CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 415/2004
Sh. Gopal Singh Rawat,
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh Rawat,
D-142, Jai Vihar Najafgarh,
25 feet Road, Sunday Market,
New Delhi-110043 ……Complainant
Versus
1. The Medical Superintendent
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Ophthalmic
Centre for Sciences, AIIMS
New Delhi. …….Opposite Party
2. Orthoplus Hospital ]
RZ-B-2S Gopala Nagar ]
Najafgarh, New Delhi. ]
]
3. Mata Channan Devi Hospital ]
C-2, Janakpuri ]
New Delhi. ]
]
4. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital ]
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Marg ]
New Delhi. ] ……Proforma OPs
Date of Institution : 26.03.2004 Date of Order : 11.08.2015
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he was a Central Govt. employee and required to take treatment from CGHS Dispensaries but when specialized treatment was necessary they referred the matter to the Govt. Hospital. In case of emergency the Govt. servants can take treatment from any authorized hospital and spend the amount and get reimbursement from the Department. He took treatment from the OPs in respect of injury in his eye and could not withstand severe pain. He was treated by the OPs. On 17.07.03 he visited room No.35A of the OP No. 1 for treatment of his eye. OPD Card bearing No.4683154 was prepared by the Hospital Authority. As per the diagnosis, he was suffering from conjunctivitis in his left eye. He was operated for cataract 11 years ago. There was conjunctional congestion, the diagram of the eye was drawn and it was mentioned that there was loose knot. The same was indicated in the OPD Card. The treatment as mentioned was carried out. OP No.1 removed the loose knot without taking proper precautions for its removal. As a result, he developed serious pain and the OP No. 1 applied bandage and gave some medicines and sent him home and directed him to report on 19.07.03. As per the diagnosis, he was suffering from conjunctivitis; the appearance of the loose knot on the eyeball was visible even to a naked eye. The reddishness was caused by appearance of loose knot on the eyeball. The treatment of the removal of the loose knot is entirely different and distinguished from the treatment for conjunctivitis. When he went home he could not bear the acute pain and also puss and blood was flowing out of his left eye. Therefore, he had to take treatment from the Proforma OPs who had clearly indicated that he had lost his vision. He wanted to have medical history card for the purpose for taking further treatment and for the purpose of regaining his eye sight, if possible (from OP No. 1). He approached the OP No.1 who did not hand over the medical history card/sheet to him. Therefore, he sent a legal notice to the OP No.1 for the purposes of getting the medical history card/sheet. The OP No.1 gave the history sheet after lapse of some days, but it did not contain any details regarding the diseases, treatment given etc. as per the requirement of law. The complainant has further stated that the damage was caused to his left eye on account of removal of loose knot in improper manner. The OP No.1 ought to have taken post operative care to ensure that damage is not caused to the retina but as this was not done there is a medical negligence shown by the OP No.1. Complainant has prayed that OP No.1 be directed to pay Rs.12 lacs on account of mental tension and also permanent disability caused by the negligence of the OP No.1.
OP No.1 in its written statement has stated that as per the settled law, the allegations of deficiency of service and medical negligence have to be against the specific persons alleged to be negligent. As per the documents filed by the complainant, the Complainant took treatment from the Proforma OPs as the treatment given by the OP No.1 proved to be injurious to his eye and he could not withstand sever pain that was caused to him by the treatment of the OP No. 1. The Complainant took the treatment from the Proforma OPs on the date he was treated by the OP No.1. There was no gap between the treatment received from OP No.1 and Proforma OPs. The documents filed by the Complainant show that he was admitted in the OP No.1 as well as in another hospital on 17.07.03 and discharged on 19.07.03 from both the Hospitals which is not possible and this clearly shows that the documents filed by the Complainant are forged and fabricated. OP No.1 has denied that OP No.1 removed the loose knot without taking proper caution for its removal. It is stated that the Complainant had come to their hospital on 17.07.03 in OPD and after thorough examination and after taking history of the patient it was revealed that the Complainant was operated for cataract in his left eye 11 years back; he was diagnosed of the conjunctivitis, a loose knot of the suture was found lying over the ocular surface (outer portion of the eye ball) with mild conjunctivital congestion (redness), rest of the ocular structure being apparently normal; redness of the eye (conjunctivitis) was caused by the loose suture knot; as such he was advised for removal of loose suture knot, which he agreed; the removal of suture loose knot, the inciting factor for the redness was carried out in the causality, on slit lamp with sterilized instruments, under the topical anaesthesia and the suture was sent for culture sensitivity which is a routine practice for suture removal. Following the suture removal the Complainant was prescribed topical antibiotics which is the accepted clinical practice worldwide; he was asked to follow up but he did not come for follow up after suture removal at OP No.1 as required. If the complainant had any problem he would have approached the OP No.1 again for treatment. OP No.1 denied that the complainant was not handed over the medical history card/sheet or he sent any notice or the documents were given to the Complainant after lapse of some days. It is stated that OPD card containing all the details and treatment provided to him was already with the complainant and it always remained with him. As such there was no need for him to approach OP No.1 for getting the documents regarding treatment provided to him and on the basis of the OPD Card only, he would have taken any further treatment if required but he got treatment from Proforma OPs on the same day. OP No.1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
It is not necessary to discuss the replies of Proforma OPs as their names have been deleted vide order dated 13.9.2010.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement submitted by the OP No.1.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit while affidavit of Sh. Supriyo Ghose, Chief, R.P. Centre, AIIMS has been filed in evidence. Affidavits filed on behalf of Proforma OPs have become useless with deletion of their names on 13.9.2010.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant and OP No.1. We have heard arguments on behalf the Complainant. We have gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly the Complainant visited room No.35A of OP1 on 17.07.03 for treatment of his eye and OPD Card No.4683154 was prepared (Copy Annexure-B). He was diagnosed for conjunctivitis in his left eye. He was operated for cataract 11 years ago. OP No.1 removed the loose knot from his left eye. He was advised by the OP No.1 to report on 19.07.2003 for follow up. The Complainant visited the Orthoplus hospital, got himself admitted on 17.07.03 and discharged on 19.07.03 (Copy Annexure C). On discharge he was advised/referred to RP Centre AIIMS, Gangaram Eye Deptt. The Complainant visited Mata Channan Devi Hospital on 19.07.03 for treatment (Copy Annexure D) and Sir Gangaram Hospital on 19.7.03 (Copy Annexure –E). The Complainant sent a legal notice to the OP No.1 for the purpose of getting the medical history sheet/card.
This Forum sent a letter dated 04.02.10 to the Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and directed the Medical Superintendent to examine the Complainant and submit the report before 10.05.10. Medical Superintendent, Safdarjang Hospital (Copy Annexure A-3) constituted a board of three Ophthalmologists namely, Dr. L. Sarkar, Dr. H. S. Sethi and Dr. Sangeeta on 28.05.10. The board has reported that “after examining Shri Gopal Singh Rawat and going through the papers submitted by him it was found that he was operated for cataract 11 (eleven) years back in left eye. He developed redness of left eye for which he reported to Doctor Rajindra Parsad Centre (AIIMS). A loose infected suture was found which was removed, sent for culture & sensitively & deroofing was done. The patient did not follow up at RPC (AIIMS) after that. Subsequently he was treated for Endophthametis of left eye by appropriate method at Orthoplus Hospital, Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital. After going through all the records the medical board is of the opinion that Sh. Gopal Singh Rawat developed intraocular infection 11 (eleven) years after Cataract surgery and this infection was appropriately treated by all concerned doctors. There is no evidence of any negligence by any treating doctor. At present his vision in right eye is 6 X 6 with glasses. His near vision in right eye is N6 with glasses. His vision in left eye is no light perception”. In the absence of any other evidence on the record, we do not see any reason to discard the medical expert opinion. Constitution of a medical board on the directions of the Forum, in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, was necessary. After getting the treatment from OP No. 1 complainant never went for follow up treatment to OP No. 1. Instead he got the medical treatment from three other hospitals. Therefore, it was not possible to determine the liability of OP No. 1 in the absence of medical expert opinion. There is no dispute with the law laid down in [2010] 5 SCR1.
Therefore, there is no evidence of medical negligence by any treating doctor. Hence, it is not proved that any medical negligency was caused by the OP1’s doctors while giving medical treatment to the complainant. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 11.08.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 415/04
11.08.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
