DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.195 of 9.9.2015

                                      Decided on: 14.12.2017

Baldev Krishan son of Sh.Lal Chand, resident of ward No.5, Gali No.13, One way Traffic Road, Mansa, District Mansa (99881-13132).

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Dr.Ashok Kumar Singla, Delhi Eye Hospital, Patran, District Patiala.

          Second Address: Dr.Ashok Kumar Singla, also working as Doctor at Mirchia Laser Eye Centre, SCO 833-834, Opposite Parade Ground, Sector 22-A,Chandigarh.

2.       Delhi Eye Hospital, Patran, District Patiala through its owner/director Dr.Ashok Kumar Singla.

3.       United India Insurance Company Ltd., 42-C, 3^rd Floor, Moolchand Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110024.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Gagandeep Singh,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Vinay Sood, Advocate, counsel for

                                       Opposite parties No.1&2.

                                      Sh.B.S.Sodhi,Advocate, counsel for opposite party No.3.

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh.Baldev Krishan, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To pay Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation for the loss of his eye;
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him;
3. To grant Rs.75000/- on account of transportation and other medical expenses;
4. To grant Rs.25000/- as litigation fees and also
5. To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.

The ld.counsel for OPs No.1&2 have tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar Singla and closed the evidence.

The ld.counsel for OP no.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Smt.Kanta Devi. Dy.Manager alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.

“As per records given to us, patient underwent left eye Cataract surgery with IOL implantation on 26.11.2014. On 2.12.2014, AC reaction and hypopyon was noticed. He was given intravitreal antibiotic (Vaco and Cefta) and AC tap was sent for culture sensitivity ( which was sterile after 24 hrs as per report dated 3.12.2014). On 4.12.2014, owing to no response to intravitreal antibiotics ( Persistent layered hypopyon and exuadates), he underwent 23 G PPV with SOT. He underwent membranectomy on 18.12.2015. He was treated with oral steroids, antifungals, anti glaucoma drug apart from topical antibiotics/antifungals and steroids.

At PGIMER, as per record pertaining to fundus clinic file No.FC90160 (Reviewed by committee), he underwent Re PPV/IOL removal/intravitreal antibiotics on 6.1.2015 for the diagnosis of LE post operative endophthalmitis. As per PGIMER records (FC 90160), he was last seen in AEC/PGIMER on 31.3.2015. His unaided visual acuity was 6/9 in the right eye and no light perception in the left eye (LE).LE was prephthisical on ocular examination.

In the opinion of the committee, the concerned doctors acted as per standard of care, given to any case of post cataract surgery endophthalmitis, which is a known complication of cataract surgery with IOL implantation”

From the bare reading of the above said report, it is evident that the medicalexperts of the said committee had opined that the concerned doctors had acted as per standard of care given to any case of post cataract surgery endophthalmitis, which is a known complication with IOL implantation. In the case of Shyam Lal Ladla Vs. Dr. O.P.Nayak and another, 2013(3)C.P.J.563, The Hon’ble National Commission has held that endophthalmitis is known complication of cataract surgery and this problem is general and it is not the surgeon who is to be blamed”. Even otherwise also, the complainant has not placed on record the report of any doctor expert in the field ophthalmology to prove that Ops NO.1&2 were negligent in conducting the operation or thedoctor concerned is not competent to conduct the surgery. In this view of the matter, the complainant has failed to establish any medical negligence on the part of Ops No.1&2. It is not out of place to mention here that also the complainant has not placed on record any bill/receipt to show that he had paid any consideration amount to OP no.1&2 for his treatment. Thus, in the absence of any documentary proof we have no other alternative but to accept the contention of the Ops no1&2 that they have treated the complainant free of cost on charitable basis and as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the complainant is not a consumer qua them. Taking all these facts and circumstances we hold that the present complaint deserves dismissal against Ops No.1&2. From the insurance policyEx.OP1, it is evident that Dr. Ashok Kumar OP no.1 was duly insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. OP no.3 .Since no medical negligence has been proved against the said doctor i.e. OP no.1 (insured) therefore, complaint filed against OP No.3 (insurer) is also liable to be dismissed.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:13.12.2017     

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER