ILS HOSPITAL Vs. BIMAL KUMAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ILS Hospital and its doctor namely Dr. Om Tantia, Appellants herein and Opposite Parties before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) have filed the present First Appeal being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had allowed the complaint of medical negligence against them filed by Bimal Kumar Ghosh, Respondent herein and Original Complainant before the State Commission.

(2.) FACTS:

(3.) Appellants on being served entered appearance and filed a written rejoinder denying the averments made in the complaint. It was admitted that the Respondent had been admitted to Appellant No.1/Institute, during which pre-operative investigations were carried out and he was advised gallstone surgery. A pre-operative anesthetic check-up was also done and he was given certain injections in the operation theater and when he became unconscious intubation was tried but it was difficult due to the fact that Respondent's laryngeal opening was found to be high up and anterior, because of which the endotracial tube could not pass and, therefore, the surgery had to be abandoned. It was stated that the Respondent, who was suffering from the above structural problem in the throat, had not disclosed this fact to Appellants. Since it is not the standard medical norm to enquire about the throat condition of a patient who is to undergo surgery under general anesthesia Appellants cannot be blamed for any negligence. It was further denied that the Respondent was abandoned by the Appellants when the surgery could not be done. In fact it was at the instance of the Appellants that Respondent was examined by an ENT specialist where the problem was diagnosed. It was further stated that in view of the fact that the problem occurred not because of any medical negligence but because of an anatomical/structural defect inside the throat of the Respondent, which was not disclosed by him and which resulted in an unsuccessful intubation, which is also not uncommon, the Appellants cannot be held guilty of either medical negligence or deficiency in service.