Sh. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER 24 January 2018
Sh. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member
1. The complainant has alleged medical negligence in his statement. Briefly it is alleged by the complainant he is 62 years of Age and is a CGHS beneficiary. He
has gone to CHGS dispensary in order to show his eye which was giving him trouble for quite some time. The CMO of the dispensary referred him to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where the doctor on examination of his eye referred him to
Mohan Eye Institute which is on the panel of the CHGS. On 30th June 2008 he was seen by a doctor at Mohan Eye Institute & was asked to come on 11th July 2008 for an operation. He was operated upon in the Mohan Eye Institute and was called again on 18/10/2008. On 20/12/2008 the silicon oil was removed from his eye by another operation. The grievance of the complainant is that there has been no improvement in his eye even after the operation despite the fact that he has been called several times for checking and a number of tests had been undertaken. He has alleged that the operation was wrongly done as a result of which he had lost his eye sight. He has therefore filed the present complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 15 Lacs as compensation besides a sum of Rs. 11000 as cost of litigation.
The complaint had been contested on behalf of OP1 and OP 2. Preliminary objections have been taken that the Complaint is false, frivolous and based on assumptions and presumptions. It is claimed that there is absolutely no cause of action for filing the Complaint and that it is designed to extort illegal money. Preliminary objection para no. 6 of the written statement is relevant and is reproduced as under:
‘’That there is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite party in treating the complainant. The allegations levelled l by the complainant are not substantiated by any relevant documentary evidence; the allegations are wild,
vague and baseless. No material has been placed on record to show any co-relationship between the treatment given and the alleged injury caused. That the
complainant was given the best available treatment and there is no negligence on the part of the answering opposite party. The answering opposite parties has
followed standard surgical and medical principles in treating the patient and there is no evidence of medical negligence. In a catena of judgements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission have held that it is necessary to prove that the doctor was either incompetent to give the treatment or there was absence of due care and skill which is expected from a prudent practitioner. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor as a long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence as held in NALINI VS MANIPAL HOSPITAL IV 2011 CPJ 280 NC; KUSYM SHARMA VS BATRA HOSPITAL I 2010 CPJ 20 SC. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this preliminary issue as there is no cause of and action the same be dismissed with heavy cost.
The complaint has been contested on merits. It is stated that the complainant had visited OP 1 & OP 2 on 2nd Aug. 2008 as per medical record and had complained of no vision in the left eye since 2 years. It is stated that the complainant had earlier been operated upon for retinal detachment in his left eye in Guru Nanak Eye Centre on 12/06/2007 and had undergone silicon oil removal on 22/01/2008. He was later on diagnosed to have redetachment of retina of Left Eye with PVR state II (a very advanced stage of retinal detachment). OPs have stated that the complainant was diagnosed by them having Retinal Detachment with PVR
state III in his left eye with vision PL + PR defective and was advised re-surgery under very guarded visual prognosis which was explained to the complainant in detail. It is staed that similar advise was given to the complainant by CGHS eye
doctor of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and the complainant had submitted permission for surgery on 07/07/2008. OPs have stated that the complainant was
operated on 11/07/2008 and have denied that he was called again and again for examination. It is stated that after surgery the complainant was examined during the post operative period and it was found that he was recovering well and the retina was attached. He was advised silicon eye removal which was done on 20/12/2008. It is stated that the eye of the complainant was in an advanced state of disease and as such retinal detachment surgery followed by SOR has failed once at Guru Nanak Eye Centre and the complainant had no vision in his left eye. The complainant was fully aware of the poor prognosis when he came for second opinion to the Opposite Party. RD with PVR is a very advanced stage of retinal detachment and the prognosis is always very guarded worldwide. Thus the opposite party gave the best available treatment. OPs also stated that they ‘’ made all possible attempts to given some useful vision and the complainant was examined routinely during the recovery period. During his treatment, to maintain shape and pressure of eye C3 F 8 gas was also injected twice on 18/02/2009 and 14/03/2009.
OPs have strongly denied that it had given wrong treatment as a result of which the eye of the complainant was damaged. It has claimed that it had given the best available treatment and had provided highest level of care at all stages. It was claimed that the complainant was given advice and treatment as per international
management protocols for such an advanced eye disease. OPs have also stated that informed consent and a special informed consent (annexure E & F) were taken from the complainant prior to the surgery clearly specifying the very guarded nature of the surgery. OPs have therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
A separate written statement has been filed by OP 3 M/s New India Insurance Company Ltd, with which OP No. 1 & 2 have been insured for the relevant period. OP 3 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint claiming that there is no negligence on the part of OP 1 & OP 2 in the treatment of the complainant.
On behalf of the complainant an affidavit dated 18/10/2014 has been filed corroborating the contents of the complaint. The complainant has relied upon the treatment record prepared at OP 1 Institute.
On behalf of OP 1 & OP 2 Dr. Rajiv Mohan has filed his affidavit dated 16/01/2015 wherein he has reiterated that the OPs have followed standard surgical & medical principles in treating the patient and that there is no evidence of medical negligence in this case. A separate affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, OP 3.
On 8th March 2015 this matter was referred to Medical Superintendent Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh Marg, New Delhi for Expert Opinion. The Medical Superintendent Guru Nanak Eye Centre had constituted a special medical board who examined the case record and gave its report which reads as under:
Ref: Case No. 122/13 Titled Hem Chander V/s Mohan Eye Institute
Brief summary of case as per records provided
Hem Raj, 62 Yrs/M was admitted as Mohan Eye Institute with failed RD surgery done previously at GNEC on 12/06/2007. He presented to Mohan Eye Institute with RD with PVR D3 stage in July 2008.
RD with proliferative vitrcoretinapathy D3 stage usually carries a poor visual prognosis despite best of effort.
Prior to the operation the patient was explained about the poor visual prognosis (ref page 13). Subsequently he was operated on 11/07/2008 by Dr. R. Mohan & Dr. Tanwar. Post operatively standard treatment was given as per attached documents.
The eye went into hyptony inspite of the treatment. Therefore C3 F8 injections were given twice on 18.02.2009 & 14.03.2009 (Ref Page 22). As per available records patient has been followed up till 15.12.2011 when he was advised evisceration with implant in Left eye.
Reply by the Special Medical Board of GNEC to the questions asked,
Ans. 1 : Yes, both the doctors are qualified to treat this type of disease.
Ans. 2 : No, the treatment given was as per standard practice.
No, they were not negligent in the execution of the treatment.
Ans. 3. : As per the records no negligence can be made out on part of any other OP.
Signed Signed Signed
(Dr. ANJU RASTOGI) (Dr. SUSHIL KUMAR) (Dr. B. GHOSH)
Director Professor Director Professor Director Professor
Member Member Member
Dated: 24.06.2015
Place : Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record. The complainant apart from his own affidavit has not lead any evidence in support
of his allegations that there was medical negligence in his treatment/operation. Learned Counsel for OP No. 1 & 2 have asserted that there was no medical negligence in the treatment of the complainant and that all standard surgical and medical principles were followed in the treatment. The Learned Counsel for OPs 1
& 2 had explained that the complainant earlier also had retinal detachment and was operated upon at Guru Nanak Eye Centre on 12/06/2007. He had a redetachment of Retina and was diagnosed with PVR D 3 with vision PL + PR defective and was advised surgery under very guarded visual prognosis which was explained to the complainant in detail. As already stated an expert opinion was obtained and the medical board constituted was of the unanimous opinion that there was no medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor in the case of the complainant. There is no other material which suggest medical negligence on the Part of OP 1 and OP 2. This was a case of a very complicated surgery. The complainant had earlier retinal detachment for which he was operated upon. He had suffered re-detachment for which another surgery was taken up. Prognosis was also explained to the complainant in detail prior to operation. Standard practices were used in the surgery. The very fact that the complainant’s eye had not improved would not ipso facto make it to be a case of medical negligence. We, therefore, hold that no case of medical negligence has been proved in the case of the complainant. The complaint has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this day of ___________, 2018
