- (1.) This order will govern the disposal of FA Nos. 462 of 2005,463 of 2005 and 44 of 2006 which arise out of the same order dated 19. 9. 1995 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Calcutta.
(2.) In nutshell, the facts giving rise to these appeals are these. Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy w/o Bijoy Sinha Roy, appellant in F. A. No. 44 of 2006 (complainant) developed some menstrual problem sometime in the month of June, 1993. She consulted the family physician Dr. Pran Shankar Saha who advised her to consult Dr. Biswanalh Das, appellant in F. A. No. 462 of 2005 (O. P. No. 1), Gynaecologist. She visited Dr. Das who after physical check up advised her to have ultrasonographic test of the pelvis and some pathological tests. As advised by Dr. Das, Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy got the USG test done which revealed multiple fibroids of varying sizes in uterus. On perusal of that report on 22. 6. 1993, Dr. Das advised her to undergo Hysterectomy. After a lapse of about 5 months Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy again visited Dr. Das with the complaint of severe bleeding. Dr. Das advised for emergency Hysterectomyand he arranged for operation at Ashutosh Nursing Home. Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy was suffering from high blood pressure and her hemoglobin was around 7 gm% which indicated that she was severe anemic. For increasing hemoglobin, Dr. Das advised Zectofer and Tetvac injections. Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy was admitted in the said Nursing Home on 30. 11. 1993 to undergo Hysterectomy on 1. 12. 1993. On 1. 12. 1993, the operation started around 8. 45 a. m. but Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy did not regain consciousness even after lapse of about 1-1/2 hours of the completion of operation. Nursing Home did not have the Intensive Care Unit. Dr. Debasis Sarkar, op No. 3 booked a bed at Repose Nursing Home and Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy was shifted there at about 2. 15 p. m. Even after treatment at Repose Nursing Home, she did not regain consciousness. Since day to day medical expense at the said Nursing Home was going beyond, the means of the complainant, she was transferred to SSKM Hospital on 6. 12. 1993 where she eventually expired on 27. 1. 1994. Thereafter, alleging negligence complaint was filed which was contested by filing separate written versions by the opposite parties. Complaint was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 18. 8. 2003. On FA No. 754 of 2003 being filed by the complainant, the appeal was allowed and case was remanded to the State Commission for being decided after allowing the report of Dr. Apurba Nandy being proved and Dr. Sagarmony Basu being cross-examined vide order dated 6. 10. 2004 by this Commission. In terms of the impugned order, the complaint was allowed holding OP Nos. 1 and 2 negligent in performing Hysterectomy of the deceased without controlling her high blood pressure and increasing the level of hemoglobin. OP No. 1 was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- while OP No. 2 the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant. Complaint against OP Nos. 3 and 4 was dismissed. Appeal No. 462 of 2005 has been filed by OP No. 1 while appeal No. 463 of 2005 by OP No. 2 to set aside the impugned order. In FA No. 44 of 2006, the complainant seeks enhancement of compensation. We have heard the parties learned Counsel. Written submissions have also been filed by them.
(3.) On internal page No. 13 of the impugned order, the State Commission observed that the blood pressure of the deceased preceding the day of operation which was 30. 11. 1993, was 220/110. On internal page No. 15, the State Commission noted that even on the morning of 1. 12. 1993, before operation the blood pressure was within the range of 220/110. Observations made towards the end on internal page 14 of the order which are material, are reproduced below. "the OPs are relying upon the evidence of their expert Dr. S. M. Basu who has supported their action but he should not be taken as an authority who can proclaim the last word on such a subject. Moreover, his evidence is clear to show that what he says, he says on the basis of authority and he has also made a reference to such books, but unfortunately the citations made from such authorities are only generalizations which can not and do not appear to cover the context or the perspective of the present case the special features of the patient which were distinguishing. " Notes of OP No. 2, Anesthetist (copy at pages 85 to 88 in Vol. III)notices that on 30. 11. 1993 at about 7. 00 P. M. the blood pressure of Mrs. Bani Sinha Roy was 180/100 mm Hg and the hemoglobin was 7 gm%. Hysterectomy operation was started at about 8. 45 a. m. and finished at about 9. 45 a. m. Chart showing the blood pressure etc. on 1. 12. 1993 as reflected at page No. 87 of the notes which is material, runs as follows;