RATNA GANGULY Vs. RAMAKRISHNA MISSION SEVA PATHISHTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member 1. The present Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Smt. Ratna Ganguly, wife of Mr. Tushar Ganguly (since deceased) (in short, the 'patient') and Mr. Dipak Kumar Ganguly, father of the patient (Complainants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) against Ramakrishna Mission Seva Pratishthan and three Doctors (Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 4 respectively) for the alleged gross medical negligence causing untimely death of the patient.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the present Consumer Complaint are that in the evening of 7/7/2016, on the complaint of pain in chest and upper portion of both arms, the Complainant No. 1 and her brother took the patient to the Emergency of Ramakrishna Mission Seva Pratishthan Hospital, the Opposite Party No. 1 at 8.35 pm on the same day. It was alleged that initially Dr. Anup Roy, the Opposite Party No. 2 attended to the patient, but after prescribing ECG and X-ray chest and except giving two injections, no proper attention was given to the patient. The ECG report could not be properly analysed as no Cardiologist was called to examine the patient. Seeing the normal ECG, the Opposite Parties asked the patient to come to the OPD of the Hospital on the next day. Noticing the pain in the chest of the patient increasing further, the Complainant No. 1 and her brother requested the Opposite Parties to admit the patient to relieve him of the pain. Meanwhile, the Opposite Party No. 4 Doctor prescribed Trop-T test at 9.35pm. It was alleged that even after the report of Trop-T test came 'positive' indicating severe heart problem, the Opposite Parties refused to admit the patient saying they did not have ICCU bed available in the hospital. It was alleged that the condition of the patient got critical by that time and was gasping for breath, but the Opposite Parties, despite availability of all the facilities in Emergency and further in violation of medical ethics, did not provide oxygen to the patient, indirectly forcing them to shift the patient to some other hospital. At around 10.15pm, when the condition of the patient further deteriorated, he was taken to B1 ward and was administered injections Adrenaline, Atropine and Norad, but it was too late and the patient was declared dead at 10.55pm. It was alleged that the patient died due to heart attack in the Emergency ward, which, despite being fully equipped, the patient was not taken care of. It was also alleged that no standard medical protocol was followed by the Opposite Parties for the patient. Alleging medical negligence resulting into the untimely death of the patient, the Complainant No. 1, being the wife and the Complainant No. 2, being the father of the patient, filed the present Consumer Complaint praying for the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,77,75,233.00 with interest @ 12% per annum with cost of litigation on account of deficiency of service and medical negligence.

(3.) The Opposite Parties, in their reply, denied negligence on their part and pointed the allegations made by the Complainants as baseless. It was stated that when the patient arrived at the Emergency of the hospital, the attendants were immediately informed of the likelihood of this case to be of heart attack and that no beds were vacant at that time in the Cardiac Care Unit (CCU). The vitals of the patients were stable but as the ECG and Trop T tests showed Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), immediately the required doses were administered to the patient and was advised admission. The patient and the attendants were repeatedly informed about the critical situation of collapsing at any moment, with the patients of AMI, may arise at any moment advising to take the patient to some other hospital due unavailability of the beds in CCU in their hospital. While attending to other patients, the Medical Officer noticed the patient developing shortness of breath and immediately responding to the situation, got the patient administered moist O2, started IV fluid and after informing the Opposite Party No. 3, on his advice over phone, admitted the patient in the General Medicine Ward B1, where he was attended by other doctors. When the patient was seen collapsing, gasping for breaths and no pulse or BP was recordable, despite limited facilities in General Medicine Ward, necessary steps were taken to revive the patient, but eventually the patient expired at 10.55pm. It was stated that the patient and the attendants wasted their valuable time by not going to some other hospital, even after knowing that there were no vacant CCU beds in their hospital. The Opposite Parties further submitted that the Complaints filed the Consumer Complaint to defame their Hospital and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.