BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
CC 71 of 2011
Between:
J. Sona Singh
S/o. Akthar Singh
Age: 37 years, Hardware Worker
R/o. 2-1-1074/GF,
Yellamma Bands
Gurunanak Colony
Kukatpally, Hyderabad. *** Complainant
And
1) L. V. Prasad Eye Institute
Rep. by Rupesh Kumar
Institute Associate Director &
Executive Director
R/o. Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad.
2) Dr. Soma Sheila
Ophthalmologist
Member, Medical Board
L.V. Prasad Eye Institute
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. *** Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. Mettu Goverdhan Reddy
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: M/s. A. Mahmood.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is a complaint filed u/s 17(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act claiming compensation of Rs. 34 lakhs on the ground of medical negligence.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that when he had trouble with eye sight for a short period and was unable to see he approached the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment . He was admitted as an inpatient on 20.11.2009, and was discharged on 28.11.2009. Later he approached the opposite party hospital as an out-patient. He was admitted as an inpatient on 15.5.2010 and was discharged on 18.5.2010. At the time when he was admitted he recovered from the problem, and that his eye sight was good. However, he was unable to see immediately after discharge. Again he approached the opposite parties where he was given treatment for some days. He was told that he had recovered from his ailment. He was advised to use medicines and eye drops which he has been complying. Later the doctors informed that he lost his eye sight of both eyes despite their best efforts. This is all due to negligence on the part of opposite party doctors. He was working as hardware worker and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. He has been spending 1/3 on his day to day expenses and remaining amount being spent on his family members. He is the only earning member. His two sons are school going children. As he lost his eye sight, consequently his job, and also loss of income of Rs. 96,000/- per annum. Deducting 1/3 towards living expenses, he sought a compensation of Rs. 34 lakhs.
3) Opposite parties resisted the case. While denying the allegations made in the complaint they alleged that Op1 is a non-profit organization. They provide affordable and competent eye care to all sections of the society. They have provided outpatient services to over six million people and surgical care to over 5,85,000 patients, and almost 52% of them free of charge. While admitting that the complainant was treated at Op1 hospital in the year 2009 and 2010 vide medical record No. N206904 they alleged that he was referred by Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital. He was seen by Op2 and her team in out-patient clinic on 15.12.2009. He was presented with complaint of fever, and sudden loss of vision since three days. However, he had similar problem of recurrent episodes of visual loss since five years prior to his visit to Op1. He was diagnosed to have bilateral viral keratouveitis. He was admitted and treated with anti-viral medicines and other known standard of care for the disease. He was not only examined by Op2 but also by several other doctors who are specialists and seniors in Op1 hospital. He was admitted as an in-patient on 22.12.2009 and was discharged on 26.12.2009. Again he was admitted in May, 2010 and was discharged after surgical procedures with follow up. They denied the allegation that he lost his eye sight due to negligence of any of the doctors. His visual loss at this point is not permanent and can be improved by surgery. At no time the treatment was inappropriate. The infection slowly came under control and both corneas have healed. He was seen on 28.12.2010 by Op2 and other seniors who advised cataract surgery. However, he did not turn up for follow-up action or surgery sine then. This was explained to him and his wife. They were not responsible for his blindness as he had bilateral viral ketrauvetis even before he was admitted. They reiterated that surgery can be performed on him so that his vision will be improved. There was neither negligence nor deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A16 marked while the opposite parties filed the affidavit evidence of Asst. Director of Op1, and got Exs. B1 & B2 marked.
5) The points that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether there was any negligence on the part of Ops in treating the complainant?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?
iii. To what relief?
6) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant visited the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital on 20.11.2009 with complaint of “fever since three days, sudden loss of vision since three days painful.” Vide Ex. A2 out-patient card issued by the said hospital. A perusal of it shows that he was referred to VCTC Centre, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. It is not known as to what happened at Osmania General Hospital. However, he went to Op1 hospital L.V. Prasad Eye Institute. Ex. B2 patient record case sheet maintained by Op1 hospital shows that he approached it on 15.12.2009 with history “Had fever and since then sudden loss of vision and redness, watering and discharge in both eyes since one month. History of having such recurrent episodes over last five years. After conducting several tests it was diagnosed ‘bilateral viral ketrauvetis’ On that he was admitted as in-patient on 22.12.2009 and was discharged on 26.12.2009. Again on 31.12.2009 he visited the emergency clinic for severe pain, watering and loss of vision. On which several tests were conducted. There was a categorical mention that “W.B. scan to be done. Patient not found in the lounge when called for it.” Again he visited on 1.1.2010. Test were conducted. They found that he was suffering from corneal edema. On that medicines were administered on daily basis till 9.1.2010. He was discharged on 9.1.2010. Again he visited on 16.1.2010 for the very same problems viz., pain, burning sensation, watering etc. After conducting several tests drugs were administered. He took treatment up till 28.1.2010. The following entry was made :
“The patient came very late for tarsorrhaphy. The patient was not willing for (OS) tarsorrhaphy. Does not give consent for tarsorrhaphy. Explained about rules and benefits of surgery. Patient was not still willing. Wants to come after one week. Advised to continue same medicines. BCL applied (OS). Eye drops prescribed. ”
7) Again he visited on 17.2.2010, 10.3.2010, 17.4.2010, 3.5.2010. He was treated continuously after doing all the tests required. He was informed need of surgery. Obviously, the complainant was not following the advise and getting treated as suggested by the doctors. The surgery was conducted on 4.5.2010. The discharge summary shows that his condition was improved. It never stated that the patient will never be recovered. Even now the doctors assert that the complainant was not willing to undergo surgery, and in fact if further surgery is conducted on the complainant, his vision will improve. They also asserted that the complainant himself did not come for surgery. His eye sight was not lost fully.
8) In fact they themselves recommended and saw to it that under Ex. A5 medical certificate is issued in respect of visually handicapped persons where percentage of visual impairment was mentioned as 100%. The cause of blindness was mentioned as ‘Vascullarised Corneal Scar (OU). Ex. A5 was issued recoursing to Ex. A6 where “the Government after careful examination of the matter, permit the Director, L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad to issue the certificate to the visually handicapped individuals for confirming their visual status who have problems incurable blindness, visiting their institute and to help them in getting various benefits that are due to them, as per rules.”. Ex. A7 certificate issued by Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital was also enclosed. Basing on which he obtained Concession certificate under Ex. A8 as a completely bind person. The complainant for the reasons not known did not examine any of the doctors to prove that the treatment given by Op1 hospital or Op2 was on wrong lines. The loss of eye sight was recurring. Eye sight being restored whenever he was taking treatment. When he was stopping the eye sight was becoming poor. We repeat that Op2 had categorically stated that even now if the patient undergoes surgery his eye sight can be improved. It is not known why the complainant is not visiting the said hospital, and taking treatment.
9) When he was admitted on 15.5.2010 it was diagnosed “Pigment epithelial detachment in the right eye. On 17.5.2010 surgery was conducted on right eye. It was mentioned “Amniotic Membrane Graft < 30 minutes. At the time of discharge on 18.5.2010 it was mentioned as improved.” Drugs were prescribed. Again appointment was given on 22.5.2010. He visited on 22.5.2010, 29.5.2010 and he was directed to use the medicines. Again he visited on 5.6.2010, 7.7.2010, 15.7.2010, 18.9.2010, 27.10.2010 and lastly on 28.12.2010. A perusal of the case sheet shows that he did not attend the special skills training on orientation mobility. After 7 months he got issued a legal notice and filed the complaint without taking further course of treatment. The complainant obviously an illiterate could not comprehend as to what was the exact treatment that was given to him.
10) The learned counsel for the opposite parties relied an article published by Stephen Kaye under the heading ‘Herpes Simplex Keratitis’. and contended that Herpes Simplex Keratitis (HSK) remains a major cause of visual morbidity. The prevalence and incidence of herpetic eye disease in developing countries may be higher, affecting a younger population. … Recurring disease manifests predominantly as an ulcerative and/or stromal keratitis. It is recurrent disease, however, which has the main impact on vision through corneal scarring, thinning and neovascularisation. Although predominantly unilateral, bilateral disease occurs in 1.3 – 12% of cases, occurs in a younger age group and tends to be more severe.
11) It was further held that:
“HSV stromal keratitis is the most common cause of infectious corneal blindness in the US, and it is the form of recurrent herpetic external disease associated with the greatest visual morbidity…. If longstanding or recurrent it may be associated with corneal vascularization. It may be severe, progress rapidly and appear clinically indistinguishable. Associated corneal stromal vascularization is common. The pathogenesis of herpetic stromal keratitis in human patients remains unknown. The diagnosis of HSV infection is based primarily on clinical findings. ”
12) When Op2 in his affidavit has categorically stated that even now his vision could be improved if treated by way of surgery, it is not too late a day to get it corrected. The complainant did not seize the opportunity and get it corrected. When the complainant could not establish any medical negligence on the part of Op1 hospital or Op2 doctor, on the other hand the record discloses that he was irregular in getting the eyes treated, no blame could be made against the opposite parties. Therefore no deficiency in service could be attributed against the opposite parties. Even when for the first time he visited the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad where the doctors opined that there was no vision, and in fact, after that he visited the opposite party hospital his eye sight was improved. Some- how he did not care to take treatment as advised by the doctors. While parting with this case, we advise the complainant again to visit the opposite party hospital, and we are sure that the opposite parties without keeping in mind that a complaint was filed against them will treat him, and restore whatever sight he will eventually get. There are no merits in the complaint. He was ill-advised.
13) In the result the complaint is dismissed. However, no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTIES
None None
Documents marked for complainant:
Ex A-1 Original Admission receipt of the complaint dt 26/2/2009
Ex A-2 Discharge summary of the complainant dt : 2.11.2009
Ex A-3 General Instructions of LV Prasad Eye Institute with Discharge summary
Dt : 4.5.2010 and Pathology report (
Ex A-4 Report of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital dt : 20.11.2009
Ex A-5 Investigation report issued by Ops i.e. LV Prasad Eye Institute dt 17.7.2010.
Ex A-6 Memo order of Govt. of AP, Health Medical and Family Welfare Dept vide No.18596/F1/2001-2 dt : 18.8.2001
Ex A-7 Report of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital certificate no.317
Ex A-8 Medical certificate for blind issued by Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital dt : 17.7.2010.
Ex A-9 Medical Bills (sl. 17-41)
Ex A-10 Legal notice dt 2.7.2011
Ex A-11 Election Commission of India ID card of Sri J.Sona Singh
Ex A-12 Postal receipt
Ex A-13 Report of Hyderabad Eye Institute dt : 31.12.2009
Ex A-14 Report of L.V.Prasad Eye Institute dt : 5.6.2010
Ex A-15 Unique identification of Authority of India –Acknowledgement Resident copy of the complainant. Dt 23.5.2011
Ex A-16 Letter of L.V.Prasad Eye Institute dt : 7.7.2011
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR O.Ps:
Ex B-1 Progress in Retinal and Research of 2006 year
Ex B-2 Patient Record Face Sheet dt : 16.12.2009
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
13/07/2012
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
