New Delhi: The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal order which held the surgeon, anaesthetist and nursing home negligent of lapses in gall bladder surgery resulting the death of the patient. NCDRC held Rs. 7.5 lakhs compensation which had to be paid jointly by the surgeon, anaesthetist and nursing home but set aside the suspension order of anaesthetist by State Medical Council for 3 years.
Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that his mother, Jibabesha Begum, was admitted to Life Line Nursing Home for gallbladder surgery, as per the advice of Surgeon. She was operated upon the same day by the surgeon and anaesthetist along with Molla Kasem Ali, one of the proprietors of the nursing home and some other unidentified doctors. The complainant alleged that the surgeon and anaesthetist were responsible for his mother’s death in the operation theatre, and death occasioned due to medical negligence. He contended that five of her teeth were broken during the procedure and she died due to anaesthesia reversal failure. Further, the surgeon and anaesthetist attempted to deceive them by transferring the deceased to the ICU posthumously. The doctors then filed a false criminal case against the complainant and his brothers. The complainant brother lodged a complaint against OPs at Burdwan CJM Court, leading to exhumation of her body for post-mortem examination. The complainant further alleged that the nursing home operated illegally violating the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act 1950 and its regulations. The nursing home was unlicensed under the Act and that his mother’s death was due to the negligence of the attending doctors. No proper consent was obtained for the abdominal surgery. The complainant also filed complaint with the Chief Medical Officer, Burdwan and West Bengal Medical Council, alleging negligence and ethical violations by the doctors. He contended that her condition was inadequately evaluated, and the complications and procedures were not explained adequately. He thus filed complainant before the District Forum, seeking compensation of Rs.20,000/- for treatment, Rs.7,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.30,000/- for litigation expenses.
The district forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant while the State Consumer forum upheld the complaint. The State Consumer Forum held surgeon, anaesthetist and nursing home negligent and concluded “In the present case the finding of State of West Bengal Medical Council is as such-“the council then deliberated in private and at the conclusion of the deliberations, the Chairman called upon the council to vote on question whether the medical practitioners were guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect. The council unanimously decided that the charges against both the practitioners had been substantiated”. The West Bengal Medical Council held both the doctors medically negligent and issued a stricture warning that both the charged medical practitioner to be warned. West Bengal Medical Council further held that the anaesthetist (OP3) should have been more careful in respect of an elderly patient particularly in view of her limited exposer/training in the field of Anaesthesiology and that she had no post graduate degree/diploma in the field of Anaesthesiology. So, we find that medical negligence was proved against both the charged doctors.”
The order further said ” OPs are directed jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- in equal proportion to the complainant towards compensation apart from litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- for medical negligence and deficiency-in-service with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the judgement of Ld. DCDRC till compliance. The amount shall be paid within a period of 60 days from today failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree into execution U/Sec. 27 (A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We also recommend to West Bengal Medical Council to suspend the registration of anaesthetist for a period of 3 years with immediate effect, debarring her from practicing for the said period. Let her exercise some remorse when she will be debarred from practicing.”
The surgeon, anaesthetist and nursing home challenged the order of State Consumer Forum in the NCDRC. NCDRC relied on the order of West Bengal Medical Council as an expert opinion and held surgeon, anaesthetist and nursing home deficient in providing service. The Apex Commission upheld the State Consumer Forum award of compensation to the complainant but set aside the suspension of three years of the anaesthetist debarring her from practicing for the said period.
