BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.54 OF 2002 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM KHAMMAM
Between
Dr.K.V.Rama Rao S/o K.V.Raghavendra Rao
Age 42 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner
R/o below Telegraphic Office, Near Durga
Kalamandir, M.G.Road, Kothagudem
Khammam Dist.
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
1. Bandi Veeraiah S/o Ramaiah
age 58 years, Occ: Agriculture
(died as per L.R.s)
2. Bandi Savitramma W/o late Veeraiah, age 55 yrs
3. Bandi Laxminarayana S/o late Veeriaah aged 40years
4. Bandi Venkateswarlu S/o late Veeraiah, aged 36 yers
5. Bandi Ramaiah S/o late Veeraiah age 33 years
All R/o Sridhara Village & Post
Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam Dist
(brought on record as per order in FAIA 1793/08
dated 28.7.2008)
Respondents/complainants
Counsel for the Appellant Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents Sri M.Hari Babu
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The opposite party in C.C.54 of 2002 on the file of District Forum Khammam is the appellant.
The facts of the case as narrated by the complainants is that the complainant approached the opposite party for loss of absolute sight of right eye. The opposite party examined the complainant on 18.8.2001 and stated to him that a cataract operation has to be done in order to restore his sight. The opposite party performed the cataract surgery of the right eye of the complainant and charged `1500/- towards the expenses of the surgery. After the surgery pain and pus was formed in the right eye of the complainant within a period of week days. The complainant approached the opposite party and complained about the same. The opposite party applied ointment and prescribed tablets and also eye drops. The complainant used the same but did not get any result. Thereafter the complainant lost sight and the eye ball. The complainant was also losing the left eye sight to which the complainant approached LV Prasad Eye Institute and got back the eye sight of his left eye. Due to the negligence of the opposite party in operating on the right eye of the complainant, the complainant lost his sight. Hence, the complainant seeking direction to the opposite party to pay `3 lakhs along with damages and compensation.
The opposite party filed counter contending that five to six months prior to operation the complainant was examined by the opposite party and the operation was advised six months thereafter as cataract was not matured by that time. On 19.2.2001 an operation was conducted which was uneventful and he was discharged on the next day. In the discharge card the complainant was advised to use 1) Betnosol N Eye drops 8 times a day 2) Zoxen Eye drop 8 times a day, 30 Divon plus tab. Two times a day, 4) Topcid tab. Two times a day. He was directed to appear on third day i.e., 22.2.2001 but he appeared on 26.2.2001 with discharge of water and puss and complaint of pain. The problem was due to not following the instructions as directed. Pre-clinical tests were made. The loss of eye sight and eye ball of the right eye of the complainant was due to gross negligence in administering the medicines in time by the complainant. The infection was due to use of non-sterilized cotton and dirty cloth etc and not applying the medicines. The opposite party conducted the operation to the best of his ability and skill expected by him. The complaint is filed after much delay i.e., nearly after a year. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to 8.
The opposite party filed his affidavit and Exs.B1 to B5 have been marked on behalf of the opposite party.
The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay an amount of `2 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum.
The point for consideration is whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
The complainant consulted the opposite party with the complaint of loss of absolute sight of right eye five months prior to the operation. The opposite party has performed cataract operation of the right eye of the complainant on 19th August,2001 and the next day the complainant was discharged from the hospital of the opposite party. The complainant has submitted that he has paid an amount of `1,500/- to the opposite party and incurred an expenditure of `1,000/- on the medicines and travelling expenses. The opposite party has contended that owing to the poverty and loss of sight of the complainant, he had returned the amount to the complainant. The complainant has stated that he is an agriculturist and spent a sum of `8,500/- for treatment of his left eye in L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. These circumstances would prove the statement of the opposite party that he had returned the amount of `1,500/-to the complainant to be false and incorrect.
It is the version of the complainant that he was discharged immediately after the operation was performed on the same day and used the medicines as prescribed despite which fact the next day, he had developed pain in the operated eye necessitating him to approach the opposite party who assuring the complainant that he would be alright and removed the dressing and after cleaning covered the right eye with a green cap. The pain did not subside and pus was formed in the operated eye within a period of week days from the date of operation. The opposite party drained the pus and prescribed medicines which were accordingly used by the complainant. The complainant states that his pupil and eye ball were severely damaged and became non-existent in the eye. The right eye of the complainant lost its shape and has sunken in to the skull. The complainant and his sons demanded explanation of the opposite party for the loss of vision of the complainant. The opposite party replied that it was the result of injury to the eye ball during the operation and he would perform operation of the left eye of the complainant since the complainant was losing vision of that eye also.
The opposite party contended that the operation was uneventful and he had mentioned in the discharge card advising the complainant to use Betnesol and Zoxen eye drops each 8 times a day,Divon plus and Topcid tablets each twice a day, the complainant was discharged on 20th Febryaey,2001 and directed to appear on the third day of operation i.e., 22nd February,2002. The complainant presented himself on 26th February,2001 with discharge of water and pus and complaining pain which was due to not following the instructions as directed. The complainant attributes negligence in the administration of the treatment whereas the opposite party attributes the negligence to the complainant that he was not careful enough to follow the instructions in regard to the medicines and follow up treatment.
Admittedly, B-Scan was not advised by the opposite party either before the conducting the surgery or during the post operative stage. Whether the Retinal Detachment could be identified when the patient presented with cataract and what are the essential tests for determining the negligence of the doctor are the points to be addressed in the light of the evidence adduced by the complainant and the opposite party.
The opposite party states that the complainant did not turn up for post operative follow up as a result of which he developed infection. The complainant states that he had followed the instructions of the complainant and despite the fact he was made to suffer on account of negligent treatment administered by the opposite party. The medical record ExB1 shows that the compliant had undergone operation on 19-02-2001 and on the 1st post operative day i.e., 20.2.2001 it was noted as “Eye quite, Wound is healthy, no discharge or watering, patient is comfortable”. Then we come across the notes recorded on 26.2.2001 wherein it is noted as follows:
“patient complaining of pain, watering, discharge from the operated eye since 4 days. Patient did not turned up on 3rd day i.e., on 22/2/2001 to the hospital as advised by the Doctor in the discharge card. On examination Lids are edematoes and boggy, plenty of discharge++ at Lid margins, anterior segment details not clear there is yellowish white discharge filling the eye, Cornea has loosed its function and became opalascent. Wound gaping with Iris prolapse++ from 11 O’ clock to 2 O’ clock. Provisional Diagnosis: Acute Post Operative endophthalmytis.
The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had not turned up on the third post operative day which resulted the complainant developing infection in the operated eye. A perusal of Ex.B1 would show that the complainant was advised to attend the hospital of the opposite party for the post operative care. Though, it is contended that the complainant had to appear on the third post operative day and the same is mentioned in the discharge card, nowhere in Ex.B1 it has been mentioned that the complainant had to appear for consultation on the 3rd post operative day.
The opposite party referred to the Principles and Practice of Opthalmology Vol.1 by Gholam A.Peyman, M.D., Donald R.Sanders, M.D. and Morton F.Goldberg, M.D., to contend that endophthalmitis after the cataract and other intra ocular procedures is the result of air born bacteria contaminated solution and medications etc. The authors at page no.599 expressed their opinion as follows:
The most common organism causing bacterial endopthalmitis is Staphylococcus aureus. However, there has been definite shift to gram-negative bacilli of which the most common appending organisms are Pseudomonus aeruginosa, Proteus, and coliform species. This may be due to the natural selection of more resistant organisms after the use of preoperative antibiotics.
Though endopthalmitis was attributed to several factors, the opposite party has not established that he had advised the complainant to turn up on the third post operative day. When he approached the opposite party on 26.2.2001, the complainant was suffering from pain and discharge from the operated eye. The opposite party cannot attribute the negligence absolutely to the complainant. At the same time the complainant not turning up to the opposite party cannot be lost sight as the four days’ preoperative period cannot be considered as insignificant.
During pendency of the appeal the complainant died and his legal representatives are brought on record, as the complainants’ no.2 to 5. Except, for not advising for B-Scan and for not giving instruction to the complainant to turn up on the 3rd day of the operation, we do not see any lapse on the part of the opposite party. Taking into consideration of all the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal by modifying the amount award as compensation to `25,000/-.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.1.2007 passed by the District Forum is modified and the amount awarded is restricted to Rs.25,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.28.07.2010
KMK*
