DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 942/2014
Date of Institution 27/10/2014
Order reserved on 26/09/2016
Date of Order 27/09/2016
In matter of
Mr Subhash Bhatia , adult
R/o- 194/ 5 D, Bholanath Nagar
Shahdara, Delhi 110032…….…………..…..………..……………….Complainant
Vs
M/s Sharp Sight Lasar Centre Pvt Ltd
Through its Directors
81, Defence Enclave,
Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 …………….…………….…….…….……Respondent
Complainant’s Advocate……………………………Inperson
Opponent’s Advocate ..……….……………………M/s Neo Juris
Quorum …….Sh Sukhdev Singh …….. President
Dr P N Tiwari ………..Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur ……….Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief ….
This complaint had been filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the alleged medical deficiency against the OP hospital in ophthalmic surgery, a branch of medical practice, in an old case of left Eye Cataract, by complainant, where the said cataract operation was done by a MS Ophthalmology doctor in OP hospital. The outcome was explained before cataract operation. As OP hospital was a main party, so on the basis of facts and merit, case was decided.
Facts of the case
Complainant, had history of gradual diminution of distant vision in his left eye for the last 3-4 years, and was under the treatment from OP since 2010. Complainant underwent cataract operation of left eye on 18/07/2013. He paid hospital bill of a sum of RS 13,658/-.
Complainant stated that after the operation, he had problem in operated eye so he told OP doctor that there was no relief in his eye. He was referred to Retinal specialist as he had visual problem (macular degeneration) in the inner part of eye, Retina. Complainant also took advice from other hospitals, where also he did not get satisfactory response due to his retinal degeneration, so filed this complaint claiming compensation a sum of Rs 6 Lac for loss of vision in left eye and a sum of Rs one Lac as mental harassment.
After scrutinizing the facts and evidences, notice was served. OP hospital submitted its written statement and denied all the allegations put by the complainant. OP submitted that their hospital had all the latest equipments and qualified staff. Their all treatment documents were computerized. OP stated that latest eye technologies like Femto Laser surgery for cataract operation, Vitreo Retinal surgeries were present and all the surgeries were done by super specialist eye surgeons. OP state that complainant had not submitted many vital facts and suppressed intentionally before this Forum.
OP stated that complainant had maccular spot in his left eye in 2010 and progress was explained then, and in subsequent follow up also. After 2010, complainant did not come for his eye check up.
In June 2013, he came for his visual check up for his left eye. After examination, it was explained that he had mature cataract in left eye. Thereafter, he was referred to retinal surgeon, who advised laser treatment for macular spot in left eye.
After detailed examination by retinal surgeon and explaining the progression of vision in his left eye was mainly by the degenerated spot in retina which was causing loss of vision, as per annexure R2, but no consent was given for laser treatment and he insisted for cataract operation in his left eye.
He also stated that he had under gone Rt eye cataract operation about two year back elsewhere and his Rt eye was functioning well. So, after giving consent, left eye cataract operation was done as Phacoemulsification with PCIOL. At this stage his Rt eye had also diminished vision. The operation of cataract as IOL was successful but complainant was not satisfied. Even after retinal surgeon reference, he did not agreed for laser treatment. As per annexure R6-A, left eye cataract was done and after surgery, his vision did not improve and again laser surgery was advised by the laser surgeon. He continued his follow up visits up to Nov, 2014, as per annexure R 9-B.
Rejoinder and evidences on affidavit were filed by complainant. OP also filed their evidences on affidavit which were on record. No related medical literatures were submitted by both the parties.
Arguments were heard and order was reserved.
We have gone through all the facts and evidences submitted before us. On analyzing facts and evidence which were on record, we came to conclusion on under mentioned points as –
- Whether the detail general condition of complainant was noted and examined in detail before cataract operation and other required formalities like lab tests and reference from other specialist was taken?
- Whether future vision progress was ever explained to complainant?
- Whether OP was negligent at any point of time in operating for left eye cataract operation?
Point no. 1-
We have gone through all the evidences filed from complainant’s first OPD visit to last follow up visit. It had been observed that treating doctor had explained and noted all the facts in the prescription. It was noted that left eye cataract surgery would not help much till laser surgery “YAG” not done. A regular advice for retinal surgery was given by treating doctor as per annexures on record. Hence, there was no deficiency or negligence seen in the process of examination, advice and after effect of Left Eye cataract.
Point no. 2..
The complainant was regularly referred to Laser treatment advice from Laser specialist but complainant did not consented. It was noted that till Nov.18,2014, advice continued and no treatment was advised thereafter by the laser surgeon. Future progress was explained to complainant at number of times, there was no deficiency in the process of examination and advice.
Point no. 3…
Alleged negligence of a treating doctor had to be seen in ref to the Honble Supreme Court citation Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab & other-(2005)6SCC1 where it was held that a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.
Here, in this case, no such short comings were noted.
We also took the reference of Kusum Sharma vs Batra Hospital-(2010) 3 SCC.
It was observed that “negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duty with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession”.
Here, we have seen that the procedure adopted by the treating doctor was as per the standard operative protocol accepted in the cataract surgery by all such professionals. Hence, there was no deficiency and negligence seen in the procedure of operation and also no deficiency was seen in OP hospital in reference to staff, infrastructures and availability of all required state of Art equipments for such surgeries.
By taking merits on facts and evidences of case, we pass the following order—
The complainant has failed to prove deficiency and negligence of treating doctor and simultaneously of OP hospital by any concrete evidence or by any related medical literature. Hence, this complaint deserves to be dismissed, so the complaint is dismissed without any cost.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur (Dr) P N Tiwari
Member Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh
President
