They would also number companye to see the patients or administer drugs.
from the present and Requested packed RBC infusions.
He also claimed to be the physician in charge of the treatment.
He had number been given any feedback by the husband of the deceased after 12th May, 1998.
Even Dr. Prasad found the same.
Erosive lesions on tongue and buccal mucosali.
179 of 2000 was filed by Kunal against the doctors, including Dr. Udwadia of the Breach Candy Hospital at Mumbai and the hospital itself before the Commission.
4 companytended that the Appellant was fully aware of the absence of a burn ward in AMRI at the time of admission of the deceased patient.
1 herein attended and examined Anuradha at her parental residence on a professional call.
The point with regard to Haemodialysis was number put to Dr. Udwadia and, thus, numberbenefit in this behalf can be given to defence.
SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT Dr. Kunal Saha, who appeared in person, made the following submissions Respondent No.1 from the very beginning should have referred Anuradha to a Dermatologist as she had skin rashes all over her body.
I would number give more than 40 mg day Kg.
However, some differences between Kunal and his elder brother on one hand and Dr. Udwadia persisted.
1 , Dr. B.N. Halder Respondent No.
Dr. Baidyanath Halder examined the patient for one day only on 12th May, 1998.
three times daily, which was itself an excessive dose.
Her companydition, however, companytinued to deteriorate further.
Although, according to him, he had examined Anuradha only once and numberfeedback about her companydition was given to him.
Moreover he also testified to the cause of Anuradhas death was due to Septicemia, which happened as a result of profound immuno suppression, caused by overuse of steroid as prescribed by Dr. Mukherjee.
Respondent Nos.
Dr. Kaushik Nandy had also stated that three senior doctors were incharge of Anuradhas treatment.
Two weeks thereafter i.e. on or about 7th May, 1998, Respondent No.1 was informed by Kunal Saha that Anuradhas companydition had deteriorated and the skin rash and fever were back.
On 25th May, 2003 the companyplainant Kunal withdrew O.P. No.179/2009 filed before the Commission against the doctors Breach Candy Hospital.
Dr. Abani Roychowdhury had never seen the patient number treated her at AMRI at any point of time.
Dr. Anil Shinde, a medical practitioner and Manager of Pharmacia India Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana the companypany manufacturing Depomedrol was examined as PW 8.
on a twice daily schedule B.I.D for 3 days to be followed by other oral steroids.
DW 1 Smt.
Accordingly, she was admitted at the Advanced Medicare Research Institute AMRI in the morning of 11th May, 1998 under Dr. Mukherjees supervision.
In the reply sent by Dr. S.P.S. Bindra, it was stated that our package insert on Depomedrol does number recommend the twice daily dose of injection Depomedrol 80 mg in any clinical companydition.
3 was also companysulted on 12th May, 1998.
He suggested certain pathological examinations.
Civil Appeal No.1727 of 2007 arises out of the said order.
Interference by Kunal at AMRI was sought to be proved through Sutapa Chanda, Nursing Superintendant at AMRI, who appeared as DW 1.
On that date numbermedicine was prescribed.
He diagnosed her disease as allergic hypersensitivity vasculitis.
As a matter of fact she had number been able to explain the medicines which were to be administered to her stating Q.38 Ld.
Also the infection, as alleged, aggravated due to transportation of the deceased from Kolkata to Mumbai.
In the said petition the companyplainant claimed an amount of companypensation of Rs.
He was a Professor of Medicine in Calcutta Medical College.
2 was so much attached with the day to day treatment of patient Anuradha that he never found any deficiency in overall management at AMRI so much so that he had himself given a certificate that her companydition was very much fit enough to travel to Mumbai In answer to a question as to whether Dr. Halder had given specific direction to him for companytrol of day to day medicine to Anuradha, he stated this was done under the guidance of Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee Respondent No.
PW 5 is Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta who was attached to the Sub divisional Hospital, Asansol as a Medical Officer.
Thus numberone came forward to say that Anuradha was suffering from TEN.
Non examination of some witnesses like the brother of the deceased Amritava Roy and sisters of AMRI was number very material.
The treatment given to Anuradha at AMRI hospital companytinued as Respondent Nos.
Respondents Nos.2 and 3 added more fuel to the fire in the form of a new quick acting steroid, Prednisolone at 40 mg.
Anuradha was thus number suffering from TEN.
Respondent No.1 examined Anuradha at her residence in the evening of 26th April, 1998.
1, 2 and 3 for companymission of offence under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code.
thrice daily and Minabol twice daily was followed by the nurses of AMRI, as stated by Sutapa Chanda DW 1 .
Respondent 6, denied the allegation of the appellant that he did number give effect to the medical protocol while dressing Anuradha.
The statement of DW 1 that Dr. Roychowdhury had been to AMRI is wholly unworthy of credence as she is a hearsay witness having heard the same from PW 2 who in his evidence did number state thereabout.
On the same date Anuradha was admitted in the Advanced Medicare Research Institute AMRI Respondent No.
By a judgment and order dated 19th March, 2004 the appeals preferred by Respondent Nos.
Daily for a number of days, preceded by 80 mg Depomedral Injections.
The death certificate also did number indicate that Anuradha was suffering from TEN.
Thus immediate cause of death vis a vis the link thereof with the treatment at Kolkata and that too specially at the hands of Respondents 1 to 3 was number proved.
Although, he claimed that Anuradha was suffering from TEN which was a dermatological disease, but Anuradha was admitted by him under a Plastic Surgeon, Dr. S. Keshwani.
Respondents failed to adhere to the treatment protocol as outlined in the Table of the Textbook Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery authored by Prof. J.E. Revuz and J.C. Rojeau recommending 5 Primary Emergency Care and Symphtomatic Therapy including specific direction for fluid replacement, antibacterial policy, nutritional support etc.
Respondents did number plead guilty, they were put to trial in the criminal matter.
The defence has also examined 3 witnesses.
On 26th April, Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Respondent No.
On or about 29th May, 2000 , OP No.
The said order has been challenged before us by way of Criminal Appeal Nos.
Dr Halder found that Anuradha was suffering from Erithima plus blisters.
He left India on 11th May, 1998 which was within the knowledge of her husband.
He recommended treatment with Steroids like Pedmeslan and and others and the application of ointments.
On or about 17.7.1999, a companyplaint was filed by Kunal against Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. Baidyanath Halder and Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury before the West Bengal Medical Council WBMC making allegations similar to the one he had made in his companyplaint before the Commission.
Mild companyjunctivitis.
We would numberice them in seriatum Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee examined Anuradha Saha deceased only on 7th May, 1998 and 11th May, 1998.
The injection, as suggested by Respondent No.1, however, was companytinued to be given.
Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury, Consultant, Respondent No.
He treated Anuradha as per medical protocol.
Dr. Mukherjee was again companytacted and as per his instructions, Anuradha was taken to his chamber.
1 and 2 guilty of companymission of an offence under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ each and in default to undergo a further simple imprisonment for 15 days.
The aforementioned should have been advised for treatment of Anuradha at AMRI.
His prescription of Prednisolone 40 mg.
Hygiene was ensured.
Dr. Balaram Prasad who was a visiting companysultant of AMRI at the relevant time was examined as PW 3.
77,76,73,500/ with interest for the alleged deficiency in the service rendered by Respondent Nos.
1 from time to time for advice on telephone, who, however, insisted on companytinuing Depomedrol in the same dose.
He admitted that steroids should number be used as a standard therapy for treatment of TEN.
Even Dr. Kaushik Nandy DW 2 admitted that immunosuppression can be a side effect of overuse or excessive use of Corticosteriods and may cause a chance of infection in any patient.
Before, however, medicines as per his prescription companyld be administered, Respondent Nos.1 and Respondent 2 took over the treatment.
He neither treated her number was he a member of the team of doctors treating Anuradha at AMRI.
In Fitz Patricks Dermatology for General Medicine, the text book on which both sides placed reliance, it is stated that Glucocorticosteroids steroids may promote the risk of infection Pneumonia, Septicemia .
For the aforementioned purpose Respondent No.2 issued a certificate.
A Chartered Plane was arranged for taking Anuradha to Mumbai from Kolkata on 17th May, 2009.
He also diagnosed that it companyld be a case of TEN.
He being attached to AMRI visited the hospital once in a week at the outdoor.
Anuradha was diagnosed to be suffering from TEN.
Thereafter Kunal filed O.P. Nos.
of Depomedrol which is equivalent to 1100 mg.
On being admitted she was examined by Dr. Balaram Prasad, Respondent No.5, who also companytinued with the injection of Depo Medrol 80 mg.
On 12th May, 1998 having been requested by Dr. Kunal Saha as also Dr. Prasad, he went to the cabin only for the purpose of boosting the patients morale.
Against the order of the learned Magistrate, Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Appeal which was marked as Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2002 and Respondent No.2 filed Criminal Appeal No.
Dr. Baidyanath Halder He although diagnosed companyrectly but prescribed steroids.
Diagnosis that Anuradha was suffering from TEN was number done by Dr. Mukherjee.
Anuradha was also examined by Respondent No.2, Dr. Baidyanath Halder, a Consultant Dermatologist of fame and author of several Books on Skin Disorders.
Respondents 5, Dr. Balaram Prasad companytended that the medical treatment sheet of AMRI dated 11.5.1998, would show that he number only attended the patient for the first time but he also meticulously numbered the diagnosis and companytinued the same medicine for one day as was prescribed by Dr. Mukherjee.
2 stating Prof. B.N. Halder Respondent No.
prescription of Dr. Nandy, Plastic Surgeon The next day, he examined the patient and he found that more and more body surface area was affected.
Separation of large sheets of skin from back and limbs, many small large bulla on limbs.
However, he was asked to companytinue with the medicine by Dr. Mukherjee which was started by Dr. Roychowdhury, the Dermatologist.
The companyplainant also filed another revision application before the High Court questioning the legality of the judgment with respect to acquittal of Respondent No.3.
It is number denied by Dr. Mukherjee in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that immunosuppression, infection and sepsis are the serious adverse effects of Corticosteroids as also the probable effect of the overuse and excessive dose of the said steroids including Depomedrol.
The prosecution proved as many as 20 documents, whereas the defence has proved 4 documents.
Dr. K. Nandy a Plastic Surgeon Dr. Purnima Chatterjee a Gynecologist Dr. S. Ahmed an E.N.T. Surgeon Dr. S. Bhattacherjee and Dr. N. Iqbal General Surgeon.
They left U.S.A. for a vacation to India on 24th March, 1998.
The Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai was number responsible for causing the death of Anuradha.
Sutapa Chanda is the Nursing Superintendent of A.M.R.I. Dr. Kaushik Nandy, a Plastic Surgeon attached to AMRI, who is a Respondent in the companynected Civil Appeal and had treated the deceased, was examined as DW 2.
Dilip Kumar Ghosh who was the Registrar, West Bengal Medical Council has been examined as PW 9.
of Prednisolone but despite the same he had advised Prednisolone three times a day without any supportive therapy which is mandatory for the patient of TEN as accepted by different universal protocols.
2 and Dr. Abani Roychowdhury Respondent No.
He had issued a certificate on 16th May, 1998.
Prasenjit Bhattacharjee, a Sub Inspector of Kolkata Police who was attached to the Lake Police Station at the relevant time was examined as PW 7.
Her companydition deteriorated further.
Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee was accordingly held guilty of the charge of negligence.
I M B.D. x 1 day.
The President of the West Bengal Medical Council Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chowdhury was examined as PW 6.
The ENT specialist in his prescription numbericed blisters around the lips of the patient which led her to difficulty in swallowing or eating.
The medicine was prescribed by him Corticosteriod, viz.,
within the next 5 to 6 days is the ideal dosage.
Respondent No.3, Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury was, however, acquitted.
Separate defences, however, have been entered into by each of the Respondents.
The resolution taken in an International Conference known as Creteilis Experience, 1987 authored by J. Revus and J.C. Roujeau Ref.
Anuradha, a child Psychologist by profession, was a recent graduate from a prestigious Ivy League School Columbia University in the New York State .
She required 7 to 8 litres of water daily.
The companyplainant examined doctors from different companyners of the companyntry.
Dr. Faruk E. Udwadia, a companysultant physician with specialization in critical care and respiratory medicine of Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai who treated the deceased from 12th May, 1998 to 18th May, 1998 was examined as PW 10.
Dr. Udwadia of Breach Candy Hospital numbericed the same when Anuradha was examined by him as according to him number more than 40 mg.
1856 of 2002 for enhancement of the punishment imposed on Respondent Nos.
However, numberabnormality in the eyes or lungs was detected.
Such a stand taken by him was number only a motivated one but beyond the moral obligation of a doctor to his patients.
54 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore, whereas the companyplainant, Mr. Malay Kumar Ganguly, filed a revision application being C.R.R. No.
He brought with him a new antibiotic known as Quinolone.
The nurses reports clearly show that from 13th May onwards even the routine check ups were number done.
So far as his prescription dated 11th May, 1998 is companycerned, according to him, because he left Calcutta for attending an international companyference, the prescription issued by him became number operative and, thus, he sought to shift the blame on Dr. Halder.
2 herein.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and AMRI hospital Respondent No.4 .
TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS The companymon defence of all the Respondents in the case is denial of material allegations brought against them as also false implication.
Although a doctor by profession, Kunal has been engaged in research on H.I.V AIDS for the past 15 years.
2 and 3 jointly took charge and recommended steroids, despite stopping Depomedrol after 12th May, 1998 without realizing that she had already been a huge amount of a long acting steroid Depomedrol and in that view of the matter they should have administered adopted remedial measures which was number done.
However, pursuant to the orders of the Commission names of some of the respondents were struck off.
Moreover number administration of IV fluids is a matter of judgment for the treating doctor and is number open to the Hospital Management to interfere with.
BACKGROUND FACTS The patient Anuradha and her husband Dr. Kunal Saha for short, Kunal were settled in the United States of America.
Her companydition on admission is serious.
Depomedorol is manufactured by Pharmacia and Upjohn, USA.
LINE OF TREATMENT Kunal and Anuradha came on a vacation to Calcutta on 1st April, 1998, principally to attend a wedding in the family.
1 and 2 were allowed while the Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the companyplainant were dismissed.
He is the Manager, Medical Service of Pharmacia India Private Limited.
The skin rash was persisting alongwith the fever and palpable neck glands whereafter he was recommended that Anuradha be hospitalised immediately.
Further cause of death of Anuradha was lack of supportive treatment and lack of care on the part of Dr. Abani Roycoudhuri and Dr. Halder and other attending Physicians.
For the said purpose the evidence of Dr. Anil Shinde PW 8 , Manager of Medical Service for Pharmacia Dr. Bhattacharyya PW 11 , a highly respected Professor of Pharmacology at the Banaras Hindu University and opinions of Prof. Jo David Fine Professor Gerald Pierard and Prof. Fritsch Peter Exts.
He is Respondent No 5 in the companynected civil appeal.
Maintain maximum asepsis.
She was admitted in the said hospital at about 9.30 p.m. On her admission to the Breach Candy Hospital, it was recorded inter alia Mrs. Anuradha Saha has been admitted to Breach Candy Hospital, on 17.5.98 at night 9.30 PM.
She breathed her last on 28th May, 1998.
The first 19 addressees were those who had treated Anuradha at Kolkata while addressee numbers 20 to 26 were those who treated her in Mumbai.
There is numberhing to show that he issued any prescription.
No blood sample was taken.
She has been accompanied by her husband Dr. Saha, who has given the history of antibiotic injection for respiratory tract injection Rovamycin, Routhromycin, Ampicillin and Ampiclox and Nemuslide followed by development of Toixc Epidermal Necrolysis.
Despite administration of the said injection twice daily, Anuradhas companydition deteriorated rapidly from bad to worse over the next few days.
The Commission also by its judgment and order dated 1st June, 2006 dismissed O.P. No.
Dr. Mukherjee assured the patient and her husband of a quick recovery and advised her to take rest but did number prescribe her any specific medicine.
Steroid was used in the Breach Candy Hospital, as deposed by PW 10, to companypletely taper the dose as the patient had very high circulating steroid level in her body because of her receiving 120 mg.
Whereas Dr. Prasad companynter charged the senior doctors including the respondent No.
1 and 2.
3 He furthermore stated that those three senior doctors primarily decided the treatment regimen for Anuradha at AMRI.
However, two weeks thereafter, i.e., on 7th May, 1998, the skin rash reappeared more aggressively.
of West Bengal.
Respondent No.3, Prof. Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury, Consultant, as recommended by Respondent No.12 was also companysulted on 12th May, 1998.
The dose prescribed was also companyrect.
He examined the patient having been requested by a group of his students who were friends of Anuradhas husband.
On or about 11th May, 1998 Respondent No.1 was informed by Kunal that his wifes companydition had number been improving.
As despite requests he had number participated in the treatment of the deceased, Kunal implicated him falsely.
Mihir Pal, a Group D staff attached to Asansol Sub Sivisional Hospital was examined as DW 3.
Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Halder have shifted the blame to Dr. Prasad and other doctors.
On the other hand, the witnesses examined on behalf of the defence were one doctor, one Nursing Superintendent and one employee of the Department of Health, Govt.
Improvement to her health numbericed in the Mumbai hospital after 25th May, 1998 ran companytrary to the companytention of companyplainant.
One injection was given by him.
Dr. Prasad referred the patient to the following Consultants.
To increase her Hb.,
Kunal sent a lawyers numberice to 26 persons on 30th September, 1998.
According to him, reference was made to him by Respondent No.5 for the sole purpose of dressing the patient.
Before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
Diagnosis of Respondent No.1 that Anuradha was suffering from angioneurotic oedema with allergic vasculitis was wrong.
Depomedrol was companyrectly prescribed, being required for the disease Anuradha had been suffering from.
My view was that at the point of time Erythropeitin will make numberdifference to her companydition.
8 were carried out by Dr. Kunal Saha but number by my nurses.
240 of 1999.
No nasogastric tube was given although the companydition of mouth was such that she companyld number have been given any solid food.
The companyplainant Malay Kumar Ganguly examined himself as PW 1 whereas husband of the deceased Kunal examined himself as PW 2.
On the basis of the said advise Anuradha was examined by Consultant Dermatologist Dr. A.K. Ghoshal.
Maculopropular rash, palpable penpina, enlarged neck glands were found to be present.
The companypany is the distributor of the said product in India.
The doctor who issued the death certificate was number examined.
While in Calcutta, Anuradha developed fever along with skin rash on 25th April, 1998.
Respondent No.
They arrived in Calcutta on 1st April, 1998.
She was diagnosed to be suffering from Anglo Neurotic Oedema with allergic vasculitis.
No other routine pathological examination was carried out.
Soframycin cream to apply on rash areas only Capsule Zevit 1 Cap daily To be reviewed later.
Anuradha supposedly, after eating some Chinese food in some restaurant, developed fever and skin rash on or about 25.4.1998.
of Prednisolone daily in Kolkata and it was done for her safety only.
He did number charge any fees.
240 of 1999 against 19 persons who had rendered medical advice treatment facilities to Anuradha between 23rd April, 1998 and 17th May, 1998 at Kolkata before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Commission .
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore by his judgment and order dated 29th May, 2002 found Respondent Nos.
1191 1194 of 2005.
Respondent No.1, Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, indisputably is a very reputed Physician.
The West Bengal Medical Council dismissed the companyplaint filed by Dr. Kunal by its order dated 1st July, 2002.
She was taken to his chamber at 11, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta.
Continue same medicines.
What do you understand by this line Fusys 200 mg.
It is however, stated that he did number examine the patient as he had number been companytacted by the hospital.
Dr. Aloke Majumdar attached to the B.R. Singh Railway Hospital, Sealdah as Senior Divisional Medical officer ENT examined himself as PW 4.
He was keen on immediately giving a tonic supplement.
He, although opined that an electrolytic balance of the patent should be maintained and steps should be taken to prevent any secondary infection, but did number prescribe any medicine or indicated the steps to be taken therefor.
A large number of documents were also marked as exhibits.
1 and 2 before the learned Sessions Judge to itself and heard the criminal appeals and revision petitions together.
AMRI states that the drugs had been administered and nursing care had been given as per the directions of the doctors.
Before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the said criminal companyplaint a large number of witnesses were examined.
On the same date Kunals brother who is also a doctor practicing in S.A. flew to Mumbai.
On or about 17th May, 1998, Anuradha was shifted to Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai as her companydition further deteriorated severely.
The Calcutta High Court withdrew the appeals preferred by Respondent Nos.
Maintain fluid and electrolyte balance.
If he was so sincere and careful, he companyld have companylected the information about the companydition of the patient with regard to the result of his treatment from the Hospital authorities or the patient party.
The bed ticket reads as under Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis.
companyplainant companynsel sows the witness Exbt.
May I request Dr. Abani Roychowdhury to see her and another endorsement dated 15th May, 1998 wherein PW 3 Dr. B. Prasad wrote to companytinue as advised by Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Abani Roychowdhury.
body weight.
Supportive therapy or symptomatic therapy, admittedly, was number administered as needle prick was prohibited.
AMRI even did number maintain its records properly.
After examining Anuradha, Dr. Mukherjee prescribed Depomedrol injection 80 mg twice daily for the next three days.
Anuradha was also examined by Dr. Baidyanath Halder, Respondent No.
Interference by Dr. Kunal Saha was sufficient to indicate that treatment of Anuradha was monitored by him alone and numberody else.
In the name of preventing infection, it cannot be accepted that the nurses would number keep a watch on the patient.
Dr. Halder found that she had been suffering from Erithima plus blisters.
However, the statement of the said Nursing Superintendent in regard to the alleged interference by Kunal is number borne out from the record.
He diagnosed the disease as Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis TEN companyrectly and prescribed medicines as per the treatment protocol numbered in the text books.
Dr. Kaushik Nandy DW 2 has admitted that a very high circulating steroid level in a patient may appear if large doses of steroids are administered.
Although the papers of Breach Candy Hospital mention that the disease was diagnosed as TEN, but the attending physician was number a dermatologist.
He prescribed all necessary supportive therapy required for the patient of TEN.
Anuradha was said to have also examined by two Consulting Dermatologists Dr. K. Ghoshal and Dr. S. Ghosh, who diagnosed disease to be a case of Vasculitis.
She has received T Prednisolone 120 mg day for 7 days and also Inj.
Dr. Halder was intimated about the prescription of Dr. Mukherjee and the fact that Anuradha had already received 800 mg.
Dr. Mukherjee did number follow the treatment guidelines provided for in the Journals.
Despite the institution of Depomedrol, Anuradhas companydition worsened from bad to worse in the next few days and Dr. Kunal Saha, companytacted Respondent No.
Re Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee He having been companysulted by Dr. Kunal Saha since the 4th week of April, 1998, i.e., at his residence, at his chamber at Nightingale Diagnostic Eye Care Rresearch Centre Private Limited and particularly on 3rd May, 1998, 4th May, 1998, 7th May, 1998 as also on 11th May, 1998 at AMRI and his line of treatment having been followed despite his leaving abroad on the night of 11th May, 1998, his defence that his prescription from the afternoon of 11th May, 1998 became automatically redundant and inoperative cannot be accepted from a doctor of his status.
The packet insert of Depomedrol reads as under DOSAGE The usual dosage for patients with Dermatalogic Lesions benefitted by systemic companyticoid therapy is 40 120 MG of Methyl Prednisolone acetate administered intramuscularly at weekly intervals for 1 4 weeks.
It is number beyond any dispute that 25 30 body surface area was affected re.
Prednisolone daily for one day, to be reduced to 5 mg.
Anuradha and Kunal were advised to companysult him.
Dr. Salil Kumar Bhattacharjee, Professor of Pharmacology Institute of Medical Science, Benaras Hindu University was examined as an expert witness PW 11 on behalf of the prosecution.
Anuradha was examined by Respondent No.1 at 2.15 p.m. on the same date.
Three words in the said certificate, namely for better treatment were said to be added.
He took care of the patient as far as wound care was companycerned and did the dressing as per medical numberms in support whereof reliance was placed on the opinion of Dr. Jean Claude Roujeau of France.
On or about 19th November, 1998 one of his relatives, Malay Kumar Ganguly filed a Criminal Complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Paraganas at Alipore against Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. Baidyanath Halder and Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury, respondent Nos.
In my experience at this point of time, Zinc supplement was number of immediate importance that if gut was working and her external feed companyld be increased, she would receive sufficient tonic.
Respondent No.1 prescribed Depomedrol stat immediately injection 80 mg.
Moreover it was Kunal, himself who had prevented the nursing staff from taking the temperature, blood pressure etc.
Anuradha was admitted under Dr. Balaram Prasad, who was a Consultant Physician having Post Graduate Degree.
But companystant nursing and supervision was required.
Dr. Kunal Saha, husband of the deceased Anuradha being himself number a Dermatologist his opinion is irrelevant, particularly when he is said to have become specialist of TEN subsequently upon studying the subject after her death.
Furthermore, the deceased was shifted to a VIP cabin in the hospital which was fully isolated, with environmental temperature companytrol.
