Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/350

Anand C. B. S/o. Balakrishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Netradhama Superspeciality Eye Hospital ( A Unit of Nethradhama Hospitals Pvt Ltd ) Rep by its - Opp.Party(s)

N. Naresh

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 08.02.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 10.08.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.350/2013

DATED THIS THE 10^th AUGUST OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Anand.C.B

S/o Balakrishna,

Chikkablli,

Basaralu Hobli,

Mandya Taluk,

Mandya Dist.,

 

By Adv.Sri.N.Naresh     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. M/s.Netradhama,

Super Speciality Eye Hospital

(A unit of Nethradhama

Hospitals Pvt. ltd.,)

Rep. by Dr.Sri.Ganesh,

M.B.B.S., M.S., D.N.B. CMD

and Medical Director

 

2. Dr.Sri.Ganesh,

M.B.B.S., M.S., D.N.B.

CMD and Medical Director M/s.Netradhama,

Super Speciality Eye Hospital

 

 

3. Nandini

an employee of

M/s.Netradhama,

Super Speciality Eye Hospital

 

4. Dr.Sandhya,

M/s.Netradhama,

Super Speciality Eye Hospital

 

All are at #256/14.

Kanakapura Main Road,

7^th Block, Jayanagar,

Bengaluru-82.

 

By Adv.Sri.S.Vasanth Madhav

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1 to 4 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 to 4 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to pay medical charges of Rs.63,600/-; future expenses of Rs.1 lakh; compensation of Rs.2 lakh; cost of Rs.10,000/-; transport and attendant nutrition charges of Rs.25,000/-; in all Rs.3,98,600/-.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he was admitted to Op hospital on 29.09.10 for the correction of myopia in the right eye and for removal of floaters and for Re-Toric implantable contact lens implantation (T-ICL) and later discharged on 30.01.10. The Ops had collected all relevant documents pertaining to Complainant’s income level and Yashasvini card and relevant documents.  The Ops are aware that whenever Ops admit any patient under Yashsvini scheme they shall not charge exorbitant rate and collect from the patients. Here is a case where Ops purposefully demanded heavy amount without any basis and Complainant paid the amounts ad detailed below;

 

Date	Amount	Particulars
24.12.09	Rs.100/-	Advance
25.12.09	Rs.500/-	Orbscan corneal topography RE
07.01.10	Rs.50000/-	Advance for surgery/procedure
28.01.10	Rs.10000/-
29.01.09	Rs.3000/-
Total	Rs.63,600/-

 

The Complainant further submits that, he was earlier using contact lens and he was advised by Ops that in the event Complainant underwent new procedure/surgery Re-Toric implantable contact lens implantation (T-ICL) his vision will improve. The Ops made the Complainant to believe all their assurances and promises. The Complainant further submits that, his hails from a poor agricultural family and is not at all educated, believed all versions and assurances of the Ops. Since he belonged to BPL category and the Op promised that he can enjoy Yashaswini plan he opted Op hospital. Inspite of collecting huge amount from the Complainant over and above the reimbursement, Ops are entitled to get benefit from the concerned Govt., department. The Ops are dare enough to demand entire amount from the Complainant and pressurized him that he will not be discharged until payment of the entire amount. It is very pertinent from the letter written by the Ops addressed to the KMC (hereinafter referred as Karnataka Medical Council), wherein they have made an attempt to plug their loop hole by stating that actual cost of surgery is Rs.75,000/-, wherein Complainant paid a sum of Rs.63,000/- and had categorically admitted that when the balance amount was demanded the Complainant started this issue of complaint. This act of Ops is an act of cheating and fraud. The Ops conveniently concealed about the entire money they are entitled to receive or received under Yashasvini scheme. Op.no.3 is very much aware that when a patient was admitted to the hospital, you addresses ought to have conducted the surgery as promised. It is submitted that the Complainant’s vision did not improve even after surgery. Ops have filed to perform surgery as promised by them. The Complainant is suffering from vision problem till today. Floaters have not even reduced. The Complainant followed all instructions as advised by the Ops at the time of discharge. He visited on 16.02.10 and also on 18.03.10 and reported about the poor vision and problems he had complained about the same to the Ops and Ops advised that ‘Does not require surgical intervention for floaters and advised retina review in view of persistent flashes/floaters. The Complainant was shocked when this was explained to him by another doctor at the time of second opinion. The Ops did not conduct surgery. The Ops did not show due diligence. This act of Ops also amounts to gross negligence and professional misconduct and also deficiency of service. The Complainant further submits that, when he visited Op hospital 24.12.09, Op conduct preliminary examination under Yashasvini scheme. Op.no.4 informed the Complainant that since left eye retina has already been detached atleast right eye may please be protected by undergoing a special treatment exclusive for that and it was named as Toric ICL. He was also promised that a corrective lens imported from Switzerland and after surgery his vision will improve. Further, Complainant went for check up on 24.12.09 and surgery conducted on 29.01.10. On 30.01.10, he went inside the hospital at 10.30a.m. and immediately after 10 minutes he was asked to go out of the hospital at 11.00a.m. by advising to come for next day. When he attended the hospital on next 30 days & discharge summary was handed over to him.  Complainant promptly went for review during the month of February 2010 and brought to the notice of the Ops that the right eye vision and problem of floaters and flashers were not at all improved. The same was noted in the case sheet. The Complainant was orally advised that the same will improve during the course of time and ask to come for review in March 2010. The Complainant further submits that, on 16.03.10 the Complainant went for review with the Op and once again reported that the problems he was facing earlier with that of floaters and flashes and vision were not at all improved. Further he complained that he was suffering heavy shooting pain in the right eye. The Op advised the Complainant to come for review after one year. Immediately the Complainant desisted and got annoyed and request to the doctor to treat him properly. Subsequently the Ops after putting his signature and close the case wrote and advise Retina review in view of Persistent flashers/floaters. The Complainant further submits that, he went to Manipal hospital at about 12.30 PM for general check up on 18.03.10 immediately advised for right eye scan and it was observed that there is haemorrhage in the right eye. Again on 05.04.10, he had been to Manipal hospital for review. Dr.Nitin.S.Shetty, MBBS, MS, FMRF conducted the examination and opined that dilated fundus of the right eye revealed, high myopic fundus with lacquer crack at the macula. A thin patch of sub-retinal haemorrhage was noted at the fovea. He also opined that haemorrhage at fovea could be related to lacquer cracks-no CNVM was evident clinically. The finding of the doctors on 18.03.10 at about 3.40p.m directing the Complainant to undergo Retina review with a history of flashers and floaters clearly goes to show that the entire procedure conducted by the Ops are not at all required. The attitude of Op directing the Complainant to come for review after one year as written by the Op and subsequently strike it off goes to show the audacity of the Ops in treating the Complainant amounts to deficiency of service. The Complainant further submits that, he was suffering from floaters and flashers and inspite of undergoing surgery by spending huge money and he could not get any result as promised by the Ops he went to Vasan eye care on 10.02.11. The Doctor after examination issued a letter stating that the Complainant’s BVCA in RE was 6/60 with PH 6/24. The Op after conducting surgery cited above issued star surgical patient information giving details about the lens and its powers. The Ops though they are aware that the BVCA in RE was 6/60 with PH 6/24 the same has not been done there by Complainant exposed to great hardship and injury besides being mental agony which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The Complainant suspected the treatment of the Op in making necessary power corrections and caused immense shock and mental agony besides being exposed to great inconvenience apart from heavy monitory loss. He was unable to find any changes in his vision when compared to pre-surgery period. The Complainant left with no alternative than to search for better hospital to take treatment. The Complainant visited Narayana Nethralaya a super speciality hospital situated at Hosur road, Bengaluru and obtained quotation for Rs.18,000/- to overcome Complainant’s problem of flashers and floaters and power correction. The Complainant also obtained quotation from Vasan eye care situated at Jayanagar, Bengaluru for conducting surgery charges for RE EPI Lasik for Rs.20,000/-. The Complainant obtained the same since he had bitter experience in the past. The Complainant further submits that, once again he visited Ops on 09.02.11 with a history of floaters, no improvement in vision in the RE. The Ops to its duty doctor made through checkup and noticed that the vision in right eye is 6/12 N_10. He also complained about pain in right eye and also explained about the earlier surgery. He was asked to come in the month of March 2011 for further review and the Op prescribe medicines towards treatment. On 04.03.11, when the Complainant visited Ops and once again complied about poor ICL in his right eye. He was also referred to Refractive department. On 13.06.11, Complainant visited Op with a history of blurred vision, cloudiness in RE. The Op opined for lasik treatment and observed RE power as 6/12. The Complainant further submits that, he was admitted to Ops with a complaint of floaters and flashes on the right eye and same was not at all reduced even after surgery as promised by Ops and inspite of spending huge sums of money and underwent mental agony. The Complainant further submits that, he could not able to tolerate the negligence meted by Ops, made several representations and finally Complainant left with no alternative and went for second opinion and he was shocked to know that the problem of Complainant can be cured by conducting EPI Lasik Laser in Right Eye and the total amount will be Rs.20,000/- as per the estimation given by Vasan eye care. He also went to Narayana Netralaya and they also opined about the same and the cost would be Rs.18,000/-. The Complainant left with no alternative than to lodge a complaint with the KMC. KMC registered the complaint lodged by this Complainant and found that the act of the Ops is professional negligence and violation of code of Medical ethics amounts to deficiency of service prima facially.  Further KMC issued notice Op dtd.28.11.12 for which Op replied and has taken unattainable grounds. The KMC communicated to the Complainant requesting to send comments to the counter filed by the Ops. Further, the Complainant issued legal notice dtd.07.01.03 for which also Op replied on 19.01.13 and have taken unattainable grounds. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.1 to 4 did appear and filed version denying the contents of the complaint. The sum and substance of the version of the Ops are that, the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence liable to be dismissed.  The Op further submits that, the Complainant had visited the hospital on 24.12.09 for the correction if his High Myopia in the right eye. He was earlier operated at some other hospital for recurrent retinal detachment in his left eye and had only 6/60p visual acuity. The Complainant had a pathological (Degenerative) myopia in the right eye with a refractive error of 22.ODS/-3.ODC/50 improving only to 6/30. The Complainant also had a posterior staphyloma and myopic macular degeneration in the right eye. By stating that he had only -13.0 DS in his right eye, the Complainant is misleading this forum.  The Op further submits that, the Complainant had floaters in the right eye owing to the degenerative myopia and the corresponding degeneration in the vitreous humor. It is a common knowledge that there is no treatment for the floaters of vitreous degeneration. It was never promised to the Complainant that the treatment is being done for his floaters. The Complainant was suggested about the Toric ICL treatment for the right eye to reduce his total dependency on spectacles or contact lenses. The Complainant underwent Toric ICL treatment for the right eye on 29.01.10 after thoroughly understanding the informed consent and also knowing fully-well that the maximum powered toric ICL available has been implanted in his right eye and that since his myopia was higher than the maximum available power, he will have to use either corrective spectacles for the residual power or later on undergo Lasik. The Complainant’s best spectacle corrected visual acuity improved to 6/12p after toric ICL treatment of the right eye and it is submitted that it is the eye operated in the hospital that the patient is currently using for his normal activities. The post-operative consultations were all done free of cost as the fees provided by the Complainant included ICL cost (imported from Star company Switzerland) surgery charges etc.,  The Op further submits that, they would also like to bring to the notice that other named hospital in Bengaluru also might have given the same opinion regarding the residual error in the right eye as was given by the Op hospital at different visits of the Complainant under different disguises. On 09.02.11 the Complainant came to Op hospital and registered as a different patient with a different outpatient and gave a wrong history that he was operated for ICL at Arvind eye hospital and wanted a second opinion.  This is only with malafide intention to alter medical records and with an intention to create a problem to the Op hospital. The illegal intention of the Complainant could be gauged from his illegal act and action. The Complainant is dissatisfied because he has some floaters in the operated eye and some residual power. It has been explained to him on all his post operative visits, that there is no cure for floatrs and the surgery was done to reduce his high myopia and even before the surgery it was informed that he will have to wear some glasses for residual power. Even two years after the operation, the Complainant is doing very well with a vision of 6/12 in the eye operated in the Op hospital and he is managing all his daily activities with this and Complainant never approached Op for a complaint of floaters and flashers as alleged. In fact as stated by the Complainant himself, he has improved vision and the power is reduced considerably from pre-operation now because there is some floaters and flashes this baseless complaint is filed and there is no remedy to floaters whether he is operated anywhere on the earth. It is not the case of the Complainant that the other hospitals have opined that the operation conducted by the Op is either incorrect and there is negligence etc., The Op further submits that, there is no operative or post-operative complications and there is no negligence either during the operation or in the post- operative period from the side of the doctors of Op hospital and the patient has got a benefit from the operation, as his power has got reduced from -22D to -2D and his vision has also improved from 6/30 to 6/12 inspite of his very high degenerative myopia and till his last consultation he has been enjoying the benefit of the surgery. The question of collecting exorbitant charges is totally baseless and the amounts are collected as per the charges as was prevailing on that date. The operation underwent by the Complainant is not covered by Yashasvini scheme. The Op has neither claimed any benefit from the Government for having conducted the operation and the question of the demanding any additional amount does not arise and the same is made with ulterior motive and is totally absurd. The Complainant is entitled to seek such benefits from the Government in this regard if he is entitled under any scheme. The Op further submits that, the Complainant was given an estimate of the said operative procedure before the surgery and also that the full surgery charges have not been paid by the Complainant and is still due to the Op hospital. The Complainant is trying to make out that the operation was conducted for floaters and the operation conducted by the Op was not for clearance of floaters and was never promised as alleged at any point of time. However it is relevant mention here that, the Complainant is now prosecuting a complaint against the Op before the KMC by filing a complaint under the provisions of the Karanataka medical Registration Act and the Complainant has not averred this aspect of taking second opinions from Vasan eye care, Narayana nethralaya and Manipal hospital at all and no documents are produced before the KMC. The Op has entered appearance and matter is under inquiry and the statement of objections is filed. Merely issuing notice by the KMC does not constitute negligence or professional misconduct. The retina review is a regular procedure and regular review of retina is a routine to all patients who suffer from high myopia even if it is corrected by undergoing operations. The Op hospital and its doctors have not caused any professional negligence nor violated any code of medical ethics as the hospital has provided the applicable standard of care to the patient preoperatively, intra-operatively and postoperatively.  The Op further submits that, it caused detailed reply to the notice of Complainant on untenable grounds. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced 36 documents. Chairman and Managing Director of Op hospital filed affidavit evidence and produced 11 documents. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief sought for ?    
2. What order ?

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have in detail stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by Ops. The undisputed facts which reveals from the pleadings of the parties goes to show that, the Complainant has approached Op hospital and got operated of his right eye. As he is not satisfied, he approached Manipal hospital as well as Vasan Eye Care. None of the doctors come to the conclusion that, so called operation/treatment given by the doctors of Op hospital is sub-standard or else medical negligence. The entire allegations of the Complainant is that, so called surgery conducted by the Op does not met out its purpose as the floaters of vitreous degeneration. In this context, the version of Op is that it is common knowledge that there is no treatment for the floaters of vitreous degeneration

 

          8. At the time of filing this complaint, it is evident that, an enquiry before Karnataka Medical Council (hereinafter referred as KMC) was pending on the basis of the complaint filed by the Complainant herein. This fact has been stated by the Complainant in para 19 & 20 of his complaint. On receipt of the complaint, KMC forwarded copies furnished by the Complainant along with notice to the Ops and asked for explanation as there is prima facie case of “Professional negligence and Violation of code of Medical ethics” which can be seen at document no.22 produced by the Complainant. In response to it, Ops replied to the said notice issued by Registrar of KMC which can be seen on going through the document no.23 furnished by the Complainant. With regard to the allegations made by the Complainant is concerned, Ops have sent their comments.

 

          9. We noticed that, during the pendency of this complaint, the KMC has set the law in to motion by way of enquiry under the rules and regulations of KMC. For just disposal of this case, we wanted to know the reasons recorded by the KMC by its order dtd.12.12.15 in enquiry no.43/2012 for exonerate the Ops. The said order is well reasoned order, hence we wanted to extract the said order reads thus:

 

On 13.12.12 reply letter of Nethradhama hospital stated that Respondent no.2 Dr.Nandini is not a doctor and is only a refractive counselor and also at present not an employee of Nethradhama hospital. During the KMC proceedings dtd.19.12.13 Respondent’s advocated stated that R(2) Dr.Nandini is a non-medical person. She left the job. Complainant’s advocate agreed. Council decided to delete R(2)’s name from the respondent’s list.

History of the case: Mr.Anand.C.B, had retinal detachment of left eye and he was undergoing treatment for the same at Manipal hospital, Bengaluru. For the treatment of his right eye which had also vision problem, for better treatment of right eye, he thought of consulting at Nethradhama hospital, Bengaluru, which had Yashaswini scheme for beneficiaries. Mr.Anand was examined at Nethradhama hospital and they diagnosed that the left eye has retinal detachment, for the treatment of right eye respondent was given estimate of Rs.75,000/-. In right eye patient was experiencing floaters and according to this complaint, he had power of -13. Nethradhama hospital assured the Complainant to give proper treatment. They had told him about Toric ICL (imported from Switzerland). Patient agreed for the same and along with Yashaswini benefit Complainant paid Rs.63,000/- to hospital. The cost of the Toric ICL procedure is not included in the Yashasvini scheme.

Mr.Anand.C.B underwent treatment at Respondent’s hospital on 29.01.10 and was discharged on 30.01.10. Even after surgery according to the Complainant vision has not improved. He is experiencing persistent floaters and pain in right eye. Subsequently Complainant went for consultation of right eye at Narayana Nethralaya and Vasan eye care, in both the hospitals he was advised to undergo Epi Lasik surgery for residual power.

Mr.Anand.C.B alleges that Nethradhama hospital has not treated him properly, hence Complainant alleges medical negligence and for having collected money even though he was under Yashaswini scheme is a violation of code of medical ethics.

Respondent in his reply had submitted that Mr.Anand had consulted at Nethradhama hospital on 24.12.09 for correction of high myopia in the right eye. For his left eye he had undergone treatment in different hospitals for the retinal detachment. He has got vision of only 6/60 in left eye.

Mr.Anand had a pathological (degenerative) myopia in right eye, with refractive error of 22.ODS/-3.ODC/50. Improving only upto 6/30. He also had posterior staphyloma and myopic macular degeneration in the vitreous humor. Whereas Complainant had stated in his complaint that he has only vision of -13.ODS myopia in his right eye, he is misleading the council. Patient had floaters owing to degenerative vitreous humor. There is no treatment for floaters and degeneration of vitreous. Respondent has stated that he has never treatment for floaters. Patient was suggested to undergo Toric ICL treatment (phakic IOL implanted inside in front of crystalline lens) or should have contact lens which will reduce dependency on spectacles. Patient underwent Toric ICL treatment on 29.01.10 after giving consent and was counselled about need for corrective spectacles or he should undergo Lasik procedure on cornea for reducing residual power.

The patient had improvement in vision which was corrected up to 6/12P after Toric ICL treatment. The patient is not satisfied because he has persistent floaters even after surgery and he has residual power.

There was no post-operative complication, hence respondent submits that there is no medical negligence while treating Mr.Anand.C.B.

Patient’s power of glasses reduced from -22D to -2D and vision had improved from 6/30 to 6/12 inspite of very high degenerative myopia.

Discussion: Mr.Anand.C.B has two aspects in his complaint against Dr.Sri.Ganesh and Nethradhama hospital.

1. About medical negligence – after going through records, case sheets, affidavits and cross examinations, it is made out that Mr.Anand.C.B had pathological myopia due to degeneration of retina. He had very high myopia -22D to correct such high myopia intra ocular contact lenses are suitable. He was counselled for implantation of Toric ICL and about residual power which may require Epi lasik procedure or corrective spectacles. Respondent has not made any claim regarding treatment of floaters. Complainant claim about gaining better vision after undergoing treatment at Vasan eye hospital is because of second procedure after Toric ICL, that is Epilasik procedure. Need for the same was told by the respondent during counselling and while taking consent.

2. About collecting money of Rs.63,000/- even though he was under Yashaswini scheme, thus violated of code of medical ethics. Respondent has submitted that intraocular contact lense (Toric ICL) is not under Yashaswini scheme. Patient was counselled about cost of treatment. Patient has also willingly paid Rs.63,000/-. Estimate was given for Rs.75,000/- (discounted under Yashaswini scheme). Respondent has submitted details of counselling and details regarding payment of money by the Complainant.

 

ORDER

 

After perusal of affidavits, documents, cross examinations, written arguments, Karnataka Medical Council unanimously decided to ‘dismiss’ the complaint and exonerate respondents (1) (3) as there is no negligence and violation of code of medical ethics.

 

10. If the entire contents of the said order is strictly construed, one thing is clear that, name of Op.no.3 herein (Op.no.2 therein) has been deleted from the Op’s list since she is a non-medical person and she left the job. The findings recorded by KMC by its order dtd.12.12.15 in enquiry no.43/2012 is not challenged by the Complainant herein. So the said order passed by the KMC is reached its finality.

 

11. Karnataka Medical Council has been constituted under Karnataka Act no.34/1961 which is the Statutory Body consisting of its President Dr.Sri.H.Veerabhadrappa, Vice President Dr.Sri.Kanchi Prahlad.V. and Registrar Dr.Sri.B.P.S.Murthy who appears to be experts in medical filed. The KMC has already exonerated the Ops. The said order is not yet challenged, hence it reached its finality. Under such circumstances, we have no any second opinion to go against the findings recorded by the KMC. Hence, this forum has taken judicial note that, the Complainant without any bodies assistant much less the stick prescribed to the blind/semi blind persons, entered this forum and actively participated. Hence, we come to the conclusion that, complaint filed by the Complainant is misconceived, hence liable to be dismissed having no merits in it. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

  

12. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed, devoid of any merits

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

         

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 10^th August 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.C.B.Anand, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

 

 

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc.no.1	Yashasvini card
Doc.no.2	Original income certificate
Doc.no.3	Original medical record of Op
Doc.no.4 to 10	Seven receipts for Rs.63,600/-
Doc.no.11	Original scan
Doc.no.12	Original case summary
Doc.no.13	Letter of Vasan eye care
Doc.no.14	Original information
Doc.no.15	Original quotation
Doc.no.16	Original scan
Doc.no.17	Estimation of Vasan eye care
Doc.no.18	Entire case sheet
Doc.no.19 & 20	Two bills
Doc.no.21	Complaint
Doc.no.22	Notice by KMC
Doc.no.23	Reply by Op to KMC
Doc.no.24	Letter dtd.06.12.12
Doc.no.25	Comments of Complainant
Doc.no.26	Legal notice dtd.07.01.13
Doc.no.27	Reply notice by Op
Doc.no.28	Report as per Manipal hospital and discharge summary
Doc.no.29	Discharge summary dtd.09.10.12
Doc.no.30 & 31	Two discharge summary dtd.28.05.08, 24.02.09
Doc.no.32	Discharge summary dtd.21.05.14
Doc.no.33 & 34	Two bills
Doc.no.35	Discharge summary dtd.14.07.17
Doc.no.36	Medical documents

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Dr.Sri.Ganesh, who being the Chairman & Managing Director of Op hospital was examined.

 

 

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

Doc.no.1	Notice to KMC dtd.13.12.12 along with the bills
Doc.no.2	Test caption dtd.01.10.12
Doc.no.3	Letter to KMC dtd.06.12.12
Doc.no.4	Notice to Complainant
Doc.no.5	ODP sheet dtd.24.12.09
Doc.no.6	Case sheet 2 nos.
Doc.no.7	Corneal topography
Doc.no.8	Lens power calculation dtd.11.01.10
Doc.no.9	Discharge summary dtd.30.01.10
Doc.no.10	Discharge summary dtd.24.02.09
Doc.no.11	Original Order of KMC dtd.12.12.15

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT