w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Tanmoy Roychoudhuri v/s Bangur Medicare Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- D. S. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100WB2008PTC129181

Company & Directors' Information:- K K MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85310CH1998PTC021033

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDICARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U99999TG1986PTC006690

Company & Directors' Information:- K D MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2000PTC107059

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85190WB2009PTC140435

Company & Directors' Information:- V G S MEDICARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231TN1988PTC015301

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND P MEDICARE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110DL1993PLC052226

Company & Directors' Information:- S. J. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110GJ2011PTC065287

Company & Directors' Information:- S B MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC047778

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110PB2008PTC032129

Company & Directors' Information:- G B MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24232PB2011PTC034562

Company & Directors' Information:- S S MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2002PTC115168

Company & Directors' Information:- I M MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2004PTC131201

Company & Directors' Information:- J S MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110MP2009PTC022054

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. K. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24230HR2019PTC081503

Company & Directors' Information:- I. C. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232DL2008PTC177588

Company & Directors' Information:- M M MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110OR2005PTC008481

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDICARE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U22121AS1982PTC001957

Company & Directors' Information:- P & P MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2011PTC224186

Company & Directors' Information:- S P G MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24231DL2001PTC113231

Company & Directors' Information:- D. V. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2017PTC327336

Company & Directors' Information:- S G MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2010PTC202423

Company & Directors' Information:- M R MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85120DL2010PTC206224

Company & Directors' Information:- R. C. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24232GJ2007PTC051001

    Revision Petition No. 4378 of 2009

    Decided On, 18 August 2015

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate with Rupali S. Ghosh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Partha Sil, Advocate with Tavish B. Prasad, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member:

1. The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakh for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the compliant and directed OPs 1 and 2 to pay Rs.5000/- each, as compensation.

2. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement and confirmed the order of District Forum. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred.

3. The facts in brief, are that the complainant’s uncle, Shri Samar Roy Chowdhury, the patient, fell sick on 31.10.2005, after consuming biryani. Initially, he was treated at home, thereafter, admitted at BMRI (OP-1) next morning i.e. on 1.11.2005 in ICCU under the care of Dr. Sudarshan Chakraborty, OP 2. It was alleged that OP 2 prescribed medicines over telephone without attending to the patient. Thereafter on 4.11.2005, the patient became critical. The hospital authorities tried to contact OP 2 , but OP 2 did not turn up, till 4.30 p.m. Hence, the patient was shifted to AMRI, Dhakuria, Hospital, but the patient, ultimately, expired at 7.25 a.m on 5.11.2005. Hence, the complainant alleged that the patient expired due to negligence and irresponsible conduct of OP 2.

4. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the evidence on record. The evidence clearly goes to show that the patient was examined by consultant Pulmonologist Dr. Dasgupta, on 2.11.2005 made diagnosis as Acute Exacerbation of COPD. Patient was kept under observation of OP 2 and OP 3. The patient was shifted in ICCU, where OP 3 and Dr. Pinaki Das were monitoring the patient properly. Thereafter, the patient was shifted to AMRI Hospital by the relatives of patient, on their own risk.

5. The OP 2 has stated in his written version that, the patient was a known patient of advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ( COPD), with hypertension. This time he was admitted on 01.11.2005 at about 10.30 a.m. and had been examined by the OP 2. The patient had a history of food poisoning together with breathing difficulty. Though diarrhea was controlled, but respiratory distress persisted. On 02.11.2005, in the morning, he attended to the patient, at that time, though, his respiratory troubles were there, yet, he was responding in a better way. In the evening, he visited the patient again, when his BP was found improving and he was advised to start usual anti-hypertensive medicines from 03.11.2005. At that time, the patient also started taking some fluid and soft food through mouth, I.V. line of fluid was also advised to be taken off from 03.11.2005. Since 03.11.2005 the patient remained under joint care of the OP 2 and 3. On 03.11.2005 the OP 3 visited the patient in the evening and he was found in a stable condition. On 04.11.2005 at about 12.30 a.m. the patient suddenly developed severe respiratory distress but proper care was taken in the ICCU by the OP 3 and Dr. Pinaka Das. At 4.20 a.m. on the next morning ,while the patient was in a comparatively stable condition, the relatives of the patient took away him to AMRI Hospital, on their own risk.

6. The main argument is focused on the quantum of compensation. As per OP 1, the patient became critical due to heart attack at 12.30 p.m. on 4.11.2005, which further caused severe irreversible respiratory distress.

7. The District Forum and the State Commission held OP 1 and OP 2 liable ,for careless handling of the patient to some extent and directed them to pay Rs.5,000/- as a compensation. In our view also, the deterioration of condition of patient was not due to failure of alertness by OP 1 and 2. The other doctors and OP-3 were present in ICCU and gave proper care and necessary treatment to the patient while the OP 2 was absent. Hence, at some extent it amounts to careless attitude or abandonment. It reveals wee bit negligence on the part of OP-2 for which he must be burdened with some compensation.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

/> 8. We are of considered view that the compensation awarded by fora below appears to be on lesser side. Thus, on the basis of forgoing discussion, we award lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, which is to be paid jointly and severally by OPs 1 and 2 to the complainant, within 60 days, otherwise, it will carry further interest @ 10% per annum till its realization. 9. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.