RIMS asked to pay Rs 6.15 lakh compensation
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, April 12 2018: The Manipur State Consumers disputes Redressal Commission has directed the RIMS authority to pay Rs 6,15,000 as compensation to the family of a patient who died at RIMS about 8 years back on account of laxity on thepart of the attending doctors.

One Sagolsem Roger of Iroishemba Moirangthong died in the Intensive Coronary Care Unit (ICCU) of RIMS at around 2.30 am of January 1, 2010 .

Alleging that Roger died due to laxity on the part of the attending doctors, his father Sagolsem Naran lodged a complaint at the Manipur State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission.

The complaint demanded a compensation of Rs 79,10,000 .

Respondents of the case were the then RIMS Director, then Medical Superintendent Prof Dr Y Mohen, then Department Medicine Head Prof Dr M Kullachandra and then 1st year PG student Dr Geeta Thiyam.

The case was heard on February 23 this year and the commission's president Justice T Nandakumar announced the judgement on April 9.Other members of the commission are M Padmeshwar Singh and A Nivedita Devi, informed a source.

According to the commission's judgement, S Roger was admitted in Male Medicine Ward-4 of RIMS on December 24, 2009.He was admitted at RIMS on the advice of Dr Sachin Deba.

Roger was transferred to Male Medicine Ward-I, cabin no 29 on December 25.Then Department Medicine Head Prof Dr M Kullachandra was also the head of the unit.

On the instruction of the doctors of the particular unit, many tests such as Complete Haemogram, Liver Function Test, Plasma Glucose, Urine Analysis were conducted at a private diagnostic centre namely Babina Diagnostic Centre.

Blood test, sugar test, urine test, X-Ray, ECG and other others were also conducted at RIMS Hospital.

On December 27, the attending doctors referred Roger to Consultant Neurologist Dr Th Suraj Singh but Dr Suraj did not examine the patient.

Roger was transferred to bed no 3 of ICCU-III of RIMS Hospital at about 4.20 pm of December 31.However, the same treatment was continued with only two additional medicines.

As the patient complained of breathing difficulties, the same was informed to the unit's in-charge Dr Geeta but she did nothing except record the patient's BP and pulse rate.

The condition of Roger became critical at about 9 pm of the same day and the complainant (Naran) called Dr Geeta from her private chamber.

As Roger's condition grew worse at around 1 am of January 1, 2010, Naran went to call Dr Geeta at her chamber requesting her to see the condition of his son.

But Dr Geeta became furious and told the complainant not to call her for 'every little thing'.

Roger passed away at around 2.30 am of January 1 and Dr Geeta issued death certificate at about 3 am.

The complainant charged that his son died due to negligence on the part of RIMS doctors.

Even as the patient's condition became quite critical, the attending doctors did nothing to seek advice of specialist and other doctors.

The respondents contended that Roger needed early Paricardiectomy to save his life and the commission asked them whether doctors who could perform Paricardiectomy were available between December 24, 2009 and January 1, 2010 .

The commission further directed the respondents to give their reply in the form of affidavits.

Respondent Nos 1 and 2 jointly filed an affidavit on July 5, 2017 stating that RIMS Cardiothoracic Surgeon Dr Ksh Kala was available during the particular period.

But the respondents did not give any reason as to why the patient was not referred to the Thoracic Surgeon available at RIMS during the particular period who can conduct Paricardiectomy.

After hearing both the parties, the commission announced they were of the view that the patient died due to negligence of the doctors and directed the respondents (Nos 1, 3 and 4) to pay compensation of Rs 6,15,000 to the complainant within four months.

The commission further made it clear that the respondent no 1 is permitted to recover Rs 1 lakh from the respondent no 3 and Rs 2 lakh from the respondent no 4 .

Comment