D.O.F:14/09/2020
D.O.O:10/10/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.115/2020
Dated this, the 10th day of October 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Sirajuddin aged 31 years,
S/o Aboobacker Haji,
R/at Abbkatta House, Post – Perla,
Enmakaje, Kasaragod – 671552 : Complainant
(Adv: Shrikanta Shetty.K)
And
Dr. U.R. Shenoy,
Consultant Phaco & Lasik Surgeon,
Prema Eye Clinic, No. 2&3,
Vaishnavi Complex,
Dongerkery Road,
Near New Chitra Talkies,
Mangalore 575003. : Opposite Party
(Adv: B. Ramakrishna Bhat & Chethana Krishna B)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The brief facts setout in the complaint is that the complainant was suffering from swelling, heaviness and severe pain of the left eye. The complainant approched Opposite party, a well-known specialist of ophthalmologist in Mangalore on05/12/2019 to cure the left eyes problem. The opposite party advised blood test and prescribed medicines. After clinical examination Opposite party assured the complainant complete cures but advised for an eye surgery. The complainant admitted on Yenepoya Medical College Hospital Mangalore on 11/12/2019 for the surgery.
Eye surgery was conducted on 12/12/2019 he spent Rs. 26465/- as hospital charges and Doctors bill is Rs. 20,000/-. But even after surgery pain continued. The complainant consulted the opposite party again and again but problem not cured.
On 17/01/2020 he went to Amritha Eye Care Hospital Mangalore and there to Shanker Eye hospital Coimbatore. On 25/01/2020 another surgery is advised, but he is not ready to second surgery. The complainant even now suffering with same problems of left eye as before surgery. The complainant sent lawyer notice alleging deficiency in service and necessary redressal. But not heeded by opposite party. The complainant is alleging negligence for which claim to refund of the medical expense and compensation and cost of litigation.
For opposite Party Adv. B. Ramakrishna Bhat filed vakalath and version denying all the allegations. After denying the averments in the complaint opposite party admits complainant approached opposite party for eye treatment. The case of opposite party is that the complainant was told there is orbital growth and it is behind the eye ball near optic nerve and adjacent eye muscle and major eye blood vessels.
Surgery was done by spending 75 minutes, patient was discharged he has normal eye with 100% vision. For orbital growth, there is possibility of recurrence. Eye sight is perfectly alright, complainant was so happy to express his satisfaction of treatment.
The opposite party advised dietary precautions but complainant did not comply it. The Opposite party further states that orbital growth is known to have recurrence in majority of the cases and such recurrence of the growth is mainly due to health eco-sytem and the immune system of the patient. That the opposite party has put his maximum effort for treating the complainant, as a result complainant did not suffer any complication of post surgery. The eye vision of the complainant is perfectly alright. The allegation that the complainant is constrained to take further treatment from Amrutha hospital and Coimbatore may be attributed to his bodily changes that seem to have happened to the eyes of the complainant.
The opposite party denies any deficiency in service or negligence in the treatment of the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1 Ext A1 to A11 documents marked from his side. Ext A1,A4,A5, A6 and A7 are medical prescriptions, Ext A2, A3 discharge summary, Ext A8 is medical report, Ext A9 copy of Lawyer notice, Ext A10 is postal acknowledgment and Ext A11 is photographs of eyes of complainant. The document summoned by commission is marked as Ext X1.
The opposite party filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Dw1. Considering the rival contentions following points arise for consideration in the case:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service in the service of opposite party relating treatment of eye disease of the complainant?
- Whether complainant entitled for any compensation? If so for what reliefs?
All the points are considered together for convenience
The complainant’s case in short is that he was suffering from serious eye pain, consulted the opposite party doctor for treatment, opposite party advised eye surgery, but problem still continuous, there after advised for another surgery but complainant not agreed for that. Thus there is negligence and deficiency in service for which claiming compensation.
The complainant is silent about the particulars of any negligent act in the matter of conducting surgery, or lack of skill, medical qualification or experience, or any other negligent act in surgery or any others future complication due to negligent act of opposite party.
As per opposite party surgery was conducted orbital growth, took time of 75 minutes, discharged, with 100% vision. The opposite party advised certain dietary precautions but complainant not followed and states that there are chances of recurrence.
The burden to prove medical negligence is on the complainant. Mere allegation of medical negligence on the doctor is not sufficient, but to be proved by evidence. Hence there is no pleadings regarding specific acts of negligence relating to the surgery is pleaded or proved to the satisfaction of the commission.
Dr. Heema John is examined as Pw1 she certify that complainant vision is normal at present complainant does not have any visual disability.
Even according to complainant and even in complaint starts with the sentence that Opposite is well-known specialist of ophthalmology having necessary degree and experience.
From the pleadings, documents produced evidence, adduced there is no materials to prove that there is any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the parts of Opposite party in this case.
The Commission referred the citations in Bijoy Sinha Roy V/s Bishvanath Das reported in (2018) in Scc 224 in which Honourable Supreme Court directed the Consumer Fora should only proceed with a complaint if a competent doctor committed or doctor confirm that there is prima facie case.
To prove the medical negligence case it must be shown that health care provider failed to meet the acceptable standard of cure based on accepted medical practices guidelines and community students.
Medical practitioner will be liable only when their contact falls below the standards of responsibility competent medical practitioner.
In the particular case, from available evidence there is no merit to hold that the conduct falls below the standard of reasonably competent medical practitioner.
In the result complainant is not entitled for any relief in the complaint and complainant is failed to prove any medical negligence on the part of Opposite party. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Prescription of OP 05/12/2019
A2- Discharge Summary
A3- Discharge bill
A4 to A7- Medical prescriptions
A8- Medical Report
A9- Lawyer notice
A10- Postal Acknowledgment
A11- Photograph
X1- Medical Report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Dr. Heema John.K
Dw1- Dr. Ravindranath Shenoy
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
