Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

166/2011

K.Masilamani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Radhakrishnan - Opp.Party(s)

M.Arunachallam

05 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   21.01.2011

                                                                        Date of Order :   05.01.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            

C.C.NO. 166/2011

THURSDAY THIS  5^th DAY OF JANUARY 2017

K. Masilamani,

S/o. Kaliyanakkayar,

NO.2/416, Balaji Nagar,

Periya Palaiyathu Road,

Thiruninravur,

Chennai 602 024.                                        .. Complainant.

 

                        ..Vs..

 

1.  Dr. M. Radhakrishnan, M.S.D.O.,

Director and Superitendent,

 

2. Dr. B. Jeyasungathi, M.S.D.O.,

Additional Professor of OPthalmology,

 

Both are having office at

Regional Institute of Opthomology,

Govt. Opthalmic Hospital,

Chennai 600 008.                                         ..Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant      : M/s. M. Arunachalam

For the opposite party-1            : Exparte.  

Counsel for the opposite party 2 : M/s. C.P. Palaniachamy & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties   under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for damages with interest and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant approached the Hospital of opposite parties and they have suggested for cataract operation in his left eye and he was also accepted the same.   The complainant had admitted  at the Hospital of opposite parties on 22.3.2007 and cataract operation was held in his left eye on 24.3.2007 and he had discharged on 26.3.2007.  Even after operation the problem did not rectify in his left eye and in fact he lost his full vision.   Thereafter he followed the doctors advise and went on 2.5.2007, 8.5.2007, 22.1.2008, 12.2.2008 and 6.11.2008 on these dates to the Hospital of opposite parties for further treatment.  But, no vision or development in his left eye.   Then he went to T.Nagar and consulted private doctor after 6.11.2008 and advised to get expert opinion about his lost of vision in his left eye.  

2.     The complainant went to private Hospital namely i.e. M.S. Hospital and consulted Dr.Srinivasan on 20.11.2008 and the said doctor confirmed that the vision in left eye of himself was lost due to the negligence or deficiency of service of doctors / opposite parties by way of surgery.   The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 23.6.2010 the opposite parties given false reply on 5.7.2010.   That the complainant did not come to hospital for further checkup.    Due to lost of his vision the complainant did not do his regular works, since 26.3.2007 and he is facing mental agony due to the medical negligence committed by the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.  

3.     Inspite of service of notice, the opposite party-1 is called absent and set exparte.

4. Written Version of  2^nd opposite party is in briefly as follows:

        The 2^nd opposite party denies all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint and factually wrong and legally not maintainable.   The 2^nd opposite party did not conduct the alleged surgery on the left eye of the complainant on 24.3.2007 at the Regional  Institute of Opthamology, Govt. Opthalimic Hospital, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.  It is also submitted that subsequent to the surgery, the complainant dd not take any follow up treatment or obtained medical advice, from this 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party had never met and does not have any idea of the complainant taking Doctors advice on 2.5.2007, 8.5.2007, 22.1.2008, 12.2.2008 and 6.11.2008 and she had never given any medical treatment to the complainant 

5.      After verified the complainant’s case sheet and medical records it is stated anything about the 2^nd opposite party’s participation and on the other hand that the alleged surgery on the left eye was performed by one Dr.Vimala on 24.3.2007 as per the case sheet and thereafter the patient was discharged on 26.3.2007 on his voluntarily request much against the medical advice.   Subsequent to the operation, the follow up treatment was taken by the complainant as an out patient from the  O.P. ward.   It is also submitted that the complainant had mentioned falsely in the para-2 of the complaint that after his surgery his vision was completely lost, but contrary to this, as per the case sheet the following information were recorded.  

                Vision before surgery 6/60

                After surgery with +10 (glass) vision is

                Improved at the time of discharge to 6/36.

and therefore the information given in the complaint is totally false and fabricated one.

6.   In the month of March 2007, there are 3942 surgeries were performed and 1180 patients were given treatment as inpatients and nearly 16215 patients were seated as out patients.   The surgeries and all treatments in the above said hospital are given free of cost and in this case, the fault is on the complainant by getting himself discharged voluntarily on 26.3.2007 against the medical advice and person of this nature had also taken treatment from private clinics and therefore his complaint on his left eye due to his negligence and not complying the medical treatment.  Hence there is no question of negligence arose.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.       In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with for evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 marked.  Proof affidavit of 2^nd opposite party filed and no document marked on the side of the 2^nd  opposite party.  

8.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

      Forum is:  

 

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

9. Point No.1

According to the case of the complainant that he undergone the Cataract surgery in his left eye on 24.3.2007 in the opposite party hospital and on discharges on 26.3.2007 and even after operation the problem did not rectified and subsequently he lost his full vision which was caused only due to negligence of the opposite parties which amounts for medical negligence. 

10.    While so, it was contended by the opposite party-2 that he does not have any idea of the said surgery and as per the complainant case sheet, medical records the alleged surgery on the left eye was only performed by one Dr.Vimala on 24.3.2007 and on the voluntarily request of the complainant only he was discharged and subsequently the follow up treatment taken by the complainant as on outpatient.  Further it is contended that the surgery was performed properly and after surgery his vision was restored and therefore the allegation made in the complaint are all false and fabricated and there is no question of negligence arose. 

11.        In such circumstances on perusal of the evidence of the complainant it is seen that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party hospital on 22.3.2007 for cataract operation and thereafter the surgery was done on 24.3.2007 in the left eye of the complainant and then he was discharged on 26.3.2007.  Subsequently as per the advice  further follow up treatment the complainant went to the opposite party hospital on 2.5.2007, 8.5.2007, 22.1.2008, 12.2.2008 and 6.11.2008  but no vision  or development of left eye.   The discharge summary marked as Ex.A2.  Out patient record Ex.A3 to Ex.A5.  

12.    It is further learnt that even after continuous follow up treatment the vision has not been restored the complainant consulted  private doctor, Lion Hospital, Chennai and M.S. Hospital, Pattabiram, Chennai.  The letter given by the above said doctor which is marked as Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 and informed the complainant that due to negligence service rendered by the opposite parties full vision lost in his left eye.  Therefore, the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 23.6.2007 to the opposite parties which is marked as Ex.A8 and the reply given by the opposite parties is marked as Ex.A9.  Further, it is narrated by the complainant that due to the negligence committed by the opposite parties the complainant could not do his regular work and suffered both physically and mentally and much hardship and for negligence to prove Ex.A10 expert opinion given by Dr.R.Rajappa formerly Professor and Senior Surgeon in Ophthalmelogy it has been filed.  The FIR preferred by the complainant for missing of certain records is marked as Ex.A11. 

13.    On the other hand, on seeing the evidence of the opposite party-2 it is learnt that as per medical case record pertaining to the complainant the alleged surgery of the left eye of the complainant was performed by one Dr.Vimala and the patient was discharged on 26.3.2007 on his own request and follow up treatment taken by the complainant the out-patient O.P. ward and as per the case sheet vision before surgery  6/60, after surgery with +10 (glass) vision, improved at the time of discharge to 6/36  and therefore the lost of full vision is totally false and misleading one and the surgery was performed properly as prescribed in the medial tax and guide line and therefore there is no medical negligence committee by the opposite parties.

14.    At this juncture on careful perusal of rival submission put forth on either side it is an admitted case that the cataract surgery was done for the complainant in his left eye on 24.3.2007 and discharged on 26.3.2007 and the surgery was done by one Dr. Vimala who is attached of the opposite party’s hospital and the follow up treatment also taken by the complainant on different dates.   At this point of time, this forum has to consider whether there is  a lost of full vision in the left eye of the complainant due to the medical negligence of the opposite parties and the same has been proved by the complainant by way of acceptable evidence.   In order to prove the same, the complainant has produced before this forum the vital document i.e. an expert opinion given one Dr. R.Rajappa M.S.D.O. formerly professor and Senior Surgeon in Ophthalmelogy dated 30.1.2012.  On seeing through Ex.A10 necked eye, it reads as follows:

“ I have examined Mr.K.Masilamani, S/o. Kalinayakkar aged about 68, years residing at No.2/416, Balaji Nagar, Periya Palayathu Road, Thiruninravur, Chennai 602 024 on  30.1.2012.   He has undergone cataract operation in his left eye on 24.3.2007 at Government Ophthalmic Hospital, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.  I have gone through the discharge summary and post operative visual acuity (va) 1/60 with correction 6/36p.  He again seen on 4.4.2007 at the same Hospital.  VA is with correction only 3/60 nig (not improvement with glasses).

He was followed regularly, Document based on 5.11.2008 he has developed Bullous Keratopathy on the operated eye.   His vision HM (Hand Movement) only.  On 6.11.2008 USG shows Choroidal detachment.  I have examined him on 30.1.2012 with ophthalmoscope and slit/lamp microscope.  My findings are.

          Left eye :   Psudoephakia

                             Choroidal detachment       

                             Vision no PL

                             So blind left eye.

 

From the above recital, it is noticed that as per the document based on 5.11.2008 he has developed Bullous Keratopathy on the operated eye and his vision Hand Movement only.   Further the contention dated 6.11.2008 is seen that USG shows Choroidal detachment and the complainant has examined by the said Doctor on 30.1.2012 with opththalmoscope and slit/lamp microscope and so blind left eye.    From Ex.A10 it is seen that no doubt there is no vision in the left eye of the complainant when he was examined on 30.1.2012.   At the outset,  Ex.A5 dated 6.11.2008, it is true that there is mentioned about the Choroidal detachment  and advised for review.  The complainant has not attended for the review before the opposite party hospital.   So, as per the above expert opinion and Ex.A5 the lost of vision arrived on 6.11.2008.  It is crystal clear that the complainant has not attended for further treatment with the opposite party’s hospital.  If it is so, after the surgery, on the lapse of one year nine month only the lost of vision occurred.  There is no symptom shown or any infection in the operated eye in the relevant period.  Moreover, on careful perusal of Ex.A10. there is no specific mentioning about any medical negligence committed by the opposite parties or only due to the medical negligence, symptom occurred in the left eye as mentioned in Ex.A10 and thereby the left eye becomes blind are not at all found and therefore the Ex.A10 is not sufficient to conclude that the opposite party have committed medical negligence during surgery.

15.    It is further pertinent to note that in the month of March 2007 there were 3942 surgeries performed and 1180 patients were given treatment as inpatients and nearly 16,215 patients were sealed as out patients and for all of them the opposite parties have performed surgery in a proper manner and given follow up treatment as prescribed in the medical tests.  In such circumstances, the complainant ought to have proved the medical negligence if any committed by the opposite parties by means of cogent and consistent evidence with relevant materials,  but no such acceptable evidence on the side of the opposite parties.   Therefore, in the case on hand no material has been placed by the complainant regarding the medial negligence has been made out.  

16.     In the light of above facts and circumstances and observations made above, the complainant has not proved any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties by means of relevant and consistent evidence.  Hence this forum, can easily come to the conclusion that there is no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.   Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly.  

17.  Point No.2

          As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  5^th  day  of  January 2017.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                        PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  26.3.2007 -  Copy of Discharge from issued by the opposite parties.

Ex.A2- 2.5.2007    -  Copy of Follow up record issued by the opposite parties.

Ex.A3- 8.5.2009    -  Copy of O.P. record issued by the opposite parties.

Ex.A4- 22.1.2008  - Copy of prescription issued by opposite parties.

Ex.A5- 6.11.2008  - Copy of Prescription issued by the opposite parties.

Ex.A6-         -       - Copy of letter issued by the Private hospital. ‘

Ex.A7- 20.11.2008         -  Copy of Prescription issued by Private Hospital to

                               complainant about his eye problem.

Ex.A8- 23.6.2010  -  Copy of Lawyer noticed issued by the complainant to the

                               Opposite parties.

Ex.A9- 5.7.2010    - Copy of reply given by opposite parties.

Ex.A10- 30.1.2012         - Copy of Expert opinion.

Ex.A11- 10.2.2012         - Copy of FIR.

Opposite parties’ side document: -   .. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                                                                  PRESIDENT.