A K BASU Vs. KALIKINKAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 26.10.2017 passed in first appeal No. A/210/2016 by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short, 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the doctor and upheld the order dated 10.02.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri (for short, 'the District Forum').

(2.) The briefly stated that, Smt. Rita Ghosh (herein-after-referred as 'the patient') complainant Kalikinkar Ghosh's wife consulted the petitioner opposite party /Dr. A. K. Basu on 25.02.2013 for complaint of per vaginal severe bleeding. The opposite party diagnosed it as an Incomplete abortion, therefore he performed Dilatation and Curettage ( D & C) under general anaesthesia (GA) in his Basu clinic at Siliguri and patient was discharged on same day. Thereafter, patient had continuous abdominal pain and again on 12.03.2013, complainant took his wife the opposite party-doctor, who after examination, advised for TORCH test and prescribed some medicines and asked for urgent Ultrasonography (USG) of whole abdomen. Thereafter, patient approached Dr. M. A. Khalid with the USG report. He diagnosed it as 'Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy' about size 37 X 23 mm. Thereafter, complainant took his wife to Dr. Pulak Kr Saha, at Prayas Medicare. He confirmed it as a tubal pregnancy and performed Right salpingectomy operation (removal of fallopian tube) on 18.03.2013, but could not save the pregnancy. She was discharged on 20.03.2013. Complainant alleged that opposite party should not have conducted D & C, then the baby (foetus) could have been saved. Being aggrieved by the alleged negligent treatment from the OP-doctor, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) In the written version, the opposite party denied the allegations. It was submitted that, based on physical/clinical examination and USG report patient was diagnosed as a case of incomplete abortion. On the same day i.e 25.02.2013, D & C was performed. It was 4 weeks pregnancy and at that stage USG did not detect ectopic pregnancy. Admittedly, it was detected on 16.03.2013 i.e. at about seven weeks of pregnancy. As per the medical literature, the ectopic pregnancy can only be detected by USG only after six weeks of pregnancy. The opposite party further submitted that the procedure of D&C was confined to uterine cavity only whereas ectopic pregnancy is outside the uterine cavity which commonly occurs in the fallopian tube. The D & C is not a risk factor of ectopic pregnancy. The State Commission wrongly held that after D & C procedure pregnancy can't retain/exist.