P K GHOSH Vs. PRADYUT RAKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the West Bengal State Commission whereby the appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and order of the District Forum allowing the complaint is upheld. Brief facts of the case are: Mr. Pradyut Rakshit, the original complainant was a goldsmith having a shop at Beldanga. It is averred by the complainant that when he was engaged in his work one particle of gold penetrated in his left index finger which caused injury and severe pain. He went to the chamber of the petitioner, Dr. P.K. Ghosh. Petitioner without taking any precautionary measures for surgical intervention operated his affected finger and prescribed medicines for the post-operative period. The operated finger was put in bandage. When the pain became unbearable and intolerable, the respondent had to rush to two Surgeons for opinion and then to the Nursing Home at Calcutta where the Surgeon had amputated his injured index finger. The Respondent alleged deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the respondent who operated on his finger without bringing the level down of blood sugar when he was aware that it was high at the relevant time. This act of the respondent leads to Gangrene and amputation of the finger later. This resulted in respondent becoming physically handicapped and further he lost working capacity as a goldsmith.

(2.) After considering the evidence, District Forum and State Commission came to the conclusion that the said operation was done without ensuring that the patient's blood sugar level is in permissible limits. After the operation, the petitioner could not find the particle of gold therein and prescribed medicines and assured respondent that he would be fine. Thereafter respondent's finger was amputated due to development of Gangrene. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent met him in the chamber for the complaint of his external genital infection. After examination necessary medicines were prescribed and the Doctor also advised him to get post blood sugar test and the report was showing blood sugar as 156. It is contended by the petitioner that the said surgery was never done by him and that he only prescribed medicine for genital infection.

(3.) Another contention that was raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is regarding the case while it was remanded from State Commission to District Forum a direction was given to hear the matter afresh after taking evidence of medical expert. The State Commission in the appeal second time heard on merits and concluded that three experts have opined in this matter and the fact that the operation was done without bringing the blood sugar levels down itself is deficiency in service and that this medical negligence caused amputation of finger later on.