BAIDYA NATH CHAKRABORTY Vs. CHANDI BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been preferred by the Consultant (Appellant No. 1), the doctor-in-charge (Appellant No. 2) and the Institute of Reproductive Medicine, Kolkata (Appellant No. 3), questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No. 110/0/2000. By the impugned order, the State Commission has, inter alia, directed Appellants No. 1 and 2 to pay to the Complainant a sum of '1.5 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh respectively as compensation with costs, etc., on account of medical negligence on their part in treating and taking care of his wife and their preterm baby, who died within few hours of his birth.

(2.) The salient facts, as narrated in the Complaint, are that after two miscarriages, the Complainant and his wife decided to consult Appellant No. 1, Dr. Baidya Nath Chakraborty, considered to be a specialist in reproductive medicine. The doctor examined the lady on 17.01.1996 and 11.04.1996 and prescribed certain medicines, whereafter she conceived the third time. On one of the visits to Appellant No. 3 Institute, on 22.01.1997, a consent form for treatment at the Institute was got signed from the Complainant and his wife. On 10.02.1997, when his wife felt discomfort, she was taken to the Institute where she was advised to get admitted in one Merryland Nursing Home, Opposite Party No. 4 in the complaint and Respondent No.2 in this Appeal, as it was stated that the deliveries of all patients under the treatment of Appellant No.1 were performed at the said Nursing Home, managed by Appellant No 2; certain medicines were prescribed by the doctor and she was discharged. Again on 04.03.1997, for the same discomfort, when she was in her 28th week of pregnancy, she had to be admitted to the same Nursing Home. She was attended to by the same doctor who had attended on her on the earlier occasion. While she remained admitted in the said Nursing Home, neither Appellant No. 1 nor Appellant No. 2 visited her. On 08.03.1997, i.e. after four days of her admission, from 12.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., while she was 'trembling' and was 'in great pain' still despite repeated requests, Appellant No. 1 did not examine her as he was stated to be busy in a seminar. It was around 9.30 p.m., that Appellant No. 2, wife of Appellant No.1, performed the preterm delivery in the absence of any Neonatologist. Since there was no arrangement for neonatal care in the Nursing Home for a preterm infant, at Complainant's request, the Nursing Home staff contacted one Dr. Amit Roy, a Neonatologist, who advised them to shift the baby to the Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy Research Centre, Respondent No. 3 in this appeal. The baby was shifted to the said hospital in a taxi and admitted around at 2.10 a.m. on 09.03.1997. However, he expired the same morning at 8.55 a.m.

(3.) Alleging gross negligence on the part of the Appellants, the Complainant filed complaint under Section 17 of the Act, praying for compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the death of the baby and for loss of mental balance of his wife because of excessive shock, mental and physical pain/torture on account of death of the child.