the Police Station and a case was registered under Section 304 of the IPC. Since, the deceased was a relatively young man of 38 years and in good health and the death was obviously caused due to medical negligence which amounts to deficiency in service. Petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs. 19,50,000 as compensation and punitive damages along with cost of litigation on account of loss, injury suffered due to medical negligence and deficiency in service.
(3.) The Respondents/doctors denied any negligence in administering anaesthesia to the patient or in his treatment. According to them only a mild dose of anaesthesia of one ampoule of Calmpose (Diazepam 10 mg.) was given to the patient slowly which is permissible under medical science after five hours of taking meal. His brother-in-law's consent was also taken. Further, being M.B.B.S. doctors they were competent to administer anaesthesia to patients. According to the Respondents, the patient died of a head injury received during the course of his fall about which neither the patient nor his attendants were aware and also the patient showed no overt symptoms of any head injury. It was during course of making the plaster that the patient became restless and his blood pressure and pulse also dropped despite every measure taken for resuscitation, he died due to the injury. This is also confirmed by the post-mortem report.