Tripura

West Tripura

CC/49/2016

Sri Babul Kumar Banik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Arpan Khan (Phaco Surgeon) & Prop. PERFECT VISION. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.R.Saha.

20 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  49   of  2016

Sri Babul Kumar Banik,
S/O- Lt. Chuni Lal Banik,
Colenel Chowmuhani,
Palace Compound, Near Priya Bajaj Showroom,
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
Tripura West.            ..........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___

1. Dr. Arpan Khan (Phaco Surgeon),
267/5, B.B. Chatterjee Road, Kasba,
P.O.  &  P.S. Kasba, Kolkata, 
West Bengal- 700 042. 
    
2. Perfect Vision 
Represented by its Proprietor,
80, HGB Road, Paradise Chowmuhani,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
West Tripura.                ........Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the complainant    :  Sri Rajib Saha,
                   Advocates.

For the O.Ps            : Sri Sankar Bhattacharya,
                  Ms. Arpita Bhattacharjee,
                  Sri Samir Debbarma,
                  Advocates.

    
                                               
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 20.02.2017

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Babul Kumar Banik U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. He alleged about the medical negligence of Dr. Arpan Khan causing damage of his one eye sight. Petitioner's case in short is that he had been suffering from eye problem and on 31.07.2014 he visited the chamber of Dr. Arpan Khan at Perfect Vision, Agartala. He explained all difficulties  to Dr. Khan and produced the tests report. Dr. Khan suggested him to undergo cataract operation immediately as he will leave Agartala on the next date. He suggested the operation to be done in the hospital at Narsingarh at 10 P.M. Petitioner then got himself admitted in the VHAT Eye Hospital, Narsingarh and cataract operation was conducted in his right eye by Dr. Khan at 10 P.M. He was discharged after operation at 11.30 P.M. But after discharge from the hospital he was facing problem in the eye sight. He followed the instruction of Dr. Khan but his problem was not cured. Again Dr. Khan was available on 03.08.14 and accordingly he visited his chamber. Dr. Khan casually took the matter and did not take proper step. He suggested some eye drops. Thereafter again he visited Dr. Khan on 12.09.14, 07.11.14 when he was available at Agartala. On 20.12.14  again he visited Dr. Khan and informed him about the difficulties. Dr. Khan then suggested him to USG Ultra Sonography which was done. After going through the report Dr. Khan then suggested him another operation of his right eye at Natradeep, Kolkata. Dr. Khan misbehaved with him. So the petitioner lost his faith and consulted another doctor and went to Sankardeva Netralaya, Guwahati. In the Sankardeva Netralaya his eye could not be saved because of damage already done due to post operative negligence he lost his yes sight for ever. According to the petitioner due to pre and post operative carelessness the right eye of the petitioner was lost. For the medical negligence and other laches petitioner claimed Rs.19,17,000/- as compensation.  

2.        O.P. Dr. Arpan Khan appeared and filed written statement denying the claim.    
         O.P. No.2, Proprietor of Perfect vision appeared and filed W.S stating that he had no role in the operation and has no knowledge. No relief claimed against O.P. No. 2 by the petitioner.

3.        O.P. No.1 Dr. Arpan Khan by filing Written statement stated that operation was successful. There was no medical negligence and no pre or post operative carelessness. Haemorrhage in the eye was detected as the petitioner was a patient of high blood sugar. Eye sight was damaged by the operation in the Sankardeva Netralaya, Guwahait. Therefore O.P. No.1 Dr. Arpan Khan is not responsible. Reasonable degree, care, skill was applied during operation. Petition therefore is liable to be rejected.
4.        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I) Whether there was any pre or post operative carelessness at the time of cataract operation in the right eye of petitioner?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service and negligence by Dr. Arpan Khan?
6.        Petitioner produced the informative catalog of Natradeep, discharge certificate, prescription issued by Dr.Arpan Khan, Ultra Sonography report, prescription of Abhijit Roy &     Sankardeva Netralaya, cash memo, flight tickets marked Exhibit-1. 
        Petitioner also produced the statement of affidavit of Babul Kumar Banik, complainant. 

7.        O.P. on the other hand  produced the statement of affidavit of Dr. Arpan Khan. Both the witnesses were cross examined. 

8.        On the basis of documents and evidence produced before us  we shall now determine the above points.

            Findings and decision:
9.        It is admitted and established fact that complainant  visited the chamber of O.P. Dr. Arpan Khan on 31.08.14 for eye surgery. In the cross examination Dr. Khan admitted that blood sugar pressure report & other tests was not prescribed. Generally before 2/3 days of surgery various tests had been done. He also stated that on the basis of same report steps are taken for surgery. Dr. Khan also admitted that surgery done at the same date at 11.30. P.M. In the cross-examination he stated that in the discharge certificate petitioner was not advised to attend the chamber for post operative treatment and no visual ratio was taken  on 10.08.14 and 12.09.14. Scanner and other tests was not advised. In the written objection it is stated by Dr. Arpan Khan that he visited Agartala at the interval of every 6 weeks. 

10.        We have gone through the medical report of Sankardeva Nethralaya Hospital, Guwahati. From the report it is found that on smear examination red blood cell bacilli found in the tunnel side of the eye. To save eye the operation was done at Sankardeva Nethralaya finally the eye sight was damaged. Final report of Sankardeva Nethralaya is not produced before us. The opinion of the doctors of Sankardeva Nethralaya also not produced by the complainant side. 

11.        In the evidence Babul Kumar Banik stated that the attending doctors of Sankardeva Netralaya told him that there was elapses of long period, as 5 months gone after operation. First phase operation was done at Sankardeva Nethralaya on 22.12.14. 2nd phase  on 18.02.15. On 24.02.15 he was discharged from the hospital. He then went to Sankardeva Nethralaya for final check up on 04.04.15. Then in the month of August 2015. Thereafter on various dates. And finally it was stated that the eye sight could not cured on 25.09.15. All attempts for curing the infected eye came to end. But this medical opinion by the Sankardeva Netralaya was not produced before us. According to Dr. Arpan Khan on 10.08.14 routine check up was done by him and vision test in the right eye was not done. He also stated that petitioner visited his chamber on 12.09.14, 07.11.14 facing some difficulties. He found the vision in the right eye was normal. He also stated that as petitioner was a diabetic V.I.T haemorrhage found and appropriate medicine was prescribed. Eye sight was O.K. But V.I.T. Haemorrhage was detected again as the petitioner could not control the high blood sugar. Further operation was not suggested by him. He denied that the lens was not properly fitted and for that infection was caused. 

12.        From the careful scrutiny of evidence given by both the parties it is found that after operation for about 6 months petitioner remained in care of Dr.Arpan Khan and thereafter he went to Sankardeva Nethralaya for saving his eye sight. As per the evidence of the petitioner from the very beginning there was infection in the  eye sight of the complainant which was not cured by Dr. khan. In the 6 months the infection increased many fold and caused the damaged. 
    
13.        On careful scrutiny of the evidence and documents filed it is found that the opposite party Dr. Khan was in a hurry to operate. Admittedly the petitioner visited Dr. khan on 31.07.14. he did not advise for any test and on the same date  at 10 P.M., he conducted the operation and at 11.30 he discharged the patient. Admittedly Dr. Khan was available at Agartala up to 03.08.14.  then why he was in a hurry to operate in the same date is difficult to understand. It is argued by the learned advocate for Dr. Khan that the petitioner was a diabetic patient and so he developed the complication in the right eye.  So before operation it was was the duty of the eye surgeon to check the diabetic. But it was not done. Dr. Khan claimed that operation was successful. So, the post operation care was not taken. After about 5 months  ultrasonography was advised. Ultrasonography was done on 20.12.14. 

14.        We have gone through the USG report submitted by the petitioner. From the USG report it is found that there was vitreous haemorrhage with separation in the right eye. Eye functioning normal so, the eye sight was not damaged after 5 months of operation. Petitioner then attended Dr. Abhijit Roy. He advised the petitioner to attend High Eye Care Centre on 22.12.14. so, petitioner attended the High Care Eye Centre at Guwahati at  Sankar Deva Nethralaya. There the petitioner had undergone treatment. 3 phase operation was done. No report of Sankar Deva Nethralaya submitted by the petitioner before us to support that the eye condition was not curable. So, the eye was finally damaged at Sankardeva Nethralaya not by the O.P. or his clinic Perfect Vision. It can not be said that due to the medical negligence done by Dr. Arpan Khan the eye was finally damaged. The doctors of Sankar Nethralaya did not say that the eye can not be repaired. It is true that condition was critical and Dr. Abhijit Roy suggested for treatment in the High Eye Care Centre. 
    
15.        From the evidence on record it appears that the O.P. Dr. Khan did not take post operative care and finally when he detected haemorrhage in the right eye, did not take care of it and suggested the petitioner to go to Kolkata for treatment in his eye centre. All Doctors has limitations. If it was beyond his limit then he could suggest for treatment by other efficient doctor. But this was not done at the time of taking post operative care. Dr. Khan was also in a hurry while operating the eye. Without any test he operated the right eye of the petitioner on the same date of visit. This is negligence. Medical profession is considered to be most pious profession where the doctors were considered and placed as all mighty God because he renders humanitarian service. He is to state the symptoms and carefully examine and then to administer the standard treatment. It is his legal duty to exercise due care. When it is not taken the patient suffers the consequential damage. In this instant case O.P. did not take post operative care and after 5 months he suggested the ultrasonography. Opposite party stated that as the petitioner was a diabetic patient so he suffered the haemorrhage and ultimately lost his eye sight. In such a case O.P. Dr. Khan first of all had to take into his consideration about his sugar level at the time operation. Diabetic patient should not be operated without lowering level of sugar. Opposite party did not produce the medical records before us. Doctor is duty bound to inform the patient about details of the disease afflicting him. Petitioner attended the doctors on several dates in the  5 months. But he did not inform him about the haemorrhage which was disclosed by USG . All this appears to medical negligence. But we can not say that due to that eye was completely damaged. We can not say that Sankardeva Nethralaya have no responsibility for damaging of the eye as materials not produced before us. In this case negligence of O.P. Dr. Khan is evident. He did not take pre or post operative care in regard to the treatment. But for that reason we can not say that he is to bear the expenditure at Sankardeva Nethralaya where the petitioner spent more than 2.5 lacs but did not get any result after 3 phase operation. Due to medical negligence of the O.P. Dr. Khan petitioner had to go to Sankardeva Nethralaya for spending a huge amount. So, we consider that Dr. Khan is to bear the responsibility for his medical negligence and we direct him to pay compensation Rs.1.5 lacs to the petitioner and also refund the amount Rs.25,000/- taken from the petitioner as treatment cost as he did not take care while operating the eye and also did not take post operative care. Dr. Khan is also to pay Rs.10,000/- litigation cost. In total he is to pay Rs.1.85 lacs. Both the points are decided accordingly.

16.        In view of our above findings  over the points it is established that Dr. Khan had some medical negligence for which the petitioner had to spend a huge amount at Sankardeva Nethralaya ultimately he had to loss his eye sight. For that O.P. Dr. Khan is to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1.85 lacs as compensation and refund of fees taken and also litigation cost. We direct him to pay the amount within one month in default it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.
               
                    Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.