BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.62 OF 2000 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM GUNTUR
Between
Dr.M.V.Subba Rao S/o M.Bapaiah
aged 60 yrs, occ: Doctor
C/o Sri Bapuji Eye Hospital
T.B.Road, Kothapet, Tenali
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
Kavuri Prabhavathi Devi
W/o Chittineni Kasi Visweswara Rao
Occ;Teacher, Peddapudi Village & Post
Amarthalur Mandal Guntur Dist.
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants Sri J.R.K.Sarma
Counsel for the Respondents Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The opposite party in C.D.62 of 2000 on the file of District Forum Guntur is the appellant.
The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant is that on 3.10.1999 she approached the opposite party for treatment of defective vision. The opposite party treated the complainant and suggested she should undergo operation. After conducting tests the opposite party conducted cataract RE surgery on 11.10.1999 and the complainant was discharged on 14.10.1999. On 15.10.1999 the complainant approached the opposite party and complained that there is no improvement of vision. The opposite party prescribed eye drops but there was no improvement. Again she approached the opposite party who referred the complainant to Dr.Y.Sri Rama Murthy, M.S., Renuka Netralayam, Kothapet, Guntur for better treatment on 24.11.1999 she consulted the said doctor who conducted tests and found that the complainant was suffering from Total Retinal Detachment of recent origin and again referred the case to doctor Subadra Jalali of LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. On 27.11.1999 she consulted Dr.Subadra who diagnosed the case as psudophakia with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in the right eye with horse shoe tear with lattice holes in the left eye and the complainant was advised to undergo sclera buckling vitrectomy silicone oil injection with or without intraocular lens explanation with endo laser in the right eye and cryopexy in the left eye. An operation was conducted in 10.12.1999 and the complainant was discharged from LV Prasad Eye Institute on 12.12.1999. After the operation, the complainant is undergoing regular periodical checkups. The complainant’s case is that the opposite party without diagnosing the cause of defective eye sight conducted cataract to the RE surgery PC IOC. In view of the negligence of the opposite party, complainant had to spend huge amounts towards her treatment. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party which was received by him and met with reply infested with untenable allegations. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,99,000/-, Rs.25,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.
The opposite party resisted the case contending that on 3.10.1999 the complainant visited the opposite party for treatment of defective vision. Necessary tests were performed and it was found that she had a matured cataract in the right eye. She was operated for removal of cataract on 11.10.1999. After operation the complainant again approached the opposite party complaining that there is no improvement in the vision. The opposite party conducted tests and found that there was a retinal detachment. Retinal detachment is a disorder of the retina which reduces vision. As the complainant was having a cataract, it was not possible for the opposite party to detect the retinal detachment. Retinal detachment is an independent disorder. Cataract has nothing to do with retinal detachment. They have to be independently dealt with. Retinal detachment is one related to the posterior chamber of the right eye whereas cataract lies anterior to it. Only the removal of cataract allows a person to look into the posterior chamber. As there was no infrastructure to treat the patient with retinal detachment, the complainant was referred to Dr.Sri C.Sri Rama Murthy, a Senior Ophthalmologist in Guntur. He in turn referred the patient to LV Prasad Institute, Hyderabad and where necessary surgery was done.
The opposite party further contended that the left eye of the complainant was also having predisposing causes to get retinal detachment and hence preventive CRYOPEXY was done. If really there is negligence on the part of the opposite party in conducting the cataract surgery, the left eye which was not touched by the opposite party also developed the same disorder as that of the right eye. The presence of the predisposing causes of retinal detachment in the left eye reveals that it is not due to the cataract surgery that the complainant developed retinal detachment. It is only the weak retinal resulted in the said disorder. The complainant does not have any basis for the amount claimed. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked exhibits A1 to A26. On behalf of the complainant PW1 and on behalf of the opposite party, RWs 1 and 2 had been examined and ExB1 to B10 were marked.
The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.one lakh to the complainant with interest @ 11% per annum together with expenses of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.2,0000/-.
The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the opposite party failed to administer proper treatment to the complainant?
2) To what relief?
POINT NO.1 The complainant is a teacher and working at relevant time in Pedapudi MPP Elementary School whereas the opposite party has been running Sri Bapuji Eye Hospital at Kothapet in Tenali. The complainant contacted the opposite party on 3.10.1999 with a complaint of defective eye sight. The opposite party having examined the complainant and conducting required tests, he had diagnosed the complainant to be suffering from cataract in her right eye and advised her for surgery. The complainant was admitted to the hospital of the opposite party on 11.10.1999 on which date the opposite party conducted cataract RE surgery PC IOC and she was discharged on 14.10.1999 from the hospital of the opposite party. The next day i.e., on 15.10.1999 the complainant came to the opposite party and reported non-improvement of vision. The opposite party stated that it was over anxiety on the part of the complainant to turn up to him the next day of the surgery whereas the complainant has stated that there was no improvement of vision at all which compelled her to go to the opposite party.
The complainant had again approached the opposite party on 24.10.1999 complaining that there was no improvement of vision. The opposite party prescribed some medicine which however could not help in improvement of the vision whereby the complainant had again reported the matter to the opposite party. The opposite party felt that pathology of posterior chamber of the operated eye was required to be studied as the complainant did not respond to the medicine prescribed by him and found that the complainant was suffering from retinal detachment. The opposite party referred the complainant to Dr.Y.Sreeram Murthy, Eye Specialist, Kothapet Guntur. On 24.11.1999 the complainant consulted Dr. Y.Sreeram Murthy who diagnosed the complainant with retinal detachment of the right eye and referred the complainant to LV Prasad Eye Institute Hyderabad.
The complainant claimed to have approached the LV Prasad Eye Institute on 27.11.1999 whereas the opposite party has stated that the complainant did not go to LV Prasad Eye Institute immediately and she consulted Dr.Y.Sreeram Murthy after visiting C.Sreeram Murthy and then only went to LV Prasad Eye Institute on 27.11.1999. Be that what it may, the complainant has approached the LV Prasad, Eye Institute where Dr.Subadra Jalali, conducted tests; according to the complainant Dr.Subadra found that the complainant was suffering from psudophakia with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in her right eye with horse tear with lattice holes in the left eye. The complainant states that she was advised to undergo scleral buckling vitrectomy silicon oil injection with or without intraocular lens explanation with endolaser in the right eye and cryopexy in the left eye. An operation was conducted on 10.12.1999 and the complainant was discharged on 12.12.1999 from the LV Prasad Eye Institute.
The complainant has stated that the opposite party was at fault in properly diagnosing the cause of defective eye sight on account of which she was forced to undergo further operation and incurred heavy expenditure. The opposite party has contended that the LV Prasad Eye Institute records reveal that the cataract surgery performed by him was perfectly done and the condition of the complainant’s eye was normal insofar as the cataract surgery was concerned. She was not operated for the right eye on 10.12.1999 and the treatment was administered only for her left eye for the same problem. Surgery of the right eye was postponed to 20th December,1999 due to conjunctivitis.
Dr.Y.Sreerama Murthy is an ophthalmologist at Guntur. He deposed that he had examined the complainant and diagnosed the problem to be due to retinal detachment and that he had explained to her that the retinal detachment was not due to cataract surgery which may happen on account of weak retina and advancing age. His opinion was that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party in administering treatment to the complainant. In his cross examination the doctor has stated that unless cataract is hazy usually small, one cannot suspect the cataract and retinal detachment. He has stated “ at the time of examination there is dense heamorahage (permissible level) to find out the retinal detachment, the patient was referred to Hyderabad. I have done direct and indirect examination before advising her to go to Hyderabad”.
Dr.C.Sreerama Murthy who subsequently treated the complainant has deposed that he is running Vijaya Hospital at Guntur. He had examined the complainant and explained the problem of retinal detachment to her. Further, he had deposed that there was no treatment available in Guntur, the complainant had to go to Hyderabad. According to him the retinal detachment was not due to cataract operation and it is an independent disorder. Further, he has stated that when cataract was in existence, it is not possible to detect the retinal detachment. According to him a doctor can suspect the problem in retina if the patient complains that she has not regained vision after the eye surgery. If cataract is small enough, retinal detachment can be detected by direct examination.
The two doctors Y.Sreerama Murthy and C.Sreerama Murthy unequivocally had stated that the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service in coming to the conclusion that the complainant was suffering from cataract. A perusal of the email sent by Dr.Subadra Jalali to the opposite party in regard to the treatment administered in LV Prasad Eye Institute reveals that the complainant had undergone scleral buckling parsplana vitrectomy silicone oil injection, endolaser and IOL explanation in right eye. The complainant was stated to have approached the LVP Institute with the complaints of pain, watering and decreased vision in right eye. The vision acuity in her right eye was PL + PR accurate and the intraocular pressure was 18mm Hg. According to the doctor, fundus examination of the right eye showed total retinal detachment and she was diagnosed with recurrent retinal detachment in the right eye with PVR.
The opposite party has got issued reply through his advocate to the notice of the complainant and in the reply notice it was stated that the opposite party, after the cataract surgery, conducted some tests and found that there was retinal detachment and as such the cataract surgery did not help to improve the complainant’s vision. The two doctors Y.Sreerama Murthy and C.Sreerama Murthy also diagnosed the complainant to have retinal detachment. The medical report issued by LV Prasad Eye Institute shows that the complainant was diagnosed to have suffered from rhegmatogenous pseudophakio retinal detachment with PVR C1 in the right eye and cataract with horse shoe tear and lattice degeneration in the left eye.
The opposite party and the two doctors Y.Sreerama Murthy and C.Sreerama Murthy had repeatedly stated that retinal detachment is an independent disorder. The complaint of the complainant is that the opposte party had not diagnosed properly the retinal detachment she suffered from. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party had performed an improper and imperfect surgery. The opposite party had suspected some disorder after the operation and immediately he had referred the complainant to Dr.Sreeram Murthy. The cataract surgery may be one of the risk factor for a patient to suffer retinal detachment. This fact by itself cannot be made a ground to fix responsibility on the opposite party relating to the diagnoses of the retinal detachment of the complainant.
The complainant contended that the opposite party had not opted for ‘B’ scan and if ‘B’ scan was advised the retinal detachment factor would have been revealed prior to the date of the surgery. It is pertinent to note that the ‘B’ scan was not advised by the two doctors C.Sreerama Murthy and Y.Sreerama Murthy who the complainant consulted after the surgery was performed by the opposite party. In Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others reprotred in 2010 (1) CPR 167 (SC), the Supreme Court approved the decision in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) IWLR 582 wherein Lord McNair held “I myself would prefer to put it this way: A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men in that particular art”. Hence, viewed from any angle we do not find the opposite party deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 31.5.2006 of the District Forum. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.21.07.2010
KMK*
