DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.2447/2001
Master Manish Kumar (Minor)
through his father Sh. Chetan Kumar
R/o H. No.106, Gali No.4, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre
for Ophthalmic Sciences,
AIIMS, New Delhi
through its Head of Unit and
Prof. R. B. Azad
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Division Office No.8, (503504)
Kailash Bldg., 5th Floor,
K. G. Marg, New Delhi …. Opposite parties
Date of Institution : 2001 Date of Order : 02.12.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
We have very carefully gone through the original pleadings, amended pleadings, affidavits in evidence of the parties and the medical opinion report received from the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi vide letter No.2-19/16-MR dated 05.10.16.
The case of the Complainant which is denied in toto by the OP No.1 is that the Complainant was prescribed operation in the right eye by OP No.1 hospital in April, 2000 when he was 13 years old but, however, the operation was carried out in his left eye instead of right eye on 30.04.2000 which resulted into absolutely blindness in both eyes. When nothing came out the Complainant through his father filed the present complaint pleading negligence on the part of OP No.1 to direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.3 lacs as compensation for the loss of his vision, Rs.50,000/- for medical and conveyance expenses incurred on the medical treatment by him and Rs.50,000/- towards mental harassment and loss of enjoyment of life.
According to the OP No.1, the Complainant had visibility problem in his left eye and approached the OP No.1 hospital in April, 2000 and the Complainant was operated and his lift eye had been operated upon. It is stated that at the time of investigation itself it was recorded that the Complainant was having history of poor vision in both the eyes (in right eye for 4 years and in left for 2 years) and he was also having history of gradual loss of vision in both the eyes and night blindness. It is stated that it was informed to the Complainant that the chances of visual recovery are less than 5% in the right eye and the patient was advised vitreo - retinal surgery in the left eye with much guarded prognosis and that there was no question of prescribing operation in the right eye. It is submitted that the operation was infact carried out in his left eye on 02.08.2000. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
There is no evidence on the record to prove that operation was to be carried out in the right eye of the complainant and, therefore, the OP No.1 committed medical negligence in operating left eye of the complainant.
The expert medical opinion has been sough from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which has been submitted alongwith the aforesaid letter dated 05.10.16 and the medical opinion report bears No.2-19/16-MR dated 24.09.16. The relevant portion of medical opinion report reads as under:-
“…. On going through all these documents and the facts revealed thereof, it is concluded that a standard recommended protocol for treatment was followed and there is apparently no negligence on the part of treatment protocol.”
In view of the above medical opinion report, we are left with no other option but to hold that while giving the treatment to the Complainant, the OP No.1 hospital did not commit any medical negligence. Hence, we hold that no deficiency in service has been proved on the part of OP No.1 hospital. OP No.2 is an insurance company of the OP No.1.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it 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 02.12.2016.
