PRASANTA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. JAHAR DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission where they had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case leading to filing the complaint were that the second complainant married the deceased Smt. Jaba Roy. Admittedly, within a period of three years she had two miscarriages but when finally she conceived in September 1995, she consulted Dr. Sarkar, a Gynaecologist, who referred her to the first respondent for medical care and treatment. The first respondent attended on her on 31. 12. 1995 and later on 5. 5. 1996 and 16. 5. 1996. It was the case of the complainant that during all the visits, the first respondent assured them that delivery shall be normal. But when the deceased visited the clinic of the first respondent on 22. 5. 1996, she was admitted in the hospital the same day and she was advised that the baby would be delivered the same day through caesarean section. On 23. 5. 1996, at about 10. 30 p. m. after delivering a female baby by caesarean section, first respondent left. It was the case of the complainant/appellant that on 23. 5. 1996, the complainant developed pain in the abdomen and it was so severe that she could not go for urination and she was not provided with any catheter. It was the case of the complainant that as a result of such maltreatment, the patient's surgical wound got ruptured and she started bleeding. The surgical wound was reopened and treated accordingly, but it was the case of the complainant that the condition of the patient deteriorated and she was bleeding profusely. On 24. 5. 1996 the respondent No. 1 reopened the surgical wound without taking the help of any Anaesthetist and when the condition of the patient became extremely critical, the first opposite party/respondent recommended the patient to be taken to Calcutta for treatment, where finally she was admitted in Woodland Hospital, where she was expired within few hours of admission. It was stated that the deceased died on account of medical negligence on the part of the respondents. It was also stated that nursing home was not properly equipped and was found to be in unsanitary condition. It is in these circumstances, in the first instance a complaint was filed before the District Forum, from where it was withdrawn and a fresh complaint was filed before the State Commission praying for a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 on account of medical negligence on the part of the respondents.

(3.) BEFORE the State Commission, upon issue of notice, the complaint was contested by the respondents and the State Commission after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, dismissed the complaint firstly, on the ground that there was no specific act of negligence alleged in the complaint and secondly on account of any expert evidence filed in support of their contentions of the appellant/complainant. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the material on record.