IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANKURA.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2013.
Sri Pankaj Kr. Saha, S/o Late Santosh Saha, resident of Jambedia, P.O. – Saiyedpur, P.S. Salbani, Dist. Bankura, Pin – 722147.………………..…………....…Complainant.
V e r s u s
- Dr. Bibhas Kr. Saha, R.M.O., Bishnupur Sub-Divisional Hospital, Bishnupur, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Bankura, Pin – 722122.
- Binapani Nursing Home, P.O. + P.S. Bishnupur, Dist. – Bankura, Pin – 722144.
- Medical Superintendent, Bishnupur Sub-Divisional Hospital, Dept. of Health & Family Welfare, Bishnupur, P.O. + P.S. Bishnupur, Dist. Bankura, Pin – 722144.
……………………… …………………………………..…….Opposite Parties.
Present :-
Mr. Y. HALDER, Ld. President.
Mrs. A. AGNIHOTRI, Ld. Member.
Mr. L. N. CHATTOPADHYAY, Ld. Member.
For the Complainant : Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate.
For the O.P. :Mr. Banamali Chowdhury, Ld. Advocate.
JUDGEMENT.
DATED :30-01-2015.
It is a complaint case for deficiency of service and medical negligence.
The case of the Complainant, in short, is this that the Complainant while faced some troubles in vision over his right-eye in the month of June – 2011, consulted with the O.P. on 23-06-2011 who advised for Cataract surgery and accordingly admitted at the O.P. no.2 Nursing Home on 29-06-2011 and aforesaid surgery was conducted by the O.P. no.1 and he followed the post-operative advise of the O.P. no.1.
Thereafter, again the Complainant consulted with the O.P. no.1 on 19-08-2011 who prescribed medicines but though there was no complaint regarding vision of left eye, the O.P. no.1 insisted the Complainant for undergoing surgery over left-eye without noting down the specific complaint, historic and diagnosis on the prescription and further advised for admission at Binapani Nursing Home on 01-09-2011. Accordingly, the Complainant was admitted at that nursing home on 01-09-2011 and the O.P. No.1 without explaining the mode of operation and / or risk whatsoever, operated upon the left-eye at about 7.00 p.m. and the Complainant was discharged within hours and one discharge summary was issued wherefrom it
Page 1 / 8.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2013.
would be clear that there is no whisper about diagnosis and type of operation. On discharge the Complainant was taken to Rasikganj where staying accommodation was arranged but soon after arrival, an unbearable pain started over the left-eye and gradually pain became severe, the situation was informed to the O.P. no.1 doctor by the Complainant’s son and on hearing the O.P. no.1 advised for administering one Paracitamal Tablet and consoled that such pain are common after post-operation. Even after swallow Paracitamal Tablet, the aforesaid pain could not be controlled, then again contacted the O.P. no.1 who told to take the Complainant to Bishnupur Sub-Divisional Hospital where he was on emergency duty and accordingly the Complainant was taken to the said hospital. Then the O.P. no.1 made arrangements for placing the Complainant to the Operation Theatre and reopened the left-eye and necessary surgical repair and management with the assistance of nursing staff done and thus the Complainant remained hospitalized till discharged on 03-09-2011 wherefrom it would be evident the type of surgery “A C collapse formed by air bubble” but without any information relating to the date of admission, date of discharge, registration number, etc. It is also painful to mention that before discharged while the left-eye was opened by the O.P. there was no vision at all over the left-eye and failure of operation turned the Complainant to complete and permanent loss of vision of left eye and left “One eyed”, The O.P. no.1 conducted the aforesaid eye surgery without advising pre-operation mandatory investigation and tests and very crucial test of Blood Sugar as the Complainant is a known Diabetic Patient and a patient of Hypertension. Thereafter, the Complainant was compelled to rush before the Disha Hospital, Sheuraphuly, Hooghly on 05-09-2011 and consulted Dr. Prasant Singhal who examined the Complainant and advised for taking medicine including Sterayed. Again the Complainant consulted with the O.P. no.1 on 10-09-2011 with the complaint of non-availability of vision but the O.P. no.1 intentionally without recording the complaint simply advised sterayed medicine but without any improvement. Again the Complainant on 19-09-2011 consulted with Dr. P. Singhal at Disha Eye Hospital and follow-up treatment was undergone on 14-10-2011, 07-11-2011 whereby it was opined for YAG CAPSULOTOMY but without any improvement. For non-improvement of vision the Complainant decided to move
Page 2 / 8.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2013.
before the Sankar Netralay, Chennai and remained under their treatment till 21-02-2012 but without any improvement of vision of the left-eye. Again on 29-02-2012 the Complainant consulted with Dr. Md. Yasin but without any improvement. Again he consulted at Disha Hospital on 04-01-2012 and the prescription 04-10-2012 clearly shows that the Complainant is one-eyed and the wrong operation without proper diagnosis caused complete loss of vision of left operated eye and developed secondary Glaucoma. The O.P. no.1 treated without arriving at a final diagnosis and determining the ailment without keeping consent care in hospital till the ailment is completely cure of. Certainly, the aforesaid acts of the O.P. no.1 are tantamount to medical negligence and deficiency of service which resulted the Complainant complete and permanent loss of vision of left-eye. Besides difficulties and inconveniences the Complainant has also suffered monetary loss owing to the default of negligence of the O.P. no.1. For that reason the Complainant has filed this case praying for an award of compensation to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/- towards mental agony, pain, tension and financial loss and damage of left-eye and Rs.50,000/- as Litigation Cost.
The O.P. no.1 has contested this case by filing written version denying allegations of the Complainant contending inter alia that first consultation dated 23-06-2011 was done at his chamber and the Complainant / Patient was brought by his daughter-in-law who is a nursing staff of Bishnupur Sub-Divisional Hospital and from the prescription dated 23-06-2011 it clearly indicate that both eyes had similar troubles and status of both eyes was evaluated on that day. And after discussion, at the instance of the patient party it was decided both eyes would be operated one after another keeping some gap of time and according to their choice the said nursing home was selected for operation. Again on 28-07-2011 the Complainant was re-examined and outcome of operation of the right-eye was satisfactory. Naturally, the Complainant and his daughter-in-law insisted upon him on undertaking operation for the left-eye as early as possible. For this purpose his blood sugar, blood pressure and biometry was done and recorded on the same sitting. In respect of response made on hearing the post-operative pain, the patient was brought to hospital when the O.P. no.1 was on duty “E.M.O.”. The patient was admitted at the Emergency Department of Bishnupur SD Hospital on
Page 3 / 8.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2013.
01-09-2011 at 10-30 p.m. and immediately all possible action was taken. Re-examination of the patient at the O.T. was done and he was observed carefully with due personal attention for another two days and he was discharged on 03-09-2011 with the direction to attend the Hospital OPD on next Thursday. On 4th day of post-operative period one specialist of a private Super specialty Hospital (Disha) examined the patient with the complaint of Dimness of Vision LE. It means that vision was there and it was gradually diminished not abruptly. So, at that time the vision loss was not complete at the time of discharge from hospital on 03-09-2013. Sufficient time was provided and standard practicing norms have been exercised in every test. Mere non-production of all documents by the Complainant does not imply that a surgeon is not taking care of Diabetes and Hypertension. As the medical status was satisfactory he was acceptable to go for the Operation on 2nd eye. The standard norms and practice was followed for the left-eye as it was done on the right-eye earlier. Use of Sterayed in a case of post-Cataract Surgery with anterior chamber Hyphaema is a customary procedure to prevent many future complications and it excludes the notion of complete and permanent loss of vision and left one eyed state of the patient. Advised to control Blood Sugar in the post-operative period was also not properly cared by the Complainant. No medical advice of physician / Diabetologist is found from 05-09-2011 to the end of December, 2011. Thus negligence from the side of the relatives of the Complainant is also accountable. From the documents of Disha and Sankar Netralay it can easily be understood that there is no more deficiency in surgical procedure. From the prescription dated 07-11-2011 of Disha Hospital it is found that vision was improved a lot upto 6/36 by conservative management and YAG LASER CAPSULOTOMY was planned after one-month expecting more improvement. Development of secondary Glaucoma is a sequel of many anterior segment operation like cataract surgery of eyes. The O.P. no.1 diagnosed the case on the 1st day of consultation on 23-06-2011 and he actively managed and exercised judicious and standard expertise on the Complainant at every step during his care. So, the allegations of deficiency of service and medical negligence cannot arise at all and the case is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of pleadings of both the parties now the question is as to whether
Page 4 / 8.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2013.
the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons.
The Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant has not submitted any written notes of argument but has made same submissions as stated in the complaint. The Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant has further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the O.P. no.1 doctor made cataract operation of the left-eye of the Complainant on 01-09-2011 at the O.P. no.2 nursing home hastily without following the accepted procedure. No informed consent was taken from the Complainant before the cataract operation which is mandatory. After discharge from the O.P. no.2 nursing home as per the advice of the O.P. no.1 the Complainant felt severe pain and on that day in the night as per direction of O.P. no.1 he came to Bishnupur SD Hospital and he was admitted and the doctor treated him. No Registration number has been mentioned on the prescription as per the Medical Council of India Rules. The O.P. no.1 has not produced any documents to prove that the said operation of the Complainant was done as per the accepted protocol. After said left eye operation the Complainant had been to Disha eye hospital, Sankar Netralay, Chennai and to other doctors for solving his problem of the left-eye but from the report submitted by the Complainant it has been proved that his left-eye operated by the O.P. no.1 doctor has completely lost its vision permanently and that has been caused due to the defect of operation held by the O.P. no.1 doctor.
The Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant has cited the decisions reported in (2004) 8 SC Cases page 56, 2006 (1) CPR 38 (NC) 2010 (3) CPR 28 (NC)(2008) 2 SC Cases 4, Cataract Surgery Guidelines, September 2010 of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, Clinical Policy Bulletin : Cataract Removal Surgery and W.B. Medical Council Code and submitted that due to deficiency of service and medical negligence on the part of the O.P. no.1 doctor the Complainant has lost his left-eye vision permanently and due to his physical, mental sufferings and financial loss the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. no.1 doctor has not submitted any written notes of argument but has made same submissions as stated in the written version. The Ld. Lawyer has further submitted that after left eye cataract operation the Complainant went to Disha Hospital and he was treated there but there is no
Page 5 / 8.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2013.
mentioning regarding any problem caused due to defective operation done by the O.P. no.1. Moreover, said Disha Hospital and Sankar Netralay, Chennai also treated the Complainant and they tried to solve the problem of the Complainant by prescribing medicines. There is no allegations regarding any misbehavior against the O.P. doctor. The fact remains that the Complainant is a diabetic patient but there is no document to prove that there was any diabetic management of the Complainant after the said operation on 01-09-2011. So, there is every possibility to loss the vision of the left eye due to diabetical problem of the Complainant. It alos appears from the treatment sheet of Disha Hospital that there is nothing regarding any abnormality detected by them. Moreover the vision of left eye has come to a very good condition i.e. 6 / 36 after the operation held on 01-09-2011. It is also a fact that this O.P. no.1 also made cataract operation of the right eye of this Complainant which is now in good condition. No exparte has been examined in this case to prove the alleged defect, if any, caused due to operation of the left eye of the Complainant. So, the Complainant fails to prove his case.
The Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant has submitted in reply that there is no document to prove that the O.P. no.1 took positive step for diabetic management of the Complainant prior or after left eye cataract operation. There is no document on record to that effect.
After going through the pleadings of both the parties and the documents on record and the rulings cited, we find that from the prescription dated 23-06-2011 issued by this O.P. no.1 doctor on examination of this Complainant that investigation has been made regarding blood sugar i.e. at the time of cataract operation of the right eye and it further appears from another prescription dated 28-07-2011 issued by this O.P. doctor that investigation has been made regarding Blood Sugar.
But the fact remains as it appear from the prescription of this O.P. doctor dated 19-08-2011 that there is no suggestion regarding any test for Blood Sugar though on this prescription this O.P. directed for left eye operation at Binapani Nursing Home to be held on 01-09-2011.
It further appears from the prescription dated 10-09-2011 that there is no
Page 6 / 8.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2013.
suggestion regarding diabetic management of the Complainant in the prescription and there is also no suggestion in the discharge summery of the Complainant from O.P. no.2 Nursing Home on 01-09-2011 and also no suggestion on the Discharge Certificate dated 03-09-2011 from Bishnupur SD Hospital.
When it is an admitted fact that at the time of cataract operation of the right eye of this Complainant the O.P. no.1 doctor was aware about diabetic problem of this Complainant i.e. prescription dated 23-06-2011 and 28-07-2011. Moreover, when it is the present plea of the O.P. no.1 doctor that there is possibility for loss of vision of the left eye of the Complainant after operation as the Complainant did not take proper step for diabetic management after operation.
Fact remains that in spite of knowing the fact of diabetic problem of this Complainant the O.P. doctor did not take any positive step for diabetic management even just prior to left eye operation of the Complainant on 01-09-2011 or after that period.
Accordingly, we find that such type of conduct of the O.P. no.1 doctor knowing fully well about the problem to be faced by the Complainant in future for his operation, shall be treated as deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the doctor.
As per the verdict of the Hon’ble Court the O.P. doctor has not obtained the consent of this Complainant before operation and no informed consent is on the record.
It appears from the Discharge Summary dated 27-01-2012 issued by the Apollo Hospital, Chennai relating to Complainant that the Complainant has a history of diabetes Mellitus for a period of 15-years and has the history of Hypertension for about 10-years and he was advised to take medicine for diabetes. It further appears from the prescription of the Complainant dated 16-01-2012 granted by the doctor of Sankar Netralay that the Complainant was sufferings from Glaucoma and it further appears from Single Filled Analysis Report of left eye of this Complainant dated 19-01-2012 of Medical Research Foundation, Chennai that “Pattern Deviation not shown for severely depressed fields. Refer to total deviation”.
It further appears from the documents of Treatment Sheet of this Complainant dated 02-09-2011 and 03-09-2011 of Bishnupur SD Hospital, as produced by the O.P. no.1 Doctor, that the O.P. no.1 doctor has not also advised for any diabetic management of this Complainant.
So, considering entire facts & circumstances of this case and the rulings cited by the
Page 7 / 8.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2013.
Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant including 2006 (1) CPR 38 (NC) and from the discussions made hereinabove we have no hesitation to hold that due to deficiency of service and medical negligence on the part of the O.P. no.1 doctor, the Complainant has lost his vision of left eye permanently. We also find that after left eye operation this Complainant moved from one hospital to another hospital even upto Chennai for getting relief in respect of his sufferings of left eye which was caused after the said cataract operation done by this O.P. no.1 doctor on 01-09-2011 and his sufferings started from the very date of his operation i.e. on 01-09-2011 and the Complainant was compelled to spend huge money for his prolonged treatment.
In the aforesaid circumstances and considering sufferings both physical and mental and financial loss and also complete damage of the left eye due to negligent cataract operation done by the O.P. no.1 doctor we find that it will meet the ends of justice if the O.P. no.1 doctor is directed to pay Compensation to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Complainant and the case is maintainable and should be allowed.
In the circumstances the above point is answered in favour of the Complainant.
In the result the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the Complaint Case No.92 of 2013 is allowed on contest against the O.P. no.1 Dr. Bibhas Kr. Saha and dismissed against the rests but without any costs.
That the Complainant Pankaj Kr. Saha is entitled to get Compensation to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- for his physical and mental sufferings and financial loss and for complete damage of his left eye from the O.P. no.1 doctor.
That the O.P. no.1 is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the Complainant as Compensation within two (2) months from the date of this Judgement failing which an interest @ 9 % p.a. will be accrued on the said amount from the date of this Judgement till realization.
Let a copy of this Judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rule.
(A. AGNIHOTRI) (L. N. CHATTOPADHYAY) (Y. HALDER)
Ld. Member Ld. Member Ld. President
Page 8 / 8.
