B K GHOSH Vs. P MAULICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed under Sec.17 of the C. P. Act by Mr. B. K. Ghosh against Dr. P. Maulick on the following allegations. The complainant's wife Mrs. Kaberi Ghosh who was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis since 1993 was taken to the O. P.-doctor for treatment for the first time in May, 1993. The O. P. after examining her prescribed certain pathological and clinical tests and after reports of such tests were available he prescribed a medicine called Myocrisin 10 mg. in 0.5 ml. at the first instance on 9th June, 1993 and the patient was directed to continue that medicine upto 26th of that month. On 29th September, 1994 the O. P. told her to stop Myocrisin since there had been disorientation of eye-balls of the patient and he advised her to consult some eye specialists. Subsequently on 6.2.1996 the patient, Mrs. Ghosh, contacted the O. P. again being down with acute pain to know the procedure to be followed to combat her rheumatoid arthritis. The O. P. after examining her this time prescribed Imuran tablets without holding any prior investigation or test. As per this prescription the patient took 17 Imuran tablets (50 mg.) and immediately thereafter she had "allopacia" i. e. , complete hair loss on her head and she had to be urgently hospitalised on 4th March, 1996. Moreover due to total unbalance of R. B. C. and W. B. C. counts in her blood as a result of taking this medicine she had to be put on blood transfusion. At this time Dr. R. N. Ghosh, a reputed doctor, held the bone marrow test on her and increased number of plasma cells were detected in her blood. Since then the patient became completely bed ridden and underwent extreme mental trauma with acute type of physical discomfort. Finding no other way she had to consult several experts and she also wrote to the Secretary, british Medical Association, London to obtained the details regarding Myocrisin and Imuran. She has come to know that the sufferings which she was to undergo was due to the side effect of the above two medicines which she took as per the advice of the O. P.-Doctor. She recently turned to be a mental patient and was under treatment under a psychiatrist named Dr. Dhirendra Nath Nandi. From the letter she received from the above mentioned medical expert regarding the side effects of those medicines it was clear that the O. P. prescribed those drugs in an irresponsible manner without knowing their implications and this is an index of gross negligence on the part of the O. P.

(2.) It is the further contention of the complainant that the O. P.-Doctor was guilty of medical negligence because, (1) he failed to use reasonable degree of care; (2) he made error of judgment while treating the patient; and (3) he made great mistake in prescribing the above mentioned medicines without knowing their side effects. He should be held to be negligence because he failed to display reasonable skill and care for the safety of the patient. Hence the complainant being the husband of that patient has filed this complaint claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- (six lakhs) as shown under the Schedule-A of the complaint for the health hazards and loss of mental equilibrium suffered by the patient.

(3.) The O. P. has contested the case by filing a written objection denying the material allegations of the complaint and contending inter alia as follows.