BISWANATH DAS Vs. BIJOY SINHA ROY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will govern the disposal of FA Nos. 462 of 2005, 463 of 2005 and 44 of 2006 which arise out of the same order dated 19.9.1995 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal, Calcutta.

(2.) IN nutshell, the facts giving rise to these appeals are these. Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy w/o Bijoy Sinha Roy, appellant in FA No. 44 of 2006 (complainant) developed some menstrual problem sometime in the month of June, 1993. She consulted the family physician Dr. Pran Shankar Saha who advised her to consult Dr. Biswanath Das, appellant in FA No. 462 of 2005 (OP No. 1), Gynaecologist. She visited Dr. Das who after physical check up advised her to have ultrasonographic test of the pelvis and some pathological tests. As advised by Dr. Das, Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy got the USG test done which revealed multiple fibroids of varying sizes in uterus. On perusal of that report on 22.6.1993, Dr. Das advised her to undergo Hysterectomy. After a lapse of about 5 months Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy again visited Dr. Das with the complaint of severe bleeding. Dr. Das advised for emergency Hysterectomy and he arranged for operation at Ashutosh Nursing Home. Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy was suffering from high blood pressure and her haemoglobin was around 7 gm% which indicated that she was severe anemic. For increasing haemoglobin, Dr. Das advised Zectofer and Tetvac injections. Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy was admitted in the said Nursing Home on 30.11.1993 to undergo Hysterectomy on 1.12.1993. On 1.12.1993, the operation started around 8.45 a.m. but Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy did not regain consciousness even after lapse of about 1 1/2 hours of the completion of operation. Nursing Home did not have the Intensive Care Unit. Dr. Debasis Sarkar, OP No. 3 booked a bed at Repose Nursing Home and Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy was shifted there at about 2.15 p.m. Even after treatment at Repose Nursing Home, she did not regain consciousness. Since day -to -day medical expense at the said Nursing Home was going beyond the means of the complainant, she was transferred to SSKM Hospital on 6.12.1993 where she eventually expired on 27.1.1994. Thereafter, alleging negligence complaint was filed which was contested by filing separate written versions by the opposite parties.

(3.) COMPLAINT was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 18.8.2003. On FA No. 754 of 2003 being filed by the complainant, the appeal was allowed and case was remanded to the State Commission for being decided after allowing the report of Dr. Apurba Nandy being proved and Dr. Sagarmony Basu being cross -examined vide order dated 6.10.2004 by this Commission. In terms of the impugned order, the complaint was allowed holding OP Nos. 1 and 2 negligent in performing Hysterectomy of the deceased without controlling her high blood pressure and increasing the level of haemoglobin. OP No. 1 was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 while OP No. 2 the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the complainant. Complaint against OP Nos. 3 and 4 was dismissed. Appeal No. 462 of 2005 has been filed by OP No. 1 while Appeal No. 463 of 2005 by OP No. 2 to set aside the impugned order. In FA No. 44 of 2006, the complainant seeks enhancement of compensation. We have heard the parties' learned Counsel. Written submissions have also been filed by them.