Date of Filing: 02-11-2015 Date of Final Order: 05-10-2016
Sri Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, President.
The gist of the complaint as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Sri Ujjwal Bhowmik on 25/07/2011 visited to Dr. Sujit Kumar Sarkar i.e. the O.P with eye problem and according to the prescription issued by the O.P/doctor, and the Complainant took medicines. After taking such prescribed medicines, the Complainant noticed the blood clot on his eye. Next on 10/10/2011 the Complainant again visited to the O.P/doctor and the O.P after examining the disputed eye of the Complainant, prescribed some medicines and adviced to go to Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati for better treatment. Accordingly, on 15/12/2011 the Complainant went to the Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati and after thorough check-up of the disputed eye, doctors prescribed some medicines and provided Leser on both eyes of the Complainant but no fruitful result was yielded. On 07/02/2012 the Complainant went to the Mechi Nethralaya, Anarmani, Nepal and on 21/11/2013 he went to the Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai for better treatment of his disputed eye but all in vain. On 24/02/2014 the Complainant went to the Mechi Nethralaya & Opthalmic Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Kakarvitta, Nepal for getting operation by providing Lens but there was no improvement after operation. Thereafter, the Complainant returned back and visited to the M.J.N. Hospital, Cooch Behar and after examination of the disputed eye of the Complainant, the hospital authority declared 100% permanent blindness. After that the Complainant went to the B.M.O.H, Cooch Behar Block No.1, Dewanhat for receiving his Blind Certificate.
Due to such activities of the O.P/doctor, the Complainant is in hard –up and facing hindrance as well as suffer irreparable loss. The Complainant also suffered from acute mental pain, agony and pecuniary loss. There was also negligence and deficiency in service adopted by the O.P.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.P to pay Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony, sufferings, financial loss, negligence and deficiency in service, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deems fit and proper as per law & equity.
The O.P, Dr. Sujit Kumar Sarkar (Eye specialist & Surgeon), Cooch Behar has contested the case by filing Written Version denying all material allegations of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P is that the Complainant visited the O.P in the year 2011 and since thereafter he never took any treatment from this answering O.P and the Complainant had Diabetic Mellitus (DM) for 8 years and keeping in mind such fact and the problem, he advised to consult forthwith Retina Specialist.
The O.P further contended that the Complainant, Mr. Ujjwal Bhowmik was first attended to doctor’s chamber of the O.P on 25/07/2011 with a history of (H/O) Diabetes (DM) of last 8 yrs, for check-up. After fundus examination with dilatation of pupil, the Complainant was diagnosed of Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopethy (NPDR) which is also known as pre-proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy. The Complainant was prescribed Tab. Gloeye (an antioxidant Ref. Laboratory Investigation-2012, Pharma Sci 2011) and Megabrom Eye Drop (an Non Sterodian Anti Inflammatory Drug) (NSAID) for the time being and advised to consult with Retina specialist for proper investigations and better management. The Complainant’s best corrected visual Acuity (BCVA) was 6/12 (P) with + 0.25 Dsph and addition of +2.25 Dsp for Near vision. Several studies found that, Bromfenac was probably more effective and safe based on the absence of side effects in patients with NPDR and was significantly more effective in suppressing in retinal thickening (Ref. Acts Ophthalmologica, a Pilot Study, Bromfenac Master Outlook). The Complainant, Ujjwal Bhowmik misunderstood the product information of Megabrom. If the Complainant had any doubt, he may could consult with the O.P without delay, with some NSAIDs, there exists the Potential for increased bleeding time due to interference with platelet aggregation and may cause increase bleeding of ocular tissues in conjunction with ocular surgery. But he did not undergo any surgery. In reality, Bromfenac is indicated in cataract operations to all the patients those who have not any known hypersensitivity to any ingredients in the formulation. There is no report so far that Bromfenac initiate retinal bleeding preoperatively, even it is used post operatively in retinal surgery. At that time there was no Institute at North Bengal for proper treatment for Retinal Diseases. That’s why the Complainant was suggested the name of such institute like Sankardeva Nethralaya, Guwahati, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, L.V. Prasad, Hyderabad etc.
It is the case of the O.P that DM is defined being a syndrome characterized by hyperglycemia (increase blood sugar) resulting from absolute or relative impairment in insulin secretion and/or insulin action. It is the most common endocrine disease, causing metabolic abnormalities and long term complications involving the eyes, kidneys, nerves, and blood vessels. Chronic complications in the eyes due to diabetes are known as Diabetic Retinopathy (DR). Diabetic macular edema (DME) especially if present pre-operatively, has a tendency to progress. In cases where it is unclear whether the edema Irgine-Gass or DME, it is reasonable to delay lasted treatment for 3 to. 6 months and first treat with topical NSAIDs (Ref. Diabetic Eye Disease-A Comprehensive Review by Alejandro Espaillat). Visual impairment associated with DM and diabetic eye decease may result from diabetic macular edema, macular ischemia vitreous hemorrhage, or diabetic tractional retinal detachment. Of all these causes, retinal edema (clinically seen as thickening of the retina) is the most common cause of vision loss. Clinically significant macular edema (CSME) determine laser treatment. The risk of moderate visual loss is reduced by 50% for patients who undergo appropriate laser treatment compared with those who are not treated.
It is the further case of the O.P that successful management of DR via a combination of glucose control, laser therapy and vitrectomy represents one of the most striking achievements of modern ophthalmology. If fundus examinations are initiated prior to the development of significant retinopathy and repeated periodically and if the recommendations of the Early Treatment diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) are followed with respect to the management of subsequent diabetic macular edema or neovascularisation, the risk of severe visual loss is less than 5% Despite this DR remains the number one cause of new blindness is most industrialized countries. The vast majority of diabetic individuals who lost vision do so, not because of an inability to treat their desease, but rather due to a delay in seeking medical attention. The key to sight preservation for diabetic patients is routine examinations to detect the earliest signs of retinopathy.
The O.P further stated in his W/V that the Complainant, Ujjwal Bhowmik neglected to seek advice from retina specialist. He re-visits the answering O.P after two and half (21/2) months (i.e. on 10/10/2011) with H/O sudden dimness of vision (DV) in left eye (LE). After fundus examination with dilatation of pupil, he was diagnosed of retinal hemorrhage LE. Tab. Chymoral Forte (trypsin+ chymotrypsin-a proteolytic enzyme) and collosiol Iodine which helps dissolution of blood clot were prescribed for the time be an again advised to consult retina specialist. He again neglected to consult with retina specialist for more than two (2) months. As it appears from the treatment sheet of Sankardeva Nethralaya, Guwahati that on 15/12/2011 he attended Sankardeva Nethralaya, Guwahati for his specific treatment. After thorough investigations on that day, it was detected that he is suffering from hypertension also.
It is pertinent to mention here that associated hypertension and delay in seeking retina care aggravated retinopathy process.
On 16/12/2011 he was advised for FL (focal taster) for OD (i.e. right eye) and SX (Surgery) as advised for OS (i.e. left eye). Probably PRP (pan retinal photocoagulation) was applied on 17/12/2011 as per money receipt, attached as no laser application documents and follow up protocols attached here. Thereafter on 07/02/2012, the Complainant attended Mechi Eye Hospital, Anarmani, Nepal which was a place for cataract operations. The Complainant was diagnosed as vitreous hemorrhage and retinal detachment(RD) in both eye (BE) there and referred to retina specialist at Biratnag Eye Hospital, Nepal. But he did not attend that hospital. Thereafter, about one (1) year nine and half (91/2) months later, he attended, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai again on 21/11/2013. The Complainant attached only USG report, no advice sheet/status report. But from the certificate of Mechi Nethralaya, Nepal, it was recorded that he was advised V+MP+EL+BB+C3F8 + SOI in Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai with guarded visual prognosis. This type of operation was the specific treatment for him to preserve his vision that left. The Complainant was not willing to do so at that time.
It is the specific case of the O.P that line of treatment of NDR or PDR is same in every retina unit according to investigation report. Ignoring the advice of Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, he attended Mechi Nethralaya, Nepal on 24/02/2014 for a magical improvement. At that time, he had posterior sub-capsular cataract. No records attached that he had lost 90% vision. In spite of that, he did cataract surgery in RE on the same day and in LE on 11/04/2014. Ketlur LE Eye Drop (E/D), which was also an NSAID was prescribed in both the occasions. That proves hat NSAID can be prescribed in DR. But cataract surgery cannot improve retinal conditions in a DR patient that knows every ophthalmologist. That’s why Mr. Bhowmik did not feel any visual improvement. The Complainant attended there on 27/05/2014 for follow up and doctor advised him the need of V+MO+EL+BB+C3F8+SOI (which was advised much earlier at Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai on 21/11/2013) and referred vitreo retinal (VR) surgeon. The Complainant again did not do at that time. He again attended there on 30/06/2014 for follow up and took a certificate of “visually handicapped without further surgical intervention and considered as visually impaired”. Finally, the Complainant attended at M.J.N. Hospital, Cooch Behar on 04/06/2015 for one Indian Handicapped Certificate where it was declared 100% visually handicapped.
In the context of above case summery, no institute commented wrong treatment and negligence which delivered by the O.P. But the Complainant showed sheer negligence on taking advice, treatment and timely follow up by the retina specialist. Therefore, there was no negligence or wrong treatment by this answering O.P. This answering O.P is in no way responsible for loss of vision of the Complainant.
Ultimately, the O.P has prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and is he liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have meticulously gone through the record. Perused the entire documents which are lying with the record. Heard the argument as advanced by both parties at a length.
Point No.1 & 2.
It appears that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant for getting compensation amounting to Rs.18 Lakhs for medical negligence and deficiency in service of O.P/Dr. It has been alleged by Complainant that he attended the medical chamber of O.P/Dr. on 25/07/2011 and thereafter on 10/10/2011 and he took medicine as prescribed by O.P/Dr. Admittedly the Complainant was treated by the said Doctor for his eye problem. So, in this perspective the complainant undoubtedly be a consumer according to definition of Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
This case has been filed for getting compensation from the O.P amounting to Rs.18 Lakhs which is less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum where the Complainant’s treatment was started from 25/07/2011 and completed on 24/02/2014. So, on considering the facts & circumstances and the materials on record, we are in view that this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. The Complainant has filed this case being a consumer.
Therefore, these points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up conjointly for the sake of convenience and discussions.
It is admitted facts of both the parties that the Complainant attended the doctor’s chamber of O.P/Dr. Sujit Kumar Sarker, Eye Specialist and Surgeon, Cooch Behar on 25/07/2011 and next on 10/10/2011 as the Complainant was suffering from eye problem. It has been further alleged by the Complainant that on the first day of treatment, the O.P prescribed an eye drop viz. Megabrom and a tablet viz. glow eye. Accordingly, the Complainant took that eye drop and tablet as advised by O.P/Dr. As a result blood clot was occurred in retina of his eyes and thereafter he again visited the chamber of O.P/Dr. on 10/10/2011. According to Complainant as no fruitful result was yielded, he took treatment on 15/12/2011 at Sankardeva Natralaya, Gouhati where he took leser in his both eyes. It is also alleged by Complainant that he has got no result of improvement of his eyes, then he went to Machi Netralaya, Ararmoni, Nepal on 07/02/2012 and on examination by doctor there, they told that it is impossible to improve the eye sight of Complainant. It is also alleged that thereafter the Complainant went to Chennai, Sankara Netralaya on 21/11/2013. The doctor of the said Netralaya had given same opinion. The Complainant also alleged that thereafter the Complainant went to Mechi Natralaya, Kakarvita, Nepal on 24/02/2014 and the doctor ultimately told that the Complainant’s eye sight has been lost about 95%. The doctor also advised that improvement of eye sight may be raised if lenses be set up in both eyes and accordingly the operation was done there. Thereafter the doctor told that there is no chance to recover the eye sight of Complainant. Then the Complainant attended M.N.J Hospital, Cooch Behar and after examination the eyes of Complainant, the doctor issued a handicapped certificate towards permanent disablement of his eye blindness 100%.
The O.P/Dr. completely denied the negligence of his treatment to the Complainant. It has been argued from the side of the O.P that the Complainant’s history before treatment was diabetic of 8(eight) years and the O.P/Dr. directed the Complainant to consult with Retina Specialist after advising a tablet viz. glow eye and one eye drop” Megabrom”. The O.P/Dr. alleged that if any suffering aggravated, then the Complainant would have been attended before doctor. According to O.P the Complainant completely averred the untrue statement that eyes were blood clotted and suffering was raised from previous.
We have meticulously gone through the documents which have been filed by the Complainant himself in Annexure-4 and 5. Particularly from Annexure-4 it appears that the Complainant again visited the chamber of O.P/Dr. on 10/10/2011, The O.P/Dr. on the said date also had given direction to consult with Retina Specialist. If we calculate the date it is found that the Complainant visited the chamber of O.P/Dr. after two and half months from the date of initial treatment started on 25/07/2011 and if we further calculate the next treatment at Sankardeva Natralaya of the Complainant Guahati on 15/12/2011 it would be found that after two (2) months from the date of next attending chamber of O.P/Dr. the Complainant attended Sankardeva Netralaya, Gouhati. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the Complainant’s side to the effect that why he did not take any treatment or consult with Retina Specialist as quickly as possible for better treatment of his eye. The conduct of Complainant does not show anything that he took appropriate measure to consult with Retina Specialist for the betterment of his eye sight. Why he lapsed the said time without taking any advice or treatment of Doctor when admittedly the Complainant is suffering from eye problem. The Complainant alleged that Megabrom eye drop viz bromivinae ophthalmic solution will be prescribed before and after 24 hours of cataract surgery and be continued first two week of post operative period.
The O.P/Dr. being an Expert as Specialist Surgeon of W.B.H.S averred that Bromfenac was probably more effective and based on the absence of side effects in ;patients with NPDR (Non Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy) and was significantly more effective in retinal thickening. According to him the Complainant misunderstood the product information of Megabrom. If the Complainant had any doubt, he may consult with him without any delay with some NSAIDs ( Non Sterodian Anti inflammatory Drug) for the time being and advised to consult with Ratina Specialist for proper investigations and better management there exists the potential for increased bleeding time due to interference with platelet aggregation and may cause increase bleeding of ocular tissues in conjunction with ocular surgery, but the Complainant did not undergo any surgery. The O.P further alleged that the said drop bromfenac is indicated in cataract operation to all patients those who have not any known hypersensitivity to any ingredients in the formation. Even it is used post operatively in retinal surgery. It is further averred by the O.P that there is no report so far that bromfenac initiates retinal bleeding preoperatively. Even it is post operative in retinal surgery. The O.P/Dr. has further averred that there was no Institute at North Bengal for proper treatment for Retinal Diseases. That’s why he was suggested the name of such institute like Sankardeva Netralaya, Guwahati. Sankar Netralaya Chennai and L.V. Prasad, Hyderabad etc. The O.P/Dr. has further averred that D.M(Diabetic Melitus) is defined is a syndrome characterized by hyperglycemic (increase blood sugar) resulting from absolute or relative impairment in insulin secretion and/or insulin action. According to O.P/Dr. it is most common endorcrine disease causing metabolic abnormalities and long term complications involving eyes, kidneys, nerves, and blood vessels. Chronic complications in the eyes due to diabetes are known as diabetic Retinopathy (DR). The O.P has further alleged that Visual impairment associated with DM and diabetic eye disease may result from diabetic macular edema, macular ischemia vitreous hemorrhage or diabetic fractional retinal detachment of all these causes, retinal edema (clinically seen as thickening of the rating) as the most common cause of vision loss. Clinically significant macular edema determines laser treatment. The risk of moderate visual loss is reduced by 50% for patients who undergo appropriate laser treatment compared with those who are not treated. The O.P further alleged that successful management of DR via a combination of glucose control, laser therapy and vitrectormy represents one of the most striking achievements of modern ophthalmology. If fundus examinations are initiated prior to the development of significant retinopathy and repeated periodically and if the recommendations of the early treatment diabetic retinopathy study are followed with respect to the management of subsequent diabetic machular edema of neovascularisation, the risk of severe visual loss isles than 5% despite this DR remains the number of one cause of new blindness in most industrialized countries. The vast majority of diabetic individuals who loss vision do so, not because of an inability to treat their disease, but rather due to a delay in seeking medical attention. The key to sight preservation for diabetic patients is routine examinations to detect the earliest signs of retinopathy.
The O.P further alleged that the Complainant neglected to seek advice from ratina specialist and he re-visited the O.P/Dr. after two and half months with sudden darkness of vision in left eye and after fundus examination with dilatation of pupil, he was diagnosed of ratinal hemorrhage of left eye. Tab Chymoral Forte and collosial iodine which helps dissolution of blood clot were prescribed for the time being and again advised to consult Retina Specialist but the Complainant again neglected to consult with Retina Specialist for more than two months. Though Annexure-4 i.e. prescription of O.P/Doctor reflects that on 10/10/2011 the O.P prescribed collosial iodine but there is no name of medicine viz. Cymural Forte. Thereafter the Complainant attended Sankardeva Netralaya, Guwahati for his specific treatment and after thorough examination it was detected that the Complainant was suffering from hypertension and it is to be noted that associated hypertension and delay in seeking ratina care aggravated retinopathy process. Thereafter, the Complainant attended Mechi Eye Hospital, Anarmani, Nepal which was a place for cataract operations. The Complainant was diagnosed as vitreous hemorrhage and retinal detachment in both eye there and referred to retina specialist at Biratnagar Eye Hospital, Nepal bu t the Complainant did not attend that hospital but thereafter about one year nine and half months later, he attended Sankar Netyralaya, Chennai on 21/11/2013. He attached only USG report, no advice sheet/status report have been filed. But from the certificate of Mechi Netralaya, Nepal it was recorded that he was advised V+MP+EL+BB+C3F*+SOI in Sankar Netralaya, Chennai with guarded visual prognosis. This type of operation was the specific treatment for him to preserve his vision that left but the Complainant did not do so at that time. The Complainant ignoring the advice of Sankar Netralaya, Chennai attended Mechi Netralaya, Nepal on 24/02/2014 for a magical improvement and at that time he had posterior sub capsular cataract. No record attached that he had lost 90% vision. In spite of that he contacted surgery in RE on the same day and in LE on 11/04/2014 Ketlur LS Eye Drop which was also an NSAID was prescribed in both the occasions. That proves that NSAID can be prescribed in DR but cataract surgery cannot improve retinal conditions in a DR patient that knows every ophthalmologist. That’s why the Complainant did not feel any visual improvement. According to the O.P the Complainant attended Mechi Netralaya on 27/05/2014 i.e. subsequently to follow up there and they referred to Vitreo Retinal Surgeon (V.R Surgeon) but the Complainant again did nothing and ultimately on 30/06/2014 the Complainant went there to follow up and he got a certificate of visual handicapped. Then on 04/06/2015 one Indian Handicapped Certificate was issued by MJN Hospital declaring 100% visually handicapped to the Complainant. According to O.P/Dr. there was no negligence or wrong treatment done by him and he is in no way responsible for loss of vision of the Complainant rather it seeks that on squeezing money, the Complainant has filed this case for illegal gain. The O.P/Dr has alleged that the Complainant’s case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On going through the documents which have been filed by the Complainant and in view of facts and circumstances, we are in view that the Complainant has not come with clean hand. If wrong treatment was done by O.P/Dr. and issued prescription on 25/07/2011 then why the Complainant went to same Doctor after two and half months and visited to the chamber of the O.P/Dr. on 10/10/2011. The Complainant took the next treatment of his eyes on 15/12/2011 i.e. after two months at Sankardev Nethralaya from the date of next treatment before O.P/Dr. After four and half (41/2) months from the date of initial treatment, the Complainant took first initiative for betterment of the treatment of his eyes in spite of repeated advice by the O.P/Dr. to consult with Retina Specialist. On close scrutiny of Annexure-5 i.e. (Literature of Bromfenac Ophthalmic Solution) it has been mentioned therein that the dropper tip should not be allowed to touch any surface since this may contaminate the solution. If irritations persists or increases, the use should be discontinued. The literature of eye drop, Megabrom goes to show the composition of it, description, indication and dosage and administration. The description of the said eye drop goes to show Megabrom is a sterile, topical, mono-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for ophthalmic use. The literature of said eye drop reflects warning and precaution. If reflects that with some NSAID, there exists the potential for increased bleeding time due to interference with a platelet aggregation. There have been reports that ocularly applied NSAIDs may cause increased bleeding of ocular tissue, in conjunctives with ocular surgery. There may be sight threatening. Tropical NSAIDs should used with caution in the patient diabeties mellitus and others. The literature of the said eye drop, masters outlook as filed by the O.P goes to show that Brofenac is found to be more effective and safe for treatment of ocular inflammation and pain in patients. Brofanac is effective in treatment of acute CME (Cystoids Muscular Edema) Diabetic muscular edema is the major reason for vision of loss among diabetes patients. The Journal diabetic eye disease as filed by the O.P goes to show that diabetic mellitus is defined as a syndrome characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from absolute or relative impairment in insulation secretion and/or insulin action. It is the most common endocrine disease, causing metabolic abnormality and long term complication involving the eye, kidneys, nerves and blood vessel. Visual impairment as associated with diabeties mellitus and diabetic eye devises may result from diabetic macular edema, mascular ischima, vitreous hemorrhage or diabetic tractional retinal detachment. All these causes retinal edema, threatening or involving the macular is an impotent visual consequence or abnormal retinal vascular permeability and it is the most common cause of vision loss among patients with diabetes. Neither the Complainant went to the O.P/Dr. hurriedly for better treatment of his eyes nor took any treatment of his eyes for about four and half months. The Complainant took no endavour to adduce evidence of a specialist doctor/expert whatsoever in support of his case. Even no prayer has been filed by the Complainant before this Forum to send the matter before any Official Board to the effect of independent support of the case of the Complainant. On perusal of documents i.e. Annexure, as filed by the Complainant it would not reveals any materials that doctors of hospital have passed any information that O.P/Dr. had used the eye drop Megabrome instantly without any care. In a catena of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court has been held that it is for the Complainant to prove the negligence or deficiency in service by adducing expert evidence or opinion and this fact is to be proved. Mere allegation of negligence will be of no help to the Complainant. In this case be it mentioned that the patient was suffering from diabetes and blood pressure. In this case there nothing on record to show that something went wrong due to the act of the O.P/Dr. simply because the patient’s eye sight was not restored subsequently this account alone is not a ground for holding the doctor guilty of negligence and in deficiency in his duty. The negligence of doctor has to be established and cannot be presumed. This case, in our view in a classic example where the patient who does not listen to doctor’s advice and as such he faces adverse consequences. Doctor should not be harassed merely because his treatment was unsuccessful. The situation i.e blindness of the Complainant was aggravated due to his own fault. The O.P/Doctor only prescribed medicine but no operation was done by him. The patient i.e. the Complainant has a history of diabeties for prolong time and the Complainant is a cronic diabetic patient and t he doctor treated him according to his condition of health. The documents of Sankardeva Nethralaya, Guwahati do not show anything that the alleged eye drop was injurious of the treatment of Complainant. It is to be noted that there is no Expert opinion of Sankardeva Netralaya against the O.P/doctor where the laser of the Complainant was done. The Complainant’s cataract operation was done at Kakarvita, Nepal, RE on 24.02.14 LE on 11.04.14. Annexure 23 goes to show that the said hospital referred the Complainant to Chennai and a certificate informing “diabetic mellitus”. The line of treatment of the O.P/doctor was not negligent and bromfenic has no side effects to save the eye of the Complainant as prescribed by the O.P/doctor. Actually, in this case there is no allegation against any of the doctor or hospital where the Complainant was treated except the O.P/Dr. Annexure-25 goes to show that on 24.02.14 the operation of the Complainant was held at Mechi Nethralaya with a history of before 2 years back. The Ld. Agent for the Complainant referred a ruling in support of the contention of O.P’s case published in CPR 2016 (I) (N.C), New Delhi, Page 403, where in Hon’ble N.C in same nature of medical negligence case has been pleased to dismiss the case of the Petitioner/Complainant as the same has no merit.
Therefore, having heard the Complainant and the Ld. Agent of the O.P and on considering the materials on record, we are unable to hold that the Complainant is able to substantiate his case and as such the Complainant’s case is liable to be dismissed.
Thus the points are decided against the Complainant.
Hence,
it is ORDERED that,
the Case No. CC/100/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any costs against the O.P.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
