SUNIL THAKUR Vs. GORACHAND GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by Dr. Sunil Thakur, Appellant herein and Opposite Party before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which had allowed the complaint of medical negligence filed against him by Gorachand Goswami, Respondent No.1 and others herein and Complainant before the State Commission.

(2.) Manick Lal Goswami (hereinafter referred to as the Patient) fell down from his bicycle while returning home from his office on 14.11.2000 and sustained injuries, which included a fracture in the neck of the femur. Respondent No.1, who was Patient's son, contacted Appellant-Dr. Sunil Thakur, who was a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon attached to M/s Avenue Nursing Home on telephone the same night and who advised him to bring the Patient for medical examination the next day i.e. on 15.11.2000, where after an x-ray was taken confirming the fracture, patient was admitted in the Avenue Nursing Home and operated upon by the Appellant on 17.11.2000. Prior to the surgery, the Appellant advised that one bottle of blood would be required, which would be provided by the Avenue Nursing Home. Blood was accordingly supplied and transfused and the operation completed by 5.00 p.m. However, blood transfusion continued even after the surgery. Soon after the blood transfusion, the Patient started frothing from the mouth and complained of difficulty in breathing and shivering. The next day, he could not urinate and his eyes were found to be deep yellow in colour. Subsequently, a Nephrologist after examining the Patient advised that since he might need Dialysis and this facility was not available in the Avenue Nursing Home, the Patient be shifted to Calcutta Medical Research Institute (CMRI), which was done. On request of CMRI to the Blood Bank attached to it, one bottle of blood of A+ group (being the blood group of the Patient) was supplied for the Patient's Dialysis. However, the condition of the Patient continued to deteriorate and despite being put on a ventilator he passed away on 01.12.2000. As per the death certificate issued by CMRI, one of causes of death was attributed to the "history of mismatched blood transfusion". It was contended that while the blood group of the Patient was A+, the blood which was transfused to him at the Avenue Nursing Home on 17.11.2000 was of B+ group as per the report of the Blood Bank which supplied the blood based on an enclosed blood specimen sent with the requisition slip. It was also stated that the Patient's condition actually deteriorated following the transfusion of B+ blood while the Patient was under the treatment and care of the Appellant, which clearly reveals gross medical negligence as also deficiency in the treatment of the Patient on the part of the Appellant as also the Nursing Home. Being aggrieved by the loss of his father, who was the sole earning member of the family, Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and requested that the Appellant and Avenue Nursing Home be directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.6 Lakhs as compensation.

(3.) Appellant on being served filed a written rejoinder disputing the allegations made in the complaint. It was stated that as an Orthopedic Surgeon he operated successfully on the Patient and no complaint regarding the surgery was made by Respondent No.1. So far as the arrangement for transfusion of blood was concerned, it was submitted that this was arranged by the Patient's relatives directly from the Lions District 322B Blood Bank at Waterloo Street, Kolkata and it was the duty of the Blood Bank to correctly identify the blood group of the Patient and thereafter supply the blood after matching it with the Patient's blood group. Further, as per the usual practice, it is for the doctors and para-medical staff present in the operation theater of the Nursing Home to carefully verify the name and blood group of the Patient before transfusion and for this the responsibility cannot be fixed on the Orthopedic Surgeon. It was further stated that the Patient subsequently developed other complications like urination problems etc., which were not due to any medical negligence or deficiency in service in operating the Patient and, therefore, the allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service are without basis.