John Doe
General SurgeonPretium saepe pariatur ornare cillum repudiandae inceptos iaculis cumque vulputate sequi neque quos exercitation aliquip interdum, veniam? Aute error, elit!
breadcrumb-navxt
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/legalmd/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ORDER DATED: 4.05.2017 (West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
FACTS:
The brief facts of the case are that Susanta’s father , a senior citizen, was suffering from prostate ailment and was taken to Dr. Bimal who diagnosed Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP). The doctor admitted the patient at his hospital and fixed the date and time for the surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery had to be delayed by about six hours due to a fault in Rescetoscope and non-availability of an anesthetist. The surgery took place six hours later, but in the wee hours of the same day, the patient suffered a cardiac arrest and was transferred to the ICCU, but unfortunately died. Susant was in a shock as he was hoping to see his father hale and hearty, he got the sad news of his demise instead. It was this shock and perhaps knowledge of delay in surgery that made him approach the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT:
DEFENSE OF THE DOCTOR:
Dr. Biswas submitted that TURP was performed after conducting necessary radiological and pathological tests
He further submitted that the patient was checked by a cardiologist and an ECG was also done. TURP was performed only after the patient was found to be fit for operation, although the patient had one heart attack in the past. Post-surgery, the patient was stable and CVS was NAD but in the wee hours he suffered a cardiac arrest
The doctor further stated that the patient did not require blood transfusion and hence the same was not required
Lastly, the doctor stated, TURP was delayed due to faulty Resectoscope and for preoccupancy of the anesthetist and he can’t be held negligent for such delay
COURT HELD:
It was observed that medical records did not have details of patient being checked by a cardiologist, which was required as standard of practice. Further it was observed that two units of blood was advised for surgery, but the doctor neither utilized the blood nor did he take care of the mode of disposal of blood. Making similar other observations, the Commission stated the following: “Doctor did not perform his duties he owed to the patient properly and diligently, as he did not perform TURP at the fixed time and he ought to have ensured that the Resectoscope was functional. The doctor has taken recourse to the excuse of previous heart attack seemingly to be free from liability for patient’s death and to hide the deficiency on his part in ensuring proper and diligent medical care”. The doctor was held guilty for negligence by the Commission.