Haryana

Ambala

CC/423/2017

Raj Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bansal Eye Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Sharma

03 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  423 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  01.12.2017

                                                          Date of decision   :  03.01.2019

 

Raj Kumar Sharma (aged about years) s/o Shri Shanti Saroop Sharma Resident of House No.1318/5, Vashist Colony, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

 

1. Bansal Eye Hospital, A Super Specialty Eye Care Centre, 121, Civil Lines, Mixi Chowk, Near Kalka Chowk, Ambala City through Dr. Mohit Bansal and Dr.V.K.Bansal and Dr. Ashish Bansal.
2. Dr. Rohit Bansal MBBS, MS(PGI) FVRS, Ex Retina Consultant (SNC) Consultant Vitreo Retina, uvea & Phaco, of Bansal Eye Hospital, A Super Specialty Eye Care Centre, 121, Civil Lines Mixi Chowk, Near Kalka Chowk, Ambala City.
3. Dr.V.K. Bansal Director MBBS, DOMS, MNERF (USA) Consultant Lasik & General Opthalmologist of Bansal Eye Hospital, A Super Specialty Eye Care Centre, 121, Civil Lines Mixi Chowk, Near Kalka Chowk, Ambala City.
4. Dr. Ashish Bansal MBBS, M.S. (PGI-CHD) FRCS-1 (UK) Consultant Cornea, Cataract & Refractive Surgery of Bansal Eye Hospital, A Super Specialty Eye Care Centre, 121, Civil Lines Mixi Chowk, Near Kalka Chowk, Ambala City.
5. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. FE/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi 11005.  

….…. Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                            

Present:       Sh. Priyanka Thakur, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Satinder Garg, counsel for OPs No.1 to 4

Sh. R.K.Jindal, counsel for the Op No.5.

 

 

ORDER

Per Dr. Sushma Garg, Member: The brief facts of the complaint are that the on 25.03.2017 complainant approached the opposite parties for consultation as he felt pain in his right eye. Certain test and examinations of his eye were carried out by the OPs for which the complainant was charged Rs.8000/-. The OPs advised immediate surgery, which was performed on 27.03.2017 for which another sum of Rs. 45000/- was charged. However, there was no improvement in the vision of the complainant even after the surgery and water was oozing out of the eye continuously. Thereafter the complainant visited several times to the OPs for follow-up and every time a sum ranging from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 7000/- was charged but there was no improvement. That the complainant had already lost the vision of the left eye earlier, and with the unsuccessful surgery done by the OPs the complainant also lost the vision of the right eye. Thereafter, on the failure of the OPs to treat/cure the right eye of the complainant, the complainant approached another Doctor/hospital namely Baweja Multispecialty Hospital. from where the treatment was going on.  Hence, the complainant has alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant has claimed the refund of total amount of Rs. 86000/- besides Rs. 300000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      In reply, the OPs have denied any negligence or deficiency in service on their part. A preliminary objection for not impleading “Oriental Insurance Company” as a party as the OPs have obtained professional Indemnity policy from the said insurance company. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant had approached the OPs on 25.3.2017 with complaint of decreased vision along with long standing diabetes. On examination, the patient was diagnosed with senile cataract in the right eye along with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) with clinically significant macular edema (CSME). Thereafter necessary tests and investigations with the consent of the complainant were carried out, the detail of which has been mentioned in the reply. Thereafter on 27.3.2017, the surgery i.e. Right Phaco+ IOL insertion was done without any complications. Thereafter, the complainant was advised follow up. On the dates of visit, a sum of Rs. 1000/- was charged and not Rs. 3000/- as alleged by the complainant. However, on 26.4.2017, the complainant complained of slight diminution of vision. OCT was done which showed persistent macular- edema. The patient was counseled and reinjected intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) and was charged Rs. 7000/-. The patient was advised to follow-up after one month. However, the patient visited on 6.5.2017, there was quite improvement and macular edema was decreased. Thereafter the patient visited on 7.6.2017, but there was persistent macular edema with same vision as was on last visit. The patient was counselled but he didn’t listen and thereafter did not come for further follow up. No guarantee or warranty or any other assurance was given during or after surgery. The surgery was performed diligently, prudently and with utmost care and there was no negligence.

3.     The complainant in his evidence tendered his Affidavit Ex -CW1/A, and copies of documents/medical record C1 to C26 and also examined himself as a witness and closed his evidence. The OPs in their witness/evidence got examined Dr. Varinder Kumar Bansal (OP No.3) and Dr. Mohit Bansal (OP No.2) and tendered affidavit EX RA and RB and documents R1 to R4 and closed evidence.

5.     We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. We have also personally heard the complainant as well as the concerned Doctor  and posed queries also.  In this case though the complainant has claimed that the surgery done on his right eye by the OPs has remained unsuccessful and medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been pleaded, however the most important and pertinent fact which has come to the knowledge of this forum and as also admitted by the complainant before this forum is that now the vision of the complainant is improved and the  eye has been cured.  However, the plea of the complainant is that the same get cured/improved only after getting treatment from Baweja Hospital. That the OPs had failed to properly treat the eye of the complainant. However, the plea of the OPs is that the complainant was suffering from macular edema along with cataract. The OPs have placed medical literature on the file i.e. an article “Cataract in Diabetic patients: A Review Article” by Mohammad Ali Javedi, MD and Siamak Zarei-Ghanavati, MD published in “Journal of  Ophthalmic & Vision Research” and another article “ Evidence based review of diabetic macular edema management: consensus statement on Indian treatment guidelines by Das T and others published in 2016 in Indian Journals of Ophthalmology.

6.   The gist of the aforesaid literature is that in the case of macular edema with cataract, there are two options available to the doctor, either to firstly go for treatment of macular edema then perform surgery for cataracts or to do the both simultaneously. The doctor has to decide and advise the patient as to what course is to be adopted i.e. treatment of both the disease one by one or side by side taking into consideration the condition of the patient, the severity of the disease and the vision. In this case the doctor adopted the second course i.e. performed surgery with side by side treatment of macular edema. We are of the view that in this case, though their remained no complication or negligence in the surgery, however there was a considerable delay in vision improvement due to persistent macular edema for which conservative treatment was given and the patient was advised regular follow-up. However, the complainant lost patience and seeing no improvement, approached another doctor, who also treated conservatively to the complainant. Thereafter, on decrease of maculae edema, the vision of the complainant restored/improved. We have noticed from the medical literature that in cases of diabetic retinopathy, sometimes it takes considerable time for improvement of vision. That in case of diminished vision, simultaneous cataract surgery along with treatment of macular edema can be done. In our view, the doctor has adopted one of the known/prescribed courses of action as per medical literature/guidelines and there seems no negligence in the aforesaid treatment. There cannot be a given a guarantee of fully cure or immediate relief by the doctor in every case of surgery. There are so many other factors also, which may contribute for delay etc. in improvement of the condition of the patient. In this case, the doctor has explained the factor of presence of macular edema, which contributed for delay in the improvement of the vision of the patient, Though, due to delay in improvement of vision, the complainant by the time lost faith in the doctor/OPs and approached another doctor, but the complainant failed to prove any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.        There is no merit in the complaint, the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

  Announced on:03.01.2019                       

 

                    (DR.SUSHMA GARG)                      (D.N.ARORA)                                  Member                                                  President