DEEPAK KR NEOGI Vs. BIRNDRA NATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the Orders and Judgment passed by the learned Forum, South 24-Parganas in CDF Case No.79 of 2003. The learned Forum in their Order dated 4.3.2004 directed the O. P.-1/respondent No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 and also cost of Rs.500.00. Being aggrieved by the above Order the present Appeal has been preferred. The case was heard analogously with case No.152/a/2004 as the subject matter was the same and the parties to the other Appeal case are also the same.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant No.1's wife Smt. Dipti Neogi was admitted in Ramkrishna Seva Pratisthan on 4.1.2003 under respondent No.-1 due to some gynaecological problem. He was advised by the respondent No.-1 for removal of her uterus and accordingly laparoscopic surgery was done for removal of the uterus of the appellant No.1's wife on 6.1.2003. The patient had reportedly felt severe pain in the abdomen besides having breathing trouble. But despite request made by the appellant No.-1/ Complainant's wife and also her relatives the respondent No.-1 allegedly did not attend to her to take necessary measures for alleviating pain. On 8.1.2003 the complainant/appellant No.-1 was told by the hospital authority that the patient was O. K. but subsequently in the afternoon the complainant/appellant No.1 was requested over telephone to attend the hospital immediately. The complainant was also told to arrange blood for blood transfusion. On 8.1.2003 his consent was allegedly sought for surgical operation, but later on the complainant/appellant No.-1 came to know that the second operation had already taken place without his consent. The patient was taken to ICCU as her condition was critical. The respondent No.1 informed appellant No.1 that a perforation of intestine had been detected which happened in the course of the 1st operation. The appellant No.-1 alleged that all this happened due to sheer negligence on the part of the respondent No.-1. The patient expired on that date. She was found to have developed septicaemia. The complainant/appellant No.1 had, therefore, filed the complaint for proper compensation against the O. Ps.

(3.) The learned Forum had observed that the circumstances in which the patient had died left enough scope for doubt that something went wrong with the operation and also in its post-operative care. The learned Forum further observed that it was clear from the documents on record that the intestine of the patient had been perforated during the 1st operation which was not noticed or taken care of initially and as a result of which there was continuous bleeding resulting in falling of blood pressure and ultimately development of septicaemia. Learned Forum, therefore, concluded that the attending doctors failed to give proper importance to the complaint of pain by the patient and her relatives and they only became active after it was detected that the blood pressure of the patient had come down alarmingly. The learned Forum further observed that transfusion of blood on the patient further proved that the patient was in need of blood due to drainage of her own blood on account of her perforated intestine. The respondent No.-1 in his written objection as well as in the Memo of Appeal had stated that the complaint was not based on personal knowledge of the Complainant but on conjecture. The respondent No.-1 had further contended that it was not a fact that the respondent No.1 had failed to notice the incidence of perforated intestine of the patient. He contends that it is not possible to identify or locate such a small perforation immediately after the operation and thus he had no scope to know that there had been an instance of perforation of the intestine. The patient was also found to be progressing on the following day though she had complained of pain in her abdomen. But such pains are very common after an operation of this nature. The respondent No.-1 had strongly denied that the attending doctors did not give any importance to the patient's complaint and had been aroused to action only after the blood pressure fell. He had further stated that after the blood pressure of the patient had fallen alarmingly he had sent for the Medical Officer of the hospital for examining the patient and on receipt of the report he himself visited the patient and then found that something was wrong. He suspected a secondary abdominal bleeding or any abdominal injury, and accordingly he administered higher dose of antibiotic and the relatives of the deceased were informed over telephone. The respondent No.-1 added further that he had decided that the patient was in need of a laparoscopic operation under the given circumstances to find out the cause of her present clinical condition. Since the relatives of the patient did not turn up till 1.00 p. m. on 8.1.2003 he had decided to go in for the above operation with the help of another surgeon of the hospital. The respondent No.-1 had also stated in his written argument the actions taken by him regarding the operation. The bilious abdominal collection was sucked out and small perforation in small intestine was detected and locally repaired and abdomen was closed in single layer. He had further averred that such small perforation cannot be detected in an injury and clinical features do not develop before 36 to 48 hours after the primary surgery. He avers that this was more or less the time taken by him to detect that some internal bleeding was going on. The appellant has adduced excerpts from the book "gynaecology (3rd Edition) by R. W. Shaw, W. P. Soutter and S. L. Stanton (page 149 ). [publisher Churchill Wingstone] which says "patients who have received more than minor laceration such as puncture with a Veress needle at the time of laparoscopy will normally present after 42-72 hours". The respondent No.-1/o. P No.1 had further stated in his W. N. A which fact is also acknowledged by the learned Forum that after the second operation the blood pressure remained low and respiratory effort being unsatisfactory the patient was put on a ventilator. Thereafter she was sent to ICCU considering the respiratory problem faced by her. He states that in spite of his best efforts he could not discuss the problems with the relatives of the patient till 6.30 p. m. on 8.1.2003 i. e. the date of 2nd operation.