In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar.
Present : Shri Sukumar Chakroborty, President .
Smt Runa Ganguly, Member.
Shri . P.K.Chatterjee, Member.
Cooch Behar, Dated, the 29.03.2011
Case No. DF 32/2010
Shri Ratan Chowhan
S/o Lt. Siyaram Chowhan of Kalabagan,
Kameswari Road, Ward No. 4
P.S.-Kotwali,
Dist. Cooch Behar ……..……… ……………… Complainant
Vs
1. Dr. Jayanta Chowdhury,
Attached to M.J. N. Hospital,
P.O.+District-Cooch Behar,
2. The Superintendent of M.J.N. Hospital,
P.O. & District-Cooch Behar…………………………..………… O.P.S
This case arises out of a complaint filed by the Complt. Ratan Chowhan against the Opposite parties for negligence of the O.P. No. 1 Dr. Jayanta Chowdhury, Gynologist treated the wife of Complt. admitted at M.J.N Hospital at her advance stage of pregnancy.
It is alleged that the doctor took no care of the patient when patient was admitted with labour pain and ultimately a dead baby was born.
The case of the Complt. as appearing from the complaint in short is that Gita Chowhan the wife Complt. got admitted at the hospital when she was carrying 10 months of foetus but the doctor discharged the patient about 11.19 A.M without examining her at the relevant time in presence of patient parties i.e. Suchitra Mahato and Jhantu Mahato. As the patient felt unwell they again brought the patient to the hospital and she was admitted at 10.30 p.m. The doctor was reported but declined to examine the patient.
On the following day ie. On 17.05.2010 at 8.30 A.M the patient was taken to the O.T. and she delivered a still born baby.
Thus they had to suffer due to medical negligence of the doctor.
Therefore the Complt. has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps praying for directing the O.P.s. to refund the amount paid by Complt. to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs and compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs for mental pain and agony.
The case has been contested by the O.P. No. 1 by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form and in law.
It is asserted that the patient was admitted at MJN Hospital, Cooch Behar on 16th May,2010 with false pain and on examination it was found that O.S ( the cervix) was closed and at the relevant time she was carrying 32 weeks of foetus. It was also found that foetal heart sound (FHS) was positive i.e the baby in the womb was alive and there was no symptom of delivery and accordingly some medicines were also prescribed by the O.P.
It will be evident from the medical papers treated by other doctors that as on 16.05.10 the age of foetus was 32 weeks which is far below from the date of E.D.T i.e. 40 weeks.
On 17.05.2010 at about 8.25 A.M still born baby weighing only 2 Kg. was delivered by the said patient as pre-maturity date very much earlier than expected date of delivery.
The premature delivery happens due to premature rupture of membrane before 37 weeks due to idiopathic reason at an y time without any notice.
The O.P. carefully attended and examined the patient to his utmost skill.
On 16.05.2010 when the patient was examined by the O.P. there was no sign and symptom of immediate premature delivery since the O.S(Cervix) was closed and tubular and the age of foetus was 32 weeks and also foetal heart sound of the baby was positive.
The Complt. was not with the patient at Hospital at any point of time as such allegation brought by him is false.
On 16.05.2010 at about 10.44 P.M. the patient was admitted at MJN Hospital by another doctor who was performing his duty at emergency, showing the patient under the O.P. since the date was scheduled for O.P. In usual course if necessity do arises call book is sent by the Emergency doctor or sister on duty to the specialist for examination of the patient but on the instant matter no such call book or requisition was made or sent to O.P.
Consequently as Routine Round in the morning of 17.05.2010 the O.P. examined the patient while the patient delivered a still born baby weighing 2 Kgs. as premature delivery.
Lastly the O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
Point for determination :
No. (1) Whether the O.P. was deficient in service for not giving proper care at the time of premature delivery ?
No. (2) Whether the Complt. is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
Perused the evidence , affidavits, in medical papers adduced by the parties.
Admittedly the patient was admitted at MJN Hospital on 16.05.2010 under Dr. Joyanta Choudhury as she was carrying 32 weeks of foetus (pregnancy). It is not in dispute that the patient was under treatment at the MJN Hospital since January,2010.
It is the case of the Complt. that the doctor did not examine the patient and discharged the patient after one hour of admission but she was again brought to the Hospital due to pain at the night.
It is alleged that the doctor refused to examine the patient.
It is case of O.P. that patient was admitted on 16.05.2010 with false pain. The surgery status of in the discharge certificate dt 16.05.2010 goes to show ‘FLP’
The Complt. did not file affidavits of Suchitra Mahato and Jhantu Mahato as mentioned in complaint to prove his allegation against the O.P.
The O.P. found the age of foetus as on 16.05.10 was 32 weeks which was far below from the date of E.D.T. i.e 40 weeks.
When patient was examined by the O.P. on 16.05.2010 there was no sign and symptom of immediate premature delivery since O.S. (Cervix) was closed and foetal heart sound of the baby O.K.
On 17.05.10 at 8.25 A.M. the patient delivered still born baby weighing only 2 kgs as prematurity delivery much earlier than expected date of delivery.
It is say of O.P. that it happens due to premature rupture of membrance before 37 weeks due to idiopathic reason at any time without any notice.
It is alleged that the doctor took no care to save the baby and did not attend to examine the patient.
It is also duty of the Nurse/Sister (S.N) on duty to send doctor’s call book concerning to the patient and to report to the specialist doctor for examination of the patient if emergency so arises but there is no evidence to show that the said Sister (S.N) performed such duty.
In a case reported in III(2009) CPJ 61(NC) date of decision 04.05.2009 it was observed that “As per the hospitals own evaluation, the hospital staff should have taken extra care to deal with such a patient but the required degree of care was not exhibited”.
The Complt. therefore cannot only blame the doctor on the basis of mere allegation without any documentary evidence and expert evidence.
Therefore considering the materials on record we hold that the allegation of the Complt. has no vaslue unless they are proved by cogent evidence.
Point No.2: It is already decided that they Complt. has failed to prove the case of deficiency of service of O.P. and so that is not entitled to get any relief.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Complaint dt. 08.06.2010 of the Complt. be dismissed on contest without cost.
Dictated & corrected by me .
President, President,
District Consumer Forum District Consumer Forum
Cooch Behar. Cooch Behar.
Member, Member,
District Consumer Forum District Consumer Forum
Cooch Behar. Cooch Behar