Government Eye Hospital,

Kurnool.

2. Dr. K. Bharani Kumar Reddy,

Unit – III incharge,

Government Eye Hospital ,

Kurnool.

3. The Superintendent,

Government Eye Hospital,

Kurnool.

4. The District Collector,

Kurnool.                                               … Opposite parties                                                                                                                                                                           

                                   This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. C.C.V. Ranga Reddy , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. D.Srenivasulu,  Advocate, for the opposite parties 1 and 2 and Smt. D.S. Saileela , Advocate for opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 4 is called absent set-exparte upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)

C.C.No.77/08

1.                The case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 2lakhs with interest and other miscellaneous charges as compensation , Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony  occurred to him at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the case alleging deficiency of the opposite parties in rendering medical service to him in the  operation of his left eye done on 16-11-2006 and in subsequent treatment  which led to the Corneal Ulcer and removal of said eye .

2.                In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant , while the opposite party No. 4 remained ex-parte to the case proceedings , the opposite parties 1 to 3 caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case denying any of their liability to the complainants claim alleging no deficiency of service  on their part in performing cataract operation and inserting OLC and the loss of eye was on account of non compliance of the post operative instructions scrupulously by the complainant .

3.                In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on his sworn affidavit in addition to the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A8 and Ex.X1 , the opposite party side has  merely taken reliance on their sworn affidavits in reiteration of its defence.

4.                Hence the point  for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency and negligency  of the opposite parties in the eye operation performed on him and its nexus to the Corneal Ulcer leading to the loss of operated eye of the complainant and there by any of their liability to his claim.

5.                While the complainant alleges of his approach to the opposite party  No.1 with complaint of irritation in  his left eye on 15-11-2006 for the first time ,  the contesting opposite parties allege suppression of facts

by the complainant as the approach of the complainant was as back as    04-10-2006 with the complaint of diminished vision to his left eye warranting Cataract Surgery to it which could not be attend immediately because of retrobluar haemorrhage while giving Anesthesia to complainant and so its postponement for two weeks to them .

6.                While the complainant alleges of his post operative ill effects and sufferings from the very next day of the operation on 16-11-2006 and the opposite party dodging on the matters assuring the reliefs soon and ultimately advising to go to Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment  expressing their helpless state in that regard  , the opposite parties allege there was progress in complainant from the very next of the surgery and the discharge of the complainant on 18-11-2006 on his no further complaints advising with the necessary prescriptions , precautions and the complainant being found without any complications on his follow up visit on 13-12-2006 also and on the further visit of the complainant on 26-12-2006 the complainant was found suffering with Corneal Ulcer and the Cornea completely turning white and learnt from the attendance of the complainant that it was self contribution of the complainant as the complainant was attending to the field work exposing himself to pollution and possible injuries and paying deaf ear to the post operative advises .

7.                From the Ex.X1 case sheet issued by the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad for the treatment  rendered to the complainant  it is remaining clear that the left eye was removed  ( Eyiseeration ) finally in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital , Hyderabad on account of alleged continued suffering of the complainant to the alleged Cataract operation  performed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in pursuance of the notice made in out patient tickets in Ex. A6 to A8 .

8.                While the opposite parties allege the situation for removal of the complainant left eye in Sarojini Devi Hospital was a self contribution of the complainant occasioned on account of non compliance of the post operation advises prescriptions and cautions by the complainant by attending field work duties by the complainant as learnt from the information furnished by the attenders who followed the complainant to hospital on 26-12-2006. As the said contention of the opposite party was consistently denied by the complainant in his sworn affidavit , prima facie it is remaining on the opposite parties who allege it ,  to prove it by cogent evidence to believe the bonafidees of the alleged self contribution of the complainant in versioning his post operation situation leading to removal of his left eye consequently .

9.                The opposite party side except alleging as such did not place any material in substantiation of the same or at least a regard of the same which must have been recorded by it if there is any truth in said contention , while advising the complainant to go to Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital , Hyderabad for further better treatment . Further the opposite parties did not place any such cogent material or record as to the alleged no complaint of complainant in post operative period or the possibility for versioning the situation by 26-12-2006  when the complainant  was  going to field work  since  the  discharge after  Cataract  Operation being well till

13-12-2006 . Hence the cause alleged for the Corneal Ulcer of complainant and the consequent removal of his left eye appears to be a story invented by the opposite parties to save their skills especially when any cogent record of its treatment  rendered to the complainant is filed to believe any bonafidees in successful and satisfactory completion of the alleged cataract operation to the complainant and the latter’s discharge in a satisfactory situation  .

10.      Hence in the above state of circumstances the deficiency of medical service and negligency in performing the eye operation to the complainant for what ever purpose appears to be not beyond the suspicion of reasonable doubt  on the bonafidess of the opposite parties .

11.      The opposite parties contend that the treatment  and medical services rendered to the complainant were free of cost and hence the complainants grievances if any cannot be considered under C.P.Act . 

12.      But there appears no much merit and force in the said contention of the opposite party  as one cannot risk  to his life or limb merely because the services are not charged directly to him especially when the doctors are paid for  their services to the public at large from the funds of public exchequer and thereby as the complainant is attaining the status of a beneficiary consumer.

13.      As the alleged self contribution of the complainant by his overt acts in defiance to the post operative medical advises prescriptions and cautions was not substantiated by the opposite parties side , the consequent suffering of the complainant to his left eye appears to be at the negligency and deficiency of the opposite party  in rendering proper medical service which a prudent doctor will give to a patient taking every possible care , the liability of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the vicarious liability of the opposite parties 3 and 4  , for the deficient acts of the opposite parties 1 and 2 , as their controlling officers lies to make good of the complainants claim to a justifiable extent for the suffering and mental agony occurred to the complainant at the deficient and negligent conduct of the opposite parties .

14.      The complainant has not placed any cogent material as to his social status to justify the reasonableness in the claim . Nor there appears any clarity in the claim made as to claim of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation with interest and other  miscellaneous   charges without any substantiating material  as compensation at one juncture and again claims Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony  without any idea what constitutes and mean compensation.

15.      The Citation of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ajay Soni , Jablpur VS Jablpur Hospital and Research Centre and others reported in 2008 (1) ALT 16 (NC) (CPA) says medical negligency be proved by adducing of medical expert  . 

16.      The removal of left eye of the complainant , from the stronger circumstances is supposing and making out the negligence and deficiency of the opposite parties in the surgery performed to the left eye of the complainant and any intervention of any alien  factor has been proved by the opposite party , the Ex.X1 stands as an expert evidence to the loss of left eye of the complainant consequent to the alleged cataract operation performed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 on the complainant.  Hence the said decision learned by the counsel for the opposite parties does not appear to be having any adverse bearing on the merits of the complainants case especially when the opposite party  side did not place any such cogent record of their line of treatment  and status of the complainant on various dates of the complainant visit to them for follow .  

17.       However as the complainant lost his left eye consequent to the surgery performed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 who are subordinates under control of opposite parties 3 and 4 , an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant at the deficient and negligent acts of medical services of the opposite party and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this litigation , at the joint and several liabilities of the opposite parties appears to meet ends of justice.

18.      Consequently, the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 4  jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for suffered mental agony and bodily suffering and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this litigation , as the complainant was driven by the opposite parties for redressal of his grievances , to the forum, within a month of receipt of this order. In default the supra stated award shall be payable by the opposite parties at their joint and several liability with 12% interest  from the date of default till realization.     

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 12^th day of February, 2009.

   Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT   

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :Nil                   For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

E                 Ex.A1.          Office copy of legal notice dated 14-03-2007 along with

three postal receipts and three acknowledgements.

E                 x.A2.            Reply notice dated 24-04-2007 of OP No. 3 to complainants

counsel.

Ex.A3.          Reply notice dated 11-06-2007 of OP No. 1.

Ex.A4.          Office copy of legal notice dated 10-07-2007 to OP.No. 2                          along with postal receipt.

Ex.A5.          Reply of OP.No2. dated 18-07-2007 to Ex.A4.

E                 x.A6.            OP tickets bearing 3989 pertaining to Y. Ramudu dated

13-12-2006.

Ex.A7.          Op ticket bearing No. 3989 pertaining to Y. Ramudu for

                   referring to Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital.

Ex.A8.          Op ticket bearing No.3989 showing date of admission,

                   date of surgery and date of discharge dated 18-11-2006.

Ex.X1.           Case sheet issued by Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital , Hyderabad

                    Pertaining to Y. Ramudu .

List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:  Nil  

   Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT                        

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties 

Copy was made ready on                :

Copy was dispatched on