DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.134/13

Shri Vinod Khatri

S/o Sh. Rambir Khatri

H.No.1/406

Mohalla Jatwara

Sonepat, Haryana-131001.                                         ….Complainant

Versus

The Director

All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Ansari Nagar

New Delhi-110029.

Medical Superintendent

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre of Opthalmic Sciences

A.I.I.M.S.

Ansari nagar

New Delhi-110029.

Dr. Anita Panda

Doctor for Unit-IV

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre of Opthalmic Sciences

A.I.I.M.S.

Ansari nagar

New Delhi-110029.

Dr. Neha

Doctor in Unit-IV

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre of Opthalmic Sciences

A.I.I.M.S.

Ansari nagar

New Delhi-110029.

Vinay

Intern in Unit-IV

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre of Opthalmic Sciences

A.I.I.M.S.

Ansari nagar

New Delhi-110029.                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 Date of Institution    : 15.03.2013

 Date of Order           :  30.06.2022      

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000 for physical pain and mental agony plus Rs.25,000 towards the cost of the operation as well as Rs.4000 as car charges. In the present case, Director, AIIMS is OP 1, MS, AIIMS is OP 2, Dr. Anita Panda is OP 3, Dr. Neha is OP 4 and OP 5 is Vinay, an intern at AIIMS.

The complainant states that he was admitted to Dr. Rajan Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi and was medically examined and declared fit for admission. OPD Card 14.05.2012 states “admit for cataract” is placed on record. It is further stated that all medical tests were conducted on him and he was found fit for the operation of his left eye for cataract. On 16.05.2012 when he was taken to the operation theatre, he was given medicine in the right eye whereas he was to be operated on the left eye. It is the case of the complainant that he was not operated on 16.05.2012 even after being made to wait for 3-4 hours and was told that certain other tests were to be conducted on the complainant. Certain other tests were done and the complainant was given another date 19.05.2012 for surgery.

It is stated that on 19.05.2012, the complainant was taken to the operation theatre and was injected in the right eye instead of the left eye. When the doctor came to conduct operation, he removed the bandage from the eye of the complainant, saw the relevant documents and stated that right eye had been injected instead of left and therefore he would not be operating on the complainant. It is a case of the complainant that the doctor started to use unparliamentary language against the complainant and did not care about the pain, swelling, redness and contusion below the right eye of the complainant. It is further stated by the complainant that despite request time and again, the doctors did not prescribe any medicine for his pain and in fact he was handed over discharge slip. After much requests, some medicines were written on the discharge slip itself.

It is stated by the complainant that after reaching his home at Sonepat, Haryana, he was medically examined by the civil hospital and some medicines were given but he did not get any relief. The complainant then went to Sir Ganga Ram hospital on 21.05.2012 and was operated upon on 22.05.2012. It is stated by the complainant that he had spent Rs.25,000 for his operation and the bill of the said hospital is annexed along with the complaint.

          It is further the case of the Complainant that a legal notice was sent to the OP Hospital for deficiency of service and a letter dated 04.08.2012 was received from Administrative Officer of OP which stated that a departmental inquiry has been initiated in the incident. The letter dated 04.08.2012 and the inquiry report dated 14.09.2012 is annexed along with the complaint. The Complainant further alleges that though inquiry report states that his visual acuity had improved but it was not so and the Complainant had to get himself operated/treated at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. It is case of the Complainant that VVIPs are treated in the hospital of OP and the general public is not treated well.  He further states that the behaviour of the Doctors was unbecoming and intolerable. Therefore, the Complainant is seeking compensation against the OP. The OPs were duly served and were proceeded exparte on 24.07.2013. From the record, it is evident that the OP challenged the order of their being proceeded exparte in 2018 before the Hon’ble State Commission and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022 being time barred.

Complainant’s evidence and his written arguments are on record. Oral arguments were also heard.

          This Commission has gone through the entire documents filed by the Complainant and there was no documents or representation filed by the OP being ex-parte. Certain allegations of the complainant stand proved from the record filed by him. It is evident that the Complainant has made payment of Rs.7,907/- at the OP hospital. It is also clear that he was discharged on 20.05.2012 and certain medicines were prescribed on the discharge slip. It is also evident that he had spent further money on getting himself operated from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. The reply of the OP to the legal notice sent by the Complainant is also on record wherein it is stated that an inquiry was conducted under the Chairmanship of Dr. Vimla Menon, Professor of Ophthalmology and the report is also placed on record which states as under:

“After refraction the visual acuity was improved to 6/6 both the eyes. The patient was advised to be discharged but the patient requested to be operated as he was having problem in glare acuity. The surgery was planned in Right Eye as the glare acuity was more problematic. The informed consent was taken and the surgery was planned on 19.05.2012 with the advice of the consultant on duty. The patient was asked to be operated but the patient requested a discharge. During the say in the ward all the usual protocols were followed as far as the investigations were concerned and no negligence was done on any one’s part.”

In this case, this Commission is of the opinion that there is definitely some misgiving at the end of the OP hospital as the facts stated by them in the enquiry report conducted by them are contradictory. First, it is stated in the enquiry report that the Refraction improved the vision of both the eyes, thereafter it is stated that there was glare acquity which was problematic and the patient wanted to be operated therefore they decided to operate. Thereafter, it is stated that the patient refused to be operated therefore they cancelled the surgery.

We are of the opinion that OP hospital has been negligent in its services since OP being a Government Hospital, did not conduct the surgery of the complainant without any cogent reason and the complainant also suffered injury in his right eye on account of the negligence of the OP.  The complainant got the surgery done from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, a day later.

In the circumstances, we think it fit to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant by OP-1 i.e. AIIMS Hospital within three months from the date of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled to have 6% interest on the said amount until it is paid by the said OP.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.