BIMAL KUMAR Vs. BARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh dated 20.4.2004 wherein the State Commission has held that: Appellant Dr Barun Sarkar has never committed any negligence during the treatment of the wife of the complainant. We do not find any deficiency in service. Therefore, the present appeal presented by Dr Barun Sarkar is liable to be accepted.

(2.) According to the complainant his wife Sunita was having pain in abdomen and vomiting and irregular monthly course. On 11.3.1998 she went to Dr Sudha Mittal and Dr Pramod Mittal for treatment, who found swelling and solid mass on the left side of the abdomen and advised for ultrasound. On 12.3.1998 ultrasound was got done from Dr Ranjans Ultrasound Centre. On perusal of the same Dr Mittal advised the complainant to show the patient to Dr Barun Sarkar who is a Gyanecologist. Dr Sarkar saw the report and found that there was tumor and free fluid in her ovary for which he suggested surgery. Dr Sarkar advised some tests such as Blood Test, X -Ray, ECG, Acitic Fluid, FNAC from Dr Lahiri which were done. Dr Sarkar performed the surgery on the patient on 15.3.1998 and removed the ovary and uterus. Dr Sarkar discharged the patient on 25.3.1998 and advised to meet Dr. R. D. Sharma for Chemotherapy. Dr Sharma gave four rounds of Chemotherapy on the patient but the condition of the patient worsened. After the fifth Chemotherapy on 18.6.1998 he advised for ultrasound and scan which indicated that the condition of the patient was very serious with the result Dr Sharma referred the patient to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital and wrote a letter to Dr Kataria. The version of the complainant is that without searching the original place of cancer, wrong treatment has been given to the patient by Dr Kataria. After the CT Scan report and colonoscopy and endoscopy it was found that root of cancer was in the stomach and OP must have operated this the root of cancer exist. Hence the complainant alleges that Dr Sarkar with the intention to earn money without searching the root of the cancer performed the surgery and removed the ovary and uterus. The complainant has further alleged that Dr Kataria without taking any risk referred the patient to AIIMS wherein Dr. P. K. Julka stated that it is a very difficult case as the cancer has spread in the whole body with the result she died on 16.3.1999 at AIIMS. New Delhi. He claimed in total a sum of Rs.4,89,000 from Dr Sarkar. Case of Dr Barun Sarkar/Respondent

(3.) Dr Sarkar has stated that the patient was referred by Dr Pramod Mittal with ultrasound report from Dr. Pankaj Ranjans Diagnostic Centre, according to which there was cancer in the ovary of the patient. However, before the operation, the complainant was advised for FNAC Test which confirmed that there was cancer in the ovary and accordingly, the patient was advised surgery, but he never gave any assurance after the operation that the patient will be fully cured. During the operation along with the ovary he removed the uterus. As in the case of ovary cancer, if the uterus is not removed the surgery performed is presumed to be incomplete. Accordingly, there was no negligence. The complainant lodged an FIR in the police station against him under Section 304A IPC and a case was registered. To have an expert report the case was referred to Medical Board by the Chief Medical Officer, Agra, which gave the report stating that there was no negligence. On the basis of this, the case was closed.