DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.D.CASE NO. 226/ 2014
Tanulata Mohanty, aged about 65 years,
W/o Sri B.B. Mohanty, Plot No.A/L – 118, VSS Nagar,
PO/PS- Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar – 751007, Dist – Khurda
(Senior Citizen Regd. No.54).
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
1. Dr. Goutam Panda, Eye Specialist,
Regd. No.10643 (Odisha) of
Kalinga Hospital Ltd., At: Chandrasekharpur,
PS: Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar.
Dist : Khurdha
2. Kalinga Hospital Ltd.,
Chandrasekharpur, PS- Chandrasekharpur
Bhubaneswar,Dist : Khordha,
Through its Managing Director.
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant : Mr. B.B. Mohanty (A/R)
For the OP.No.1 : Sri Debasis Panda & Associates (Adv.)
For the O.P.No.2 : Sri S.Routray & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 14/07/2014
DATE OF ORDER : 30/09/2022
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, she had some problems in her left eye. On 18/06/2013, she went to Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneswar for check up. Doctor Goutam Panda, checked her left eye and advised her for instant retinal detachment surgery and further advised if such surgery is not done, she may loss her vision for all time to come. On the same day at about 1:30 PM, she was admitted in the hospital and at 7:30 PM she was taken to OT for surgery. After surgery was done, she was taken to ICU as she was in a critical condition. She was kept in ICU for the whole day of 19/06/2013 and thereafter she was taken to her bed No.172 ward No.C-II. The complainant was kept in the hospital till 21/06/2013 and on that day at about 5:30 PM, she was discharged.
As alleged by the complainant, Dr. Panda was solely responsible for the critical condition of the patient as surgery done by him was wrong and foul. He had not consulted Anesthesia specialist, Diabetologist , Cardiologist and Pathologist. It is further submitted by the complainant that retinal detachment surgery was not successful and her cernia was inactive due to wrong method of operation undertaken by Dr. Panda. Dr. Panda even after discharge of the patient continued the follow up treatment for a period of one and half months . He was negligent in doing retinal detachment surgery. There was no improvement of the vision of the complainant after the surgery which was confirmed by the observation of doctor at KIMs hospital, Bhubaneswar and Aditya Jyoti Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Due to complication in her eyes, the complainant went to the Aditya Jyoti Eye Hospital, Pvt. Ltd., at Mumbai, where she had undergone cataract operation.
Besides, the complainant alleges that at the time of consultation with Dr. Panda, he said that the probable expenditure for the surgery would be around Rs.21,000/- , whereas after surgery, she was demanded to pay near about Rs.65,000/-. On the whole, she had spent Rs.4,00,000/- in treatment for her eye. She claims compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- towards the expenditure incurred by her from the OPs. Hence this complaint.
3. On the other hand, the OP.1 has filed written version stating therein that the complaint is not maintainable either in facts or in law. The complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint against Dr. Panda who is a reputed Eye surgeon and has earned name & fame in the field of treatment of Ophthalmologic disorders. The main intention of the complainant is to extract money illegally from the OP.1.
It is further pleaded by the OP.1 that the complainant had undergone retinal detachment surgery which was done by Dr. Goutam Panda. Dr. Panda had consulted with Anesthesia specialist, Diabetologist, Cardiologist and Pathologist in this regard. He was never negligent in conducting the surgery, rather he had followed scleral buckling with sub-retinal fluid drainage in her left eye for retinal detachment, which is an accepted procedure for retinal detachment surgery. After discharge of the patient, Dr. Panda had undertaken follow up treatment till 19/07/2013. According to the OP.1, surgery was not wrong and cernia was not defunct, rather retinal detachment surgery was successful and the patient was discharged in a stable condition.
It is submitted by the OP.1 that he had never told the patient at the time of consultation that the probable expenditure for the surgery would be around Rs.21,000/- and the patient will be discharged within 3-4 hours. The OP.1 has also disputed the compensation amount claimed by the complainant. In short, it is submitted by the OP.1 that as there was no negligence on the part of the Dr. Panda in conducting the said surgery, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. Similarly, the OP.2 has submitted written version stating therein that the complaint is not maintainable either in facts or in law. The complainant has filed a frivolous complaint in order to defame Dr. Panda and to extract money illegally from the OP.2. The complainant has not filed any opinion of medical expert to show that there was medical negligence either on the part of the treating surgeon or on the part of the Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneswar. It is admitted by the OP.2 that Dr. Panda had done the retinal detachment surgery of the complainant in Kalinga Hospital. Since the surgery was over at late night, she was shifted to ICU as a precautionary measure and for better care. She was detained in the hospital for two days which is not against the standard of practice in retinal detachment surgery. The discharge of the patient from the hospital depends on her post-surgery recovery process which varies from person to person. Accordingly, the complainant was kept in the hospital to see that the patient is discharged in a stable condition. Before doing the surgery, Dr. Panda had taken the assistance of Anesthesia specialist, Diabetologist, Cardiologist and Pathologist. The surgery done by Dr.Panda was neither wrong nor was the cernia defunct. The OP.2 has not disputed the expenditure incurred by the complainant in the Kalinga Hospital because the patient has to pay for surgery fees, room rent, medicines, investigation charges, consultation fee and other charges. However, the OP.2 has disputed the expenditure incurred by the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and also the compensation amount claimed by the complainant. As there is no cause of action to file this case, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
5 Perused the materials on record. The admitted facts are that, on 18/06/2013, the complainant was admitted as an indoor patient in the Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneswar and on that date, at the evening hour, retinal detachment surgery was conducted by the OP.1. Photocopies of the documents submitted before this Commission further suggest that there was pathological test of the patient prior to the surgery. Cardio-logical report was also obtained for the purpose and on that day, Diabetologist was consulted beforehand. And on 21/06/2013, the patient (complainant) was discharged in a stable condition. After discharge, the surgeon who conducted the retinal detachment surgery, undertook the follow up treatment of the patient till 22/07/2013. Thereafter, the patient went to Kalinga Institute of Medical Science for her eye check up, where the concerned doctor observed that there was no visual improvement and the retina was detached and stiff. Such observations of the doctor at KIMS, were made on 25/07/2013. Thereafter, the patient went to Aditya Jyoti Eye Hospital, Mumbai, for cataract operation. She was admitted therein on 24/09/2013 and was discharged on 25/09/2013. The report of Aditya Jyoti Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, indicates that there was no normal vision in the left eye of the complainant. As alleged by the complainant, Dr. Goutam Panda, who conducted retinal detachment surgery at Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneswar on 18/6/2013, was negligent for which she lost her vision in the left eye. Before going into that question as to whether, Dr. Panda was negligent or not, it is trite to see the complications associated with retinal detachment surgery. The side effects of the retinal detachment surgery are as follows :-
1) Cataract formation
2) Glaucoma
3) Infection
4) Haemorrhage within bleeding into vitreous cavity
5) Vision loss
6) Loss of the eye although with the modern surgical technologies.
7) This is a very unlikely outcome.
From the aforesaid side effects, we find that the patient had cataract formation for which she under-went cataract surgery at Aditya Jyoti Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. We also find that the patient is complaining loss of vision, which was also partially confirmed observed by the doctor at KIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar and Aditya Jyoti Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. It is not out of place to mention that, when the complainant consulted Dr. Panda who advised for retinal detachment surgery, he (Dr. Panda) should have disclosed the complications associated with such surgery. Then the complainant would have an opportunity to opt either to go for surgery or not. But there is no material on record to suggest that Dr. Panda had disclosed the complications associated with the surgery in question to the patient. Such omission on the part of Dr. Panda, amounts to deficiency in service.
6. Dr. Goutam Panda, who conducted the retinal detachment surgery at Kalinga Hospital, had followed the procedure i.e. Scleral Buckling with sub-retinal fluid drainage in the left eye for retinal detachment and it is accepted procedure in medical science for the aforesaid surgery. The Doctor, who adopted the approved procedure of surgery can not be blamed for failure in the treatment. But in the case in hand, the treating surgeon discharged the patient with a note that the patient was being discharged in a stable condition. The date of discharge was 21/06/2013. But on 25/07/2013, the doctor at KIIMS hospital, Bhubaneswar found that the retina was detached and stiff. The patient had also problems of redness, pain and swelling in her left eye. Certainly it amounts to deficiency in service. Meaning thereby, when the patient was discharged, she was not in a fit state to be discharged because, the operation was not successful. Therefore, the hospital and treating surgeon, who discharged the patient with a remark that the patient was stable, have suppressed the failure on their part, which also amounts to negligence. Had the doctor and the concerned hospital expressed the truth before the patient, then the patient could have taken immediate steps for better treatment of her left eye. The discharge from the hospital put her under impression that her eye problem was over but it was not the truth. Even after the surgery, she had several complains which the doctors at KIMS hospital, Bhubaneswar & Aditya Jyoti Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai observed at the subsequent stages. Therefore, medical as well as ethical negligence on the part of the Dr. Panda and Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneswar cannot be ruled out. The combined effect of medical as well as ethical negligence is tantamount to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint bears merit. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs. The OPs are hereby directed jointly & severally, to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only, to the complainant towards compensation. They are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a further sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards litigation expenses. The order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order against the OPs in accordance with law.
The order is pronounced on this day the 30th September, 2022 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(K.C.RATH)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree
(S.Tripathy)
Member (W)
