What
is Law
     Right
of Doctors
     Responsibilities    
Negligence    
Consents     Records    
Cases

       

Legislations    
Medical
Ethics
      FAQ’s

   

    

Surgeon

     



  • RAMESHCHANDRA
    GOSWAMI v. DR. DIPAK BANERJEE



      

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g)
    – Medical Negligence – Deficiency in Service – Careless / negligence operation – Patient operated for appendicitis – Developed respiratory trouble after operation – Died due to cerebral attack occurred due to careless / negligent operation, patient did not regain consciousness due to wrong application of anesthesia – Allegation not established by expert evidence – Deficiency in service on part of opposite parties not proved – Complainant not entitled for a relief.

      

    Held: According to the complainant the cerebral attack occurred due to careless negligent operation by the
    doctor. But there is expert evidence to establish the fact that if operation was the proximate cause of the cerebral attack. In the petition of the complainant it has been alleged that because of wrong application anesthesia the patient did not regard consciousness, and ultimately died. Here again, there is no tangible evidence to establish fact. The learned Counsel for the opposite party-1 drawn our attention to noting in the bedhead ticket dated 4.8.1993 to show that one of the doctors had noticed marked improvement in condition of the patient while she was under treatment at SSKM Hospital. The learned Counsel of the opposite party has also drawn attention counter affidavit filed by the complainant wherein it has been stated in paragraph 2 thereof that doctors H.K.Mitra and Amit Kr.Mukherjee are the owners of the nursing home (opposite party-3) whereas the stand taken in the complainant petition was that the opposite parties-1 and 2 are the owners of the said nursing home. Anyway these are not very much relevant for the purpose of this case. The question that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the doctors. As indicated earlier there is no satisfactory evidence to establish the allegation against the doctors. This being the position we cannot but reject the claim. (Para 5 )

       

    Result : Complaint dismissed.

        


    ORDER


         

    Mr. Justice S.C.Datta, President – The complainant is husband of the deceased Arati
    Goswami. He has approached this Commission claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of his wife on 31.8.1993 due to defective operation performed by the opposite party-1 on 7.7.1993.

         


    2.
    The case of the complainant in short is that his wife Arati Goswami suddenly fall ill on 30.6.1993 due to pain in the abdomen. She was immediately taken to Dr. Dipak Banerjee (opposite party-1) in his chamber for advice and treatment. After examination the said doctor advised for immediate operation for appendicitis. On his advice the patient was admitted to Shush Usha Nursing Home (opposite party-3) on 6.7.1993 at about 10.40 p.m. On the next day i.e. on 7.7.1993 at about 7.45 a.m. Dr.Banerjee performed the operation on the patient with the help of anesthetist Dr.Sujit das (opposite party-2). Immediately after operation the patient experienced respiratory trouble. The complainant alleges that this occurred due to negligence of the doctor performing the operation, nursing staff and absence of oxygen cylinder in the said nursing home. There is further allegation that no cardiologist was called for. In fact, tube patient lay uncared for about more than four hours in a precarious condition. Dr.Banerjee called
    Dr.S.K.Chatterjee, cardiologist (opposite party-4) at about 12 noon. Dr.Chatterjee noticed the precarious condition of the patient and advised shifting of the patient to a reputed hospital in Calcutta as otherwise she would be in a state of coma. Dr.Chatterjee further observed that this was a case of cerebral attack. The patient was shifted to Calcutta and admitted in the neurological medicine ward (female) of SSKM Hospital. The patient lay unconsciousness and she never regained her consciousness. Ultimately she expired on 31.8.1993. According to the complainant Dr.Banerjee being not a gynaecologist had no authority to perform such an intricate operation. Moreover, there was absence of necessary equipments and facilities at the nursing home resulting in untimely death of the patient. The complainant lodged complaint with the West Bengal Medical Council but without any consequence. Thereafter he approached this Commission for redress.

          


    3.
    The case is contested by the opposite parties-1 and 2 by filing a joint written version. It has been stated that he was sent for examination of the patient at the nursing home on 6.7.1993 and he advised immediate operation of the patient considering the seriousness of the ailment. Dr.Banerjee noticed that it was a case of pathological appendicitis. He advised for immediate surgery and also suggested that another surgeon should be consulted for second opinion. But the complainant insisted upon him to perform the operation. The complainant having expressed inability to consult another surgeon and having given procedural consent for such operation, Dr.Banerjee surgically removed the appendicitis of the patient with the help of opposite party-2 after taking all necessary precautions and following approval medical procedures for such surgery. The patient having felt respiratory trouble, Dr.Chatterjee was sent for who arrived on the same date at about 12 noon and advised for hospitalization. The opposite party denied that the patient died because of negligence. Since time was very short and condition of the patient worsened they had no time for detailed pathologica examination before the operation.

          


    4.
    The sole point for determination in the case is whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing deficiency in service in the matter of operation of he patient on 7.3.1993. Several ….. are committed. Dr. Banerjee is MBBS (Cal) and MAIMS (Delhi). Anyway the complainant consulted him while his wife fell ill following a pain in the abdomen. Dr. Banerjee performed the operation and removed the appendix. It has been alleged that he is not qualified to perform the said operation. It may be remembered that he is an MBBS doctor and as such it cannot be disputed that he had authority to perform the operation. The operation was done and appendix was removed within a few hours. The patient developed respiratory trouble and Dr.
    S.K.Chatterjee, a cardiologist was sent for. He observed that it was a case of cerebral attack. He advised immediate shifting of the patient to a reputed hospital in Calcutta. The patient was taken to Calcutta and admitted to SSKM Hospital for treatment. Later she expired there on 31.8.1993. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has drawn our attention to the death certificate wherefrom it appears that the death occurred due to brain stem infraction. It may be mentioned that the trouble started after the operation was done and one appendix was removed.

         


    5.
    According to the complainant the cerebral attack occurred due to careless / negligent operation by the doctor. But there is no expert evidence to establish the fact that the operation was the proximate cause of the cerebral attack. In the petition of complainant, it has been alleged that because of wrong application of anesthesia the patient did not regain consciousness, and ultimately died. Here again there is no tangible evidence to establish fact. The learned Counsel for the opposite party-1 has drawn our attention to noting in the bedhead ticket dated 4.8.1993 to show that one of the doctors had noticed marked improvement in the condition of the patient while she was under treatment at SSKM Hospital. The learned Counsel of the opposite party has also drawn attention to counter affidavit filed by the complainant wherein it has been stated in paragraph 2 thereof that doctors H.K.Mitra and Amit Kr. Mukherjee are the owners of the nursing home (opposite party-3) whereas the stand taken in the complaint petition was the opposite parties-1 and 2 are the owners of the said nursing home. Anyway these are not very much relevant for the purpose of this case. The question that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the doctors. As indicated earlier there is no satisfactory evidence to establish the allegation against the doctors. This being the position we cannot but reject the claim. 

       

    In view of the aforesaid, the case deserves to be dismissed which we hereby do.

        

    Ordered that the case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest.

        

    Complaint dismissed.

        



  • RAKESH KUMAR v. DR.D.P.BAKSHI



    II(2001) CPJ 59 (NC)

       

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24A – `Medical’, `Barred by Limitation’ – Complainant`s hand did not fully respond to the operation – Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ? – Whether the complaint has given any explanation for this inordinate delay ? [No].

        

    Held: The fact is that the absence of the radial nerves was known to the complainant on 2nd June, 1990 and that the right radial artery was missing. But the complainant filed the present complaint in February, 1999 which is almost 9 years after the said operation. Limitation provided under Section 24A of the Act is 2 years. Such delay can, however, be explained in terms of proviso to the said section. But no explanation for such long delay has been made before us.

       

    In these circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay of about 7 years in filing the complaint. This original petition is, therefore, dismissed, as time barred. This diposal shall not prevent the complainant to such remedy in any other Forum in accordance with law.
    (Paras 1 & 2 )

       

    Result: Original Petition dismissed.

         


    ORDER


        

    Mr.Justice J.K.Mehra, Member – This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party who is a Surgeon for the alleged negligence committed by the said Surgeon in operating upon the complainant`s right hand. It is alleged that the patient could not move his wrist and the fingers. It was to remedy this malady that the operation was carried out on 20th April, 1990 at Calcutta. It is stated in the complaint that the hand of the patient did not fully respond after the operation and certain complications also developed later. Even the report of one, Dr. A.K.Biswas which is relied upon by the complainant in the complaint is that of 2nd June, 1990 wherein the fact of missing radial nerves and radial artery is noted. Thereafter, the patient was treated at different centers including All India Institute of Medical Sciences
    (AIIMS). The fact is that the absence of the radial nerves was known to the complainant on 2nd June, 1990 and that the right radial artery was missing. But the complainant filed the present complaint in February, 1999 which is almost 9 years after the said operation. Limitation provided under Section 24A of the Act is 2 years. Such delay can, however, be explained in terms of proviso so the said section. But no explanation for such long delay has been shown nor any prayer for condonation of delay has been made before us.

       

    2. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay of about 7 years in filing the complaint This original petition is, therefore, dismissed, as time barred. This disposal shall not prevent the complainant to such remedy in any other Forum in accordance with law.

       

    Original Petition dismissed.

        

  • S.
    Rama Rao v. Bantwal Sulochana Madhava shenoy Trust(Regd)
    & Ors.

    1997(1)
    CPJ 301 (Karnataka SCDRC)

       

    The complainant was operated for hernia, under spinal
    anaesthesia. After surgery he developed paralysis in his
    body below the waist (paraplegia). He was advised to undergo
    another operation to remove blood clot in the spinal cord by
    an orthopaedician but he did not recover. The court held
    that there was no specific grievance about deficiency in
    service, as the complainant failed to establish paraplegia
    due to any deficiency and dismissed the complaint.

         

  • Tarun
    Kumar Pramanik v. Dr. Kunal Chkraborty & Ors.

    1995
    (2) CPR 545 (WB SCDRC)

      

    The complainant alleged that during operation for left
    inguinal hernia, his left testis was removed and has become
    handicapped.

      

    The State Commission on the basis of evidence placed on
    record, and opinion of expert witness held that the removal
    of testis was done to avoid gangrenous infection, operation
    was done with reasonable care and skill and had not resulted
    in any handicap.

      

    Complaint was held to be vexatious and complaint liable to
    pay cost to 1st opposite party.

      

  • S.
    Suresh Kumar v. Anand Hospital & Anr.

    1996
    (3) CPJ 534 (TN SCDEC)

      

    The complainant was suffering from vericose veins with
    haemogioma, right leg, for which he was operated in Anand
    Hospital by Dr. Darwin, consulting surgeon. After surgery he
    developed foot drop. He alleged negligence and filed a
    petition before the State Commission for constituting a
    medical board to establish negligence, but that portion was
    dismissed. Apart from the evidence complainant’s father, no
    other evidence was adduced. The complaint was dismissed.

         


         


 Back

  


    




 

     

    
     

What is Law     Right of Doctors     Responsibilities     Negligence     Consents     Records     Cases
       
Legislations     Medical Ethics      FAQ’s

   
    

Surgeon
     

  • RAMESHCHANDRA GOSWAMI v. DR. DIPAK BANERJEE
      
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Medical Negligence – Deficiency in Service – Careless / negligence operation – Patient operated for appendicitis – Developed respiratory trouble after operation – Died due to cerebral attack occurred due to careless / negligent operation, patient did not regain consciousness due to wrong application of anesthesia – Allegation not established by expert evidence – Deficiency in service on part of opposite parties not proved – Complainant not entitled for a relief.
      
    Held: According to the complainant the cerebral attack occurred due to careless negligent operation by the doctor. But there is expert evidence to establish the fact that if operation was the proximate cause of the cerebral attack. In the petition of the complainant it has been alleged that because of wrong application anesthesia the patient did not regard consciousness, and ultimately died. Here again, there is no tangible evidence to establish fact. The learned Counsel for the opposite party-1 drawn our attention to noting in the bedhead ticket dated 4.8.1993 to show that one of the doctors had noticed marked improvement in condition of the patient while she was under treatment at SSKM Hospital. The learned Counsel of the opposite party has also drawn attention counter affidavit filed by the complainant wherein it has been stated in paragraph 2 thereof that doctors H.K.Mitra and Amit Kr.Mukherjee are the owners of the nursing home (opposite party-3) whereas the stand taken in the complainant petition was that the opposite parties-1 and 2 are the owners of the said nursing home. Anyway these are not very much relevant for the purpose of this case. The question that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the doctors. As indicated earlier there is no satisfactory evidence to establish the allegation against the doctors. This being the position we cannot but reject the claim. (Para 5 )
       
    Result : Complaint dismissed.
        
    ORDER
         
    Mr. Justice S.C.Datta, President – The complainant is husband of the deceased Arati Goswami. He has approached this Commission claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of his wife on 31.8.1993 due to defective operation performed by the opposite party-1 on 7.7.1993.
         
    2. The case of the complainant in short is that his wife Arati Goswami suddenly fall ill on 30.6.1993 due to pain in the abdomen. She was immediately taken to Dr. Dipak Banerjee (opposite party-1) in his chamber for advice and treatment. After examination the said doctor advised for immediate operation for appendicitis. On his advice the patient was admitted to Shush Usha Nursing Home (opposite party-3) on 6.7.1993 at about 10.40 p.m. On the next day i.e. on 7.7.1993 at about 7.45 a.m. Dr.Banerjee performed the operation on the patient with the help of anesthetist Dr.Sujit das (opposite party-2). Immediately after operation the patient experienced respiratory trouble. The complainant alleges that this occurred due to negligence of the doctor performing the operation, nursing staff and absence of oxygen cylinder in the said nursing home. There is further allegation that no cardiologist was called for. In fact, tube patient lay uncared for about more than four hours in a precarious condition. Dr.Banerjee called Dr.S.K.Chatterjee, cardiologist (opposite party-4) at about 12 noon. Dr.Chatterjee noticed the precarious condition of the patient and advised shifting of the patient to a reputed hospital in Calcutta as otherwise she would be in a state of coma. Dr.Chatterjee further observed that this was a case of cerebral attack. The patient was shifted to Calcutta and admitted in the neurological medicine ward (female) of SSKM Hospital. The patient lay unconsciousness and she never regained her consciousness. Ultimately she expired on 31.8.1993. According to the complainant Dr.Banerjee being not a gynaecologist had no authority to perform such an intricate operation. Moreover, there was absence of necessary equipments and facilities at the nursing home resulting in untimely death of the patient. The complainant lodged complaint with the West Bengal Medical Council but without any consequence. Thereafter he approached this Commission for redress.
          
    3. The case is contested by the opposite parties-1 and 2 by filing a joint written version. It has been stated that he was sent for examination of the patient at the nursing home on 6.7.1993 and he advised immediate operation of the patient considering the seriousness of the ailment. Dr.Banerjee noticed that it was a case of pathological appendicitis. He advised for immediate surgery and also suggested that another surgeon should be consulted for second opinion. But the complainant insisted upon him to perform the operation. The complainant having expressed inability to consult another surgeon and having given procedural consent for such operation, Dr.Banerjee surgically removed the appendicitis of the patient with the help of opposite party-2 after taking all necessary precautions and following approval medical procedures for such surgery. The patient having felt respiratory trouble, Dr.Chatterjee was sent for who arrived on the same date at about 12 noon and advised for hospitalization. The opposite party denied that the patient died because of negligence. Since time was very short and condition of the patient worsened they had no time for detailed pathologica examination before the operation.
          
    4. The sole point for determination in the case is whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing deficiency in service in the matter of operation of he patient on 7.3.1993. Several ….. are committed. Dr. Banerjee is MBBS (Cal) and MAIMS (Delhi). Anyway the complainant consulted him while his wife fell ill following a pain in the abdomen. Dr. Banerjee performed the operation and removed the appendix. It has been alleged that he is not qualified to perform the said operation. It may be remembered that he is an MBBS doctor and as such it cannot be disputed that he had authority to perform the operation. The operation was done and appendix was removed within a few hours. The patient developed respiratory trouble and Dr. S.K.Chatterjee, a cardiologist was sent for. He observed that it was a case of cerebral attack. He advised immediate shifting of the patient to a reputed hospital in Calcutta. The patient was taken to Calcutta and admitted to SSKM Hospital for treatment. Later she expired there on 31.8.1993. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has drawn our attention to the death certificate wherefrom it appears that the death occurred due to brain stem infraction. It may be mentioned that the trouble started after the operation was done and one appendix was removed.
         
    5. According to the complainant the cerebral attack occurred due to careless / negligent operation by the doctor. But there is no expert evidence to establish the fact that the operation was the proximate cause of the cerebral attack. In the petition of complainant, it has been alleged that because of wrong application of anesthesia the patient did not regain consciousness, and ultimately died. Here again there is no tangible evidence to establish fact. The learned Counsel for the opposite party-1 has drawn our attention to noting in the bedhead ticket dated 4.8.1993 to show that one of the doctors had noticed marked improvement in the condition of the patient while she was under treatment at SSKM Hospital. The learned Counsel of the opposite party has also drawn attention to counter affidavit filed by the complainant wherein it has been stated in paragraph 2 thereof that doctors H.K.Mitra and Amit Kr. Mukherjee are the owners of the nursing home (opposite party-3) whereas the stand taken in the complaint petition was the opposite parties-1 and 2 are the owners of the said nursing home. Anyway these are not very much relevant for the purpose of this case. The question that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the doctors. As indicated earlier there is no satisfactory evidence to establish the allegation against the doctors. This being the position we cannot but reject the claim. 
       
    In view of the aforesaid, the case deserves to be dismissed which we hereby do.
        
    Ordered that the case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest.
        
    Complaint dismissed.
        

  • RAKESH KUMAR v. DR.D.P.BAKSHI
    II(2001) CPJ 59 (NC)
       
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24A – `Medical’, `Barred by Limitation’ – Complainant`s hand did not fully respond to the operation – Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ? – Whether the complaint has given any explanation for this inordinate delay ? [No].
        
    Held: The fact is that the absence of the radial nerves was known to the complainant on 2nd June, 1990 and that the right radial artery was missing. But the complainant filed the present complaint in February, 1999 which is almost 9 years after the said operation. Limitation provided under Section 24A of the Act is 2 years. Such delay can, however, be explained in terms of proviso to the said section. But no explanation for such long delay has been made before us.
       
    In these circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay of about 7 years in filing the complaint. This original petition is, therefore, dismissed, as time barred. This diposal shall not prevent the complainant to such remedy in any other Forum in accordance with law. (Paras 1 & 2 )
       
    Result: Original Petition dismissed.
         
    ORDER
        
    Mr.Justice J.K.Mehra, Member – This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party who is a Surgeon for the alleged negligence committed by the said Surgeon in operating upon the complainant`s right hand. It is alleged that the patient could not move his wrist and the fingers. It was to remedy this malady that the operation was carried out on 20th April, 1990 at Calcutta. It is stated in the complaint that the hand of the patient did not fully respond after the operation and certain complications also developed later. Even the report of one, Dr. A.K.Biswas which is relied upon by the complainant in the complaint is that of 2nd June, 1990 wherein the fact of missing radial nerves and radial artery is noted. Thereafter, the patient was treated at different centers including All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The fact is that the absence of the radial nerves was known to the complainant on 2nd June, 1990 and that the right radial artery was missing. But the complainant filed the present complaint in February, 1999 which is almost 9 years after the said operation. Limitation provided under Section 24A of the Act is 2 years. Such delay can, however, be explained in terms of proviso so the said section. But no explanation for such long delay has been shown nor any prayer for condonation of delay has been made before us.
       
    2. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay of about 7 years in filing the complaint This original petition is, therefore, dismissed, as time barred. This disposal shall not prevent the complainant to such remedy in any other Forum in accordance with law.
       
    Original Petition dismissed.
        

  • S. Rama Rao v. Bantwal Sulochana Madhava shenoy Trust(Regd) & Ors.
    1997(1) CPJ 301 (Karnataka SCDRC)
       
    The complainant was operated for hernia, under spinal anaesthesia. After surgery he developed paralysis in his body below the waist (paraplegia). He was advised to undergo another operation to remove blood clot in the spinal cord by an orthopaedician but he did not recover. The court held that there was no specific grievance about deficiency in service, as the complainant failed to establish paraplegia due to any deficiency and dismissed the complaint.
         

  • Tarun Kumar Pramanik v. Dr. Kunal Chkraborty & Ors.
    1995 (2) CPR 545 (WB SCDRC)
      
    The complainant alleged that during operation for left inguinal hernia, his left testis was removed and has become handicapped.
      
    The State Commission on the basis of evidence placed on record, and opinion of expert witness held that the removal of testis was done to avoid gangrenous infection, operation was done with reasonable care and skill and had not resulted in any handicap.
      
    Complaint was held to be vexatious and complaint liable to pay cost to 1st opposite party.
      

  • S. Suresh Kumar v. Anand Hospital & Anr.
    1996 (3) CPJ 534 (TN SCDEC)
      
    The complainant was suffering from vericose veins with haemogioma, right leg, for which he was operated in Anand Hospital by Dr. Darwin, consulting surgeon. After surgery he developed foot drop. He alleged negligence and filed a petition before the State Commission for constituting a medical board to establish negligence, but that portion was dismissed. Apart from the evidence complainant’s father, no other evidence was adduced. The complaint was dismissed.
         

         

 Back
  

    

 

By |2022-07-20T16:42:33+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Doctor’s Favour / Surgeon

About the Author: