BASUJIT GANGOPADHYAY Vs. AJAYENDU NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Complainant/Respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint against the Petitioner/Opposite Party before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Alipur seeking compensation on account of medical negligence while treating his father who ultimately died. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the Complainant had not produced expert evidence to prove negligence on the part of the Opposite Party/Petitioner. It was also observed that the Complainant had not examined Dr. Amitava Roy who opined that septicemia had developed on account of excessive antibiotic injections. The Complainant filed appeal against the said order before the State Commission. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum that there was no expert opinion to prove negligence on the part of the treating Doctor and the Nursing Home. However, the State Commission found that the appellant - Doctor had neglected his duty as a Doctor while giving priority to his commitment. It was observed that the treating Doctor had left the patient in hopeless state under the care of Dr. Subhasis Pradhan for treatment during his absence. The State Commission accordingly held the Appellant negligent in discharging his duties by leaving his critical patient in order to attend to his prior commitment elsewhere. For this deficiency in service, the Appellant was asked to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 within 45 days, failing which 10% interest was to accrue on the said amount for the period of default. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Commission.

(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner who has placed reliance on paragraph 4.4 of Chapter IV of Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation). On the basis of said paragraph, it has been contended that the appellant had appointed Dr. Subhasis Pradhan to treat the father of the Complainant in his absence and as such there was no deficiency in service in performance of duty by the appellant.

(3.) PARAGRAH 1.1.2 of Chapter of the said Regulation lays down that the prune object of the medical profession is to render service to humanity reward or financial gain is a subordinate consideration. More likewise, paragraph 1.2 of the said Regulation reiterates that the principal objective of medical profession is to render service to humanity. Paragraph 1.8 of the said Regulation lays down that the physician engaged in the practice of medicine, shall give priority to the interest of patients. The personal financial interests of a physician should not conflict with the medical interests of patient.