DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.465/2007 (old No.440/2003)
Sh. Laxman Kumar Singh
S/o Shri Giro Singh
R/o H.No.7, Street No.1,
Lala Ramji Ki Gali, Deen Dayal Puri,
Nandgram Ashram Road,
Ghaziabad (U.P.) ….Complainant
Versus
All India Institute for Medical Sciences
Through its Director
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 2007 Date of Order : 12.03.18
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant felt some problem in his right eye and visited OP hospital for eye check up on 25.11.02 vide card No.404842 and on the same day he was diagnosed for cataract and the doctor of OP hospital advised him for operation for which he was admitted on 26.12.02 for operation and paid Rs.375/- for medical expenses for the operation and other miscellaneous services to be provided by the OP. The complainant was operated on 28.12.02 by Dr. Amol of the OP hospital and the doctor assured him that his vision will come back. After short while of the operation the pus started coming out of the eye. Immediately the complainant apprised the problem to Dr. Amol but no action was taken by Dr. Amol and other staff of the OP hospital. Rather, the doctor was willing to discharge the complainant after 3-4 days of the operation without taking any care of the eye of the complainant. At his request, the complainant was allowed to stay for 2-3 more days in the OP hospital but there was no improvement in his condition and ultimately he was discharged from the OP hospital on 06.01.03. The complainant was feeling severe pain in his eye, went to the OP hospital 2-3 times in January, 2003 but the complainant was not attended properly and was advised to come after 3 months for check up. The complainant thereafter visited M.M. Hospital, Ghaziabad for check up of his eye but after looking at the bad condition of his eye the doctor was not ready to attend the complainant and referred him to the OP hospital. The complainant visited the OP hospital on 05.02.2003 and contacted Dr. H. K. Tiwari, doctor –in chief of Dr. R. P. Centre who referred the case to Dr. Rajpal but nothing was done by the doctor of the OP hospital. On 10.02.03 and lastly on 15.02.03, the complainant again went to the OP hospital with the hope of getting treatment as his eye condition was deteriorating where Dr. Amol prescribed some medicines and stated to the complainant that now nothing can be done with the eye of the complainant and the vision of the complainant will never come back in the right eye. It is stated that due to the negligence of Dr. Amol of the OP hospital the complainant has totally lost vision in his right eye which has caused considerable loss to the capacity of earning of the complainant and he had to incur huge expenditures towards the post operation implications to which the complainant is entitled to get from the OP hospital which be never can compensated in terms of the money. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.02.03 to the OP but no action was taken by the OP hospital. Hence, pleading medical negligence on the part of treating doctor and the OP hospital the complainant has prayed that the OP hospital be directed to pay Rs.5 lacs as damages for the total loss of the right eye of the complainant as well as for mental agony and physical agony undergone by the complainant.
Vide statement dated 15.01.2009 the name of Dr. Amol has been got deleted from the array of OPs.
OP hospital in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant was treated at the OP hospital by following accepted and acknowledged procedure by the competent doctors. It is submitted that as the complainant has not paid any consideration to the OP for the services rendered to the complainant as such the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable against the OP. It is submitted that even as per the averments made by the complainant himself on 25.11.02 itself he was advised for operation but the complainant did not get his eye operated in time and left the time lapsed and the complainant approached the OP only on 19.12.02 i.e. after about one month. On thorough examination, it was found that there was gradual, progressive diminution of vision of right eye since 6 to 8 months. The complainant’s best correct visual acuity was 6/60 in the right eye and 6/6 in left eye. The right eye was showing myopia of - 15.50 D Sph. With -2.25 D Cyl. on automated Refractometer. Examination of the right eye further showed divergent squint with presenile cataract (Nuclear sclerosis grade-II) with anisometropia. Fundus examination with peripapillary cresent with tessellated appearance. That means before surgery, the complainant had very poor vision in his right eye and the vulnerable changes had already occurred in the right eye and the condition of the right eye of the patient was bad. Further the retina of the right eye of the complainant was also damaged and there were patches of irisetrophy. Degenerated changes had also occurred on the optic nerve exit point which further reduced the chance of recovery of vision. The complainant was advised the cataract surgery. The patient was explained the guarded prognosis that the chances of the vision in right eye are very poor. It is vehemently denied that the complainant was ever assured that his vision will come back. Further as per the averments of the complainant it was very much clear that there was no vision in his right eye before operation. The complainant consented for surgery after the poor chances of recovery of his vision was explained to him. No money was charged from the patient towards the services rendered and treatment provided to him. The sum of money i.e. Rs.375/- was charged only for admission which included in it the provision for the operation and medicines etc. and the whole treatment provided to the complainant was free of cost. It is stated that the patient was admitted in AIIMS on 26.06.2002 (sic) and remained admitted till 06.01.2003. It is submitted that the right eye of the complainant was operated on 28.12.02. Right eye phacoemulsification posterior chamber IOL was implanted. After operation on 28.12.2002, the complainant was apparently fine on 29.12.2002. On 30.12.2002, the patient complained of redness, decrease of vision, pain in right eye. Examination of right eye showed visual acuity of PL + PR inaccurate. Right eye further showed ciliary and conjunctival congestion with loss of fundal glow. Ultrasound of right eye showed exedates in vitreous with choroidal thickening. Based on these findings, he was diagnosed as right eye endophthalmitis, which is most frequently encountered form of infection in such cases. The patient was given intravitreal injection of Vancomycin plus Ceftazidime and Topical Fortified hourly. The patient was also given daily I.V. injection Gentamycin 80mg BD and injection Cefran 200mg BD and eye drop Homatropine 4 time daily and provided with best treatment, however, the patient developed Corneal abscess followed by Corneal Melting. It is submitted that as such the complainant was provided with proper treatment as per the accepted practice and procedure by the competent doctors. It is denied that after a short while of the operation, pus started coming out of his right eye. It is also denied that the complainant was orally advised to visit for check up after 3 months. Rather, it is stated that the complainant never approached the OP after 06.01.2003 till February 2003. It is submitted that on 15.02.03 the complainant was given proper treatment as per requirement. It is submitted that before operation of right eye at the OP hospital the complainant had no vision in his right eye and the right eye was in bad condition. The complainant was explained the guarded prognosis before operation and only thereafter the complainant agreed for the operation. The complainant was provided with the best treatment as per the accepted practice and procedure by the competent doctors at the OP hospital. It is prayed that the complainant be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Suupriyo Ghose, Chief, R.P. Centre, AIIMS has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
In view of the fact that the OP had charged Rs.375/- from the complainant towards admission, operation and medicines etc. and the judgment of the National Commission in FA No.756/2007 (AIIMS Vs. Mrs. Ayesha Begum) decided on 28.04.10, we hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
We have very carefully gone through the copies of medical record placed on the record and we find that there is not even single paper which may substantiate the claim of the complainant.
The OP hospital vide treatment report dated 01.04.17 submitted a treatment report. The relevant potion of the same is as under:-
“As per available records, he presented with decrease in vision in right eye since 8 months and was diagnosed with right eye presenile cataract with unilateral myopio with anisometropic amblyopia and right divergent squint. Left eye was within normal limits. Visual acuity in right eye was 6/60 and left eye was 6/6 with glasses. He underwent phacoemulsification with anterior victrectomy with posterior chamber IOL implantation in right eye under local anesthesia on 28/12/2002.
As per records, he developed fulminant postoperative endophthalmitis and was given intravitreal antibiotics but the response was poor. Thereafter it rapidly lead to development of total sloughing corneal ulcer with iris prolapsed. He was advised cornea clinic and oculoplasty clinic opinion. As per records on 5/01/03, there was no perception of light in right eye.”
We mark the report as Mark X for the purposes of identification. The matter was referred to the Safdarjung Hospital for seeking medical opinion. The Safdarjung Hospital vide letter No. 2-19/17-MR dated 01.12.17 has submitted the report. The relevant portion of the same is produced as hereunder:-
“…The patient was operated for cataract for Right Eye on 28/12/2002. Phacoemulsification with anterior Vitrectomy with PC IOL was done for Right eye.
The patient developed endophthalmitis while patient was still admitted. Post operative endophthalmitis although rare, is known complication of cataract surgery.
Soon after the patient was diagnosed with endophthalmitis, patient was started on intravenous antibiotics and was given intravitreal antibiotics as per standard protocol followed in such cases.
In view of the above facts, it is concluded that there is no negligence on the part of the treating doctor of Dr. R.P. Centre,.”
We mark the report as Mark Y for the purposes of identification.
In view of the above discussion, we are constrained to hold that no medical negligence can be attributed on the part of the treating doctor of the OP hospital in providing medical treatment to the complainant and accordingly we dismiss the complaint.
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 12.03.18.
