Niladri Sengupta vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Petitioner has challenged an order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of 5% reduction in pension for a period of 5(five) years.

Brief facts are as under:

At the relevant time the petitioner was working as a Registrar, Department of Surgery at Agartala Government Medical College (AGMC) and G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala. According to the department, one patient Sri Ratan Das (aged about 45 years) was admitted at the said hospital on 04.09.2013 in the M.S.-I ward under Surgical Unit No.III under the advice of Dr. Niladri Sengupta, i.e. the petitioner, the Registrar of the Surgical Unit with a diagnosis of "growth urinary bladder wall" with ultrasonography and other documents. In the same hospital another patient also by the name of Ratan Das (aged about 53 years) had approached with the complaint of vestibular growth. He was to be admitted on 04.09.2013 for removal of the growth and for biopsy. He was actually admitted with such complaint. However, on 06.09.2013 said patient Ratan Das, 53 years old, was operated mistakenly on urinary bladder. This incident came to light a couple of days later through news reports. The Government constituted a three member committee headed by the Director of Health Services, Tripura who inquired into the matter and submitted the report prima facie attaching responsibility on the Surgeons, Doctors and the support staff who had admitted and operated on the patient. The petitioner being one of them, was served with the show-cause notice dated 30.09.2013 why appropriate action for negligence should not be taken against him.

Eventually a departmental charge-sheet came to be issued against the petitioner on 08.04.2015 alleging that he along with other 7(seven) doctors and para-medical staff had committed misconduct. As per the Articles of Charge and the imputation of misconduct it was alleged that the petitioner who was the Registrar of the Department of Surgery, had attended the patients and not taken proper care to ensure that the error does not occur.

The petitioner denied the charges. The competent authority decided to institute joint inquiry against all delinquents. Midway through the inquiry charges against some of the officials were dropped. The disciplinary authority passed impugned order dated 05.01.2019. By the time this order was passed the petitioner had retired from service. Under the impugned order, therefore, in consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC), penalty of 5% cut in pension for a period of 5(five) years was imposed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, I do not find any error in the impugned order. There are no allegations of breach of principles of natural justice in conduct of the inquiry. The department had examined several witnesses before the inquiry officer. Upon completion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer had submitted his detailed report. A copy of the inquiry officer's report was supplied to the petitioner allowing him to make his representation. In the inquiry report so far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, the inquiry officer had held and observed as under:

"Dr. Niladri Sengupta, AO advised admission of the patient in MS Ward-I under Unit-III. On 5th September 2013 operation list was prepared and it was planned for supra public cystostomy and removal of the growth of the patient. On 6th September 2013 patient was shifted to operation theatre table and he was given spinal anaesthesia. During cross-examination while Dr. N. Chakma was asked whether he did mistake in identifying the patient he replied that patient was identified by him before operation. During his deposition, AO has confessed that operation was done by him upon the patient and one PG and one staff namely Smt. Gopa Debroy assisted him. AO also stated that the patient was conscious during operation while Sri Ratan Das, the victim patient stated that an injection was pushed in his spinal cord and thereafter he could not understand what happened. The patient concerned stated clearly that he told doctor that his operation was required in the mouth. In the afternoon after completion of operation the patient felt that pain going on in lower abdomen and he understood that operation was done in the lower abdomen instead of mouth. The patient also mentioned in his deposition that the papers which he submitted in MS Ward was supplied from the hospital.

Dr. Niladri Sengupta, AO was posted as Registrar in the Department of Surgery in AGMC & GBP Hospital. While he was on duty in MS, OPD one patient namely Sri Ratan Das approached him with an OPD ticket having name as Ratan Das, 45 years with diagnosis of growth urinary bladder wall along with an USG report of bladder. Sri Sengupta, AO in his deposition mentioned that while he asked the patient about his problem, the instant reply of the patient was "Everything is written in OPD ticket". The patient who appeared before him was not asked further by him regarding his identity, place of residence, age etc. He wrote in prescription for admission of the patient. He came to know later on that Sri Ratan Das was operated for urinary bladder growth but no bladder growth was detected and abdomen was closed. On 08-09-13 he went to the patient's bed and found another OPD ticket mentioning name of Sri Ratan Das, 53 years with diagnosis of growth in oral cavity for excision biopsy. It brings out from above that there were two patients namely Ratan Das 45 years of age and Ratan Das, 53 years of age and the diagnosis meant for Sri Ratan Das, 45 years was imposed on Sri Ratan Das, 53 years. Instead of excision biopsy in oral cavity of the patient, operation was taken up for urinary bladder growth upon the patient which indicates gross irregularity. Proper identification of the patient could not be done and accordingly wrong operation was conducted upon the patient. Had the interrogation been done in proper way the identification of the patient could be found out properly to avoid such great mistake during operation."

The representation of the petitioner against the said inquiry officer's report was considered but not found acceptable. The disciplinary authority thereupon imposed the above noted punishment.

From the record, it can thus be seen that due to common names of two patients, Ratan Das aged 53 years was operated on urinary bladder whereas he had come with a complaint of vestibular growth. This serious lapse stems from human error. Had the petitioner and all other medical and para-medical staff been careful, such a serious lapse could have been avoided. It is true that in Government hospitals doctors and other staff deal with large number of patients on daily basis. However, such pressure of work cannot be the excuse for not taking sufficient care which can lead to a serious consequence of a patient being subjected to a wrong operation.

The fact that the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal Court would be of no consequence. As is stated time and again by Courts the nature of proof required in a criminal case is entirely different from the standard of proof required in departmental proceedings. The former proceeds on the theory of proof reasonable doubt the later on preponderance of probabilities. Strict rules of evidence do not apply in departmental proceedings. The penalty being 5% cut in pension for a limited period the same can also not be stated to be harsh.

In the result, petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.