DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.240 of 31-05-2010 Decided on 25-04-2011
Amarjit Singh, Head Constable No.536/MNS, aged about 43 years, son of Bakhtaur Singh son of Jawahar Singh, resident of VPO Dullowal, PS Kot Dharmu, District Mansa. .......Complainant
Versus Sra Eye Hospital, Vitreo-Retina Centre, Deep Complex, near ICICI Bank, G.T.Road, Bathinda- 151001, through its Prop. Dr. J.S.Sra. Dr.J.S.Sra, M.S.Eye Surgeon, Prop., Sra Eye Hospital Vitreo-Retina Centre, Deep Complex, Near ICICI Bank, G.T.Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Prop. Dr.J.S.Sra. National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.305-206, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh-160022, through its Branch Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.H.S.Khosa, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sandeep Baghla, counsel for opposite party Nos.1&2. Sh.M.R.Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant-Amarjit Singh met with an accident on 07.04.2008 while driving his motor cycle on his way back to home from his duty and he was taken to Civil Hospital, Mansa for treatment. He was referred to the hospital of Dr.Dinesh Gupta at Bathinda where he remained admitted for 16-17 days and underwent medical treatment. The DDR No.16 dated 12.04.2008 was lodged for the accident. The complainant suffered loss of vision of his left eye and he was got checked up medically form the Civil Hospital, Mansa. Thereafter, he approached the opposite party No.2 for the treatment of his effected eye. Dr.Sra examined the left eye of the complainant and advised him to undergo operation in his hospital for restoration of vision of his left eye. Dr.J.S.Sra assured the complainant that after operation, the vision of his left eye will be restored. Under bona fide belief, the complainant agreed to undergo the operation of his eye and accordingly, on 20.06.2008, his left eye was operated at opposite party No.1 by the opposite party No.2. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- for his treatment alongwith medicines. On 21.06.2008, the complainant was discharged from the opposite party No.1 by the opposite party No.2. After operation, the treatment of the complainant under the opposite party No.2 continued and in the post operation period, the operated eye of the complainant developed central corneal ulcer and he approached the opposite party No.2 on 06.09.2008 for treatment. After checking the eye, the opposite party No.2 referred the complainant to PGI, Chandigarh/Dr.D.C.Bansal, Patiala/Dr.Ashok at Chandigarh. The complainant approached Dr.D.C.Bansal of Patiala for treatment of his left eye who started the treatment of his left eye. On 10.09.2008, Dr.D.C.Bansal informed the complainant verbally that the vision of his left eye cannot be restored. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and showed him the report of Dr.D.C.Bansal but Dr.J.S.Sra assured the complainant that vision of his eye will be restored and he prescribed him some medicines but to no avail though the treatment of Dr.J.S.Sra continued. On 30.01.2009, the complainant went to Baba Bihari Netralaya, Sirsa for treatment of his left eye but the Surgeon informed that his left eye cannot be cured. On 12.04.2009, the complainant got checked his left eye at Bareta Hospital and on 13.04.2009 he went to Ludhiana for transplantation of his left eye from Dr. Ramesh from Eye Bank but Dr.Ramesh informed him that eye cannot be transplanted on him due to some negligence of the Surgeon at the time of conducting operation on his eye which has caused tremendous damage. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 who kept on treating him medically with the assurance that his eye sight will be restored. The complainant alleged that the opposite party was grossly negligent while surgically operating the left eye of the complainant and he did not take due care as was expected from him at the time of operation to avoid damage to the eye. The vision of his eye could not be restored even after undergoing operation on the same by spending huge amount. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have filed their separate written statement and pleaded that the opposite party Nos.1&2 have performed their duty as a medical practitioner with due diligence, reasonable and proper care, skill and as per the experience available with him. The opposite party Nos.1&2 had adopted Standard and acceptable medical procedure to treat and cure the complainant in the circumstances. The opposite party is qualified in the field and has performed numerous surgeries of Eye during his experience of 13 years to the utter satisfaction of the patients. The opposite party had passed his MBBS from Grant Medical College, Bombay and had passed his Post Graduate Degree i.e. M.S. (Opthalmology) form Pune University and thereafter he had also served at Sohan Singh Hospital, Amritsar for approximately 2 years. Even the opposite party has bagged many Awards for his excellence in the said field and has been delivering the medical literature on the subject of Eye in the various conferences so held by the medical men from time to time. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Hon'ble Forum had sought an independent medical opinion with respect to the allegations in the complaint from the Medical Board at Civil Hospital, Bathinda. The Medical Board had submitted a report to Hon'ble Forum confirming the fact that the opposite party Nos.1&2 have given treatment to the complainant as per the norms and accepted principles of medical sciences and it is the complainant who has been negligent in his post operative care with respect to the eye in question. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complainant has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the 'Act'. The complainant had taken treatment from Dr.Dinesh Gupta and approached the opposite parties complaining about the left eye and the opposite parties had thoroughly examined the said eye and it was the case of Partial Rhegmetagenous Retinal Detachment with Vitreous Haemorrhage (left eye). The opposite parties had not assured that with the operation, the vision will be restored rather the prognosis was explained to the complainant had been severe and his orbital bones were fracture and the Ratina on the left eye had been torn at multiple places. The complainant was duly explained the procedure of the operation to be performed on the said eye of the complainant. The risk involved, the potential complications which had been understood and admitted by the complainant. He had signed the consent Form on 20.06.2008 for the operation. After understanding the same, he had voluntarily opted to undergo operation of the said eye. It was the case of Retinal detachment with vitreous haemorrhage as the Retina was torn up at multiple places. The opposite party Nos.1&2 had performed the operation on the left eye as per accepted standard procedure i.e.Vitrectomy, Fluid Air Exchange, with endo laser. The Trans-Scleral Cryopexy + Silicon Oil injection was performed in order to support the Retina. The said operation was performed under asceptic conditions with all sterilized instruments treated with ETO (Ethylene Oxide) and the operation was performed successfully and the Retina was attached. The opposite parties have admitted that they have charged Rs.20,000/- for the operation on 21.06.2008. The slit lamp examination of the left eye was conducted and the media was found to be clear. Even the test of finger tension was found to be normal and patient was discharged and he was completely explained about the post operative care and treatment to be taken at the time of discharge on 21.06.2008. the complainant was advised the following Eye drops :- Gatiquin P Eye Drop One hourly Atropine Eye Drop 1-1 The complainant was also advised for the follow-up as the Silicon Oil was to be removed from the Eye. The complainant approached the opposite parties on 28.08.2008 for the removal of Silicon Oil and the Standard procedure for the same had been followed by the opposite parties. After the procedure of removal of the Silicon Oil, the complainant remained admitted upto 29.08.2008 and advised to take care of left eye and also advised Eye Drops which are written at the back of the Discharge Slip, so issued to the complainant i.e. Gatiquin P Eye Drop 1-1-1-1 and Atropine Eye Drop 1-1, Lacrigel/Cornigel ointment Eye Drop – At night (for protection of eye against Lagopthalmos). On 06.09.2008, the complainant had visited the opposite parties, complaining of pain for about week in the left eye. On examination, there was a large Mycotic central corneal ulcer. The corneal scraping was done at the Bikaner Lab for investigation and it was reported by the said Lab that there is presence of gram negative bacteria (Polymorphonuclear cells) and fungus in the 'Cornea'. The Corneal ulcer had been duly highlighted by the opposite parties in the diagram so made on the prescription slip dated 06.09.2008. Since, the complainant had sustained accident injuries leading to Lagophtalmos i.e. facial palsy that had been the cause of Corneal Ulcer but the same had nothing to do with the surgical procedure of Retinal attachment and it was an altogether different entity developed due to the said facial palsy by the complainant. Further, the complainant was himself negligent for not approaching the opposite parties or any other Opthalmology as he had been suffering from pain in the eye for the last about one week and he never cared to get the eye examined thereby resulting in a large Central Ulcer, he approached the opposite parties on 06.09.2008. As per the record produced by the complainant, he had visited Dr.Bansal on 10.09.2008, although he had been advised to immediately consult the said referred doctors and there had been a considerable and material delay on the part of the complainant. According to prescription slip dated 10.09.2008, the same had been followed as prescribed by the opposite parties. However, there is no such alleged report that the vision of the eye cannot be restored. The complainant was advised the formal medicine for the same i.e. Elmicinzocon 5 times Vigamox one hourly Atropine Eye Drop 2 times He was further referred for opinion/advise and treatment to PGI, Chandigarh or Dr.D.C.Bansal, Patiala or Dr.Ashok Sharma, Chandigarh. The complainant had revisited the opposite parties on 29.09.2008 and he was prescribed the standard treatment for the said suffering which was basically the follow up treatment of the Eye in the said circumstances and keeping into consideration the condition of the eye as the complainant had been himself negligent at the material point of time when the Corneal ulcer had developed. The Corneal Ulcer had no connection with the procedure of Retinal attachment so performed by the opposite parties and they are altogether different parts of the eye and the cause of the Corneal Ulcer was facial palsy even as per the report submitted by the Medical Board. The complication had been developed solely due to Corneal Ulcer that it had no connection to the procedure of Retinal operation performed by the opposite parties. The complainant had developed phthisis bulbi (very low intra-ocular pressure) due to perforated Corneal Ulcer. 3. The opposite party No.3 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the opposite party No.2 has obtained doctors professional indemnity policy w.e.f. 03.03.2010 to 02.03.2011 from the opposite party No.3 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and liability the opposite party No.3 is limited to Rs.4,00,000/- in one accident to indemnify the insured during the policy period. Insurance Company is only liable subject to proof of negligence and non-violation of terms and conditions of Doctors Professional Indemnity Policy as per above said policies by the opposite party No.2. The Doctors Professional Negligence Indemnity Policy is to indemnify the insured in case any negligence is proved against the insured doctor and when the insured doctor had paid the awarded amount to the complainant, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant in any manner if any negligence of the opposite party No.2 is proved. The liability of the Insurance Company is to indemnify the insured when they have deposited the compensation amount in the Court. As per the version of the opposite party Nos.1&2, the opposite party No.2 performed the operation on the left eye as per accepted standard procedure successfully and the Ratina was attached. After the operation, the slit lamp examination of the left eye was conducted and the media was found to be clear. The test of finger tension was found to be normal and the complainant was discharged as he was completely explained about the post operative care and treatment to be taken at the time of discharge. The complainant was further advised to follow the treatment and take proper care about the left eye but on 06.09.2009, the complainant had visited the opposite party No.2 complaining of pain for about week back in the left eye. On examination, there was found a large mycotic central corneal ulcer. The corneal scarping was done at the Bikaner Lab for investigation and it was reported by the said Lab that there is presence of gram negative bacteria (polymorphonuclear cells) and fungus in the cornea. The corneal ulcer had been duly highlighted by the opposite party No.2 in the diagram so made on the prescription slip dated 06.09.2008. Since, the complainant had sustained accident injuries leading to Legophthaimos i.e. facial palsy that it had been the cause of corneal ulcer but the same had nothing to do with the surgical procedure of Retinal attachment and it was an altogether different entity developed due to the said facial palsy by the complainant. 4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant met with an accident on 07.04.2008 while driving his motor cycle and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Mansa for treatment and was referred to the hospital of Dr.Dinesh Gupta at Bathinda where he remained for 16-17 days and underwent treatment. With regard to accident, DDR No.16 dated 12.04.2008 was lodged. The complainant suffered loss of vision of his left eye and he was got checked up form the Civil Hospital, Mansa. Thereafter, he approached the opposite party No.2 for the treatment of his affected eye. Dr.Sra after examining his left eye, advised him to undergo operation in his hospital for restoration of vision of his left eye and assured the complainant that after operation, the vision of his left eye will be restored. The complainant was got operated on 20.06.2008 for his left eye at opposite party No.1 by the opposite party No.2 and he paid Rs.20,000/- in cash for medical expenses etc. He was discharged on 21.06.2008. Thereafter, the complainant got continuous post-operative treatment from the opposite party No.2. The operated eye of the complainant developed central corneal ulcer and he again approached the opposite party No.2 on 06.09.2008 for treatment. After checking the one eye, the opposite party No.2 referred the complainant to PGI, Chandigarh/ Dr. D.C.Bansal, Patiala/Dr. Ashok at Chandigarh. The complainant approached Dr.D.C.Bansal of Patiala for treatment of his left eye. On 10.09.2008, he was informed verbally that the vision of his left eye cannot be restored. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and showed him the report of Dr.D.C.Bansal but Dr.J.S.Sra assured him that vision of his eye will be restored and he prescribed him some medicines but to no avail. On 30.01.2009, the complainant went to Baba Bihari Netralaya, Sirsa for treatment of his left eye but the Surgeon informed that his left eye cannot be cured. On 12.04.2009, he got checked his left eye at Bareta Hospital and thereafter, on 13.04.2009 he went to Ludhiana for transplantation of his left eye from Dr. Ramesh of Ludhiana from Eye Bank but the said Doctor told him that eye cannot be transplanted due to some negligence of the Surgeon at the time of conducting operation on his eye which has caused tremendous damage. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that till date, the vision of his eye could not be restored as the opposite parties were negligent in operation of his eye and did not take proper care. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1&2 has submitted that the complainant had approached the opposite parties complaining about his left eye who after thoroughly examining the said eye, observed that it was a case of Partial Rhegmetagenous Retinal Detachment with Vitreous Haemorrhage (left eye) but the opposite parties had never assured that with the operation, the vision will be restored rather the prognosis was explained to the complainant as his orbital bones were fractured and the Ratina on the left eye had been torn at multiple places. The complainant was duly explained the procedure of the operation to be performed on the said eye of the complainant. The risk involved, the potential complications which had been understood and admitted by the complainant who had signed the consent Form on 20.06.2008 for operation. After understanding the same, the complainant had voluntarily opted to undergo operation of the said eye as it was the case of Retinal detachment with vitreous haemorrhage as the Retina was tron up at multiple places. The opposite party Nos.1&2 had performed the operation on the left eye as per accepted standard procedure i.e.Vitrectomy, Fluid Air Exchange, with endo laser. The Trans-Scleral Cryopexy + Silicon Oil injection was performed in order to support the Retina. The said operation was performed under asceptic conditions with all sterilized instruments treated with ETO (Ethylene Oxide) and the operation was performed successfully and the Retina was attached. The opposite parties have admitted that they have charged Rs.20,000/- for the operation on 21.06.2008. The slit lamp examination of the left eye was conducted and the media was found to be clear. Even the test of finger tension was found to be normal and patient was discharged and he was completely explained about the post operative care and treatment to be taken at the time of discharge on 21.06.2008. the complainant was advised the following Eye drops :- Gatiquin P Eye Drop One hourly Atropine Eye Drop 1-1 The complainant was also advised for the follow-up as the Silicon Oil was to be removed from the Eye. The complainant approached the opposite parties on 28.08.2008 for the removal of Silicon Oil and the Standard procedure for the same had been followed by the opposite parties. After the procedure of removal of the Silicon Oil, the complainant remained admitted upto 29.08.2008 and he was further advised the care and treatment of left eye and advised Eye Drops written at the back of the Discharge Slip, so issued to the complainant. On 06.09.2008, the complainant had visited the opposite parties, complaining of pain for about week in the left eye. On examination, there was a large Mycotic central corneal ulcer. The corneal scraping was done at the Bikaner Lab for investigation and it was reported by the said Lab that there is presence of gram negative bacteria (Polymorphonuclear cells) and fungus in the 'Cornea'. The Corneal ulcer had been duly highlighted by the opposite parties in the diagram so made on the prescription slip dated 06.09.2008. Since, the complainant had sustained accident injuries leading to Lagophtalmos i.e. facial palsy that had been the cause of Corneal Ulcer but the same had nothing to do with the surgical procedure of Retinal attachment and it was an altogether different entity developed due to the said facial palsy by the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1&2 has further submitted that the complainant was himself negligent for not approaching the opposite parties or any other Opthalmologist as he had been suffering from pain in the eye for the last about one week and he never cared to get the eye examined thereby resulting in a large Central Ulcer, he approached the opposite parties on 06.09.2008. As per the record produced by the complainant, he had visited Dr.Bansal on 10.09.2008, although he had been advised to immediately consult the said referred doctors and there had been a considerable and material delay on the part of the complainant. As per prescription slip dated 10.09.2008, the same had been followed as prescribed by the opposite parties. There is no such alleged report that the vision of the eye cannot be restored. Thereafter, the complainant was advised the formal medicine for the same i.e. Elmicinzocon 5 times Vigamox one hourly Atropine Eye Drop 2 times The complainant was further referred for opinion/advise and treatment to PGI, Chandigarh or Dr.D.C.Bansal, Patiala or Dr.Ashok Sharma, Chandigarh. The complainant had revisited the opposite parties on 29.09.2008 and he was prescribed the standard treatment for the said suffering which was basically the follow up treatment of the Eye in the said circumstances and keeping into consideration the condition of the eye as the complainant had been himself negligent at the material point of time when the Corneal ulcer had developed. The Corneal Ulcer had no connection with the procedure of Retinal attachment so performed by the opposite parties and they are altogether different parts of the eye and the cause of the Corneal Ulcer was facial palsy even as per the report submitted by the Medical Board. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has further submitted that the opposite party No.2 had not been negligent at any time while conducting the operation. The complication had been developed due to Corneal Ulcer that it had no connection to the surgical procedure of Retina performed by the opposite parties. The complainant had developed phthisis bulbi (very low intra-ocular pressure) due to perforated Corneal Ulcer. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has submitted that the opposite party No.2 has obtained doctors professional indemnity policy w.e.f. 03.03.2010 to 02.03.2011 from the opposite party No.3 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and liability the opposite party No.3 is limited to Rs.4,00,000/- in one accident to indemnify the insured during the policy period. Insurance Company is only liable subject to proof of negligence of the opposite party No.2, subject to proof of non-violation of terms and conditions of Doctors Professional Indemnity Policy as per above said policies. The Doctors Professional Negligence Indemnity Policy is to indemnify the insured in case any negligence is proved against the insured doctor and when the insured doctor had paid the awarded amount to the complainant. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant in any manner if any negligence of the opposite party No.2 is proved. The liability of the Insurance Company is to indemnify the insured when they have deposited the compensation amount in the Court. Further, As per the version of the opposite party Nos.1&2, the opposite party No.2 performed the operation on the left eye as per accepted standard procedure successfully and the Ratina was attached. After the operation, the slit lamp examination of the left eye was conducted and the media was found to be clear. The test of finger tension was found to be normal and the complainant was discharged as he was completely explained about the post operative care and treatment to be taken at the time of discharge. The complainant was further advised to follow the treatment and take proper care about the left eye but on 06.09.2009, the complainant had visited the opposite party No.2 complaining of pain for about week back in the left eye. On examination, there was found a large mycotic central corneal ulcer. The corneal scarping was done at the Bikaner Lab for investigation and it was reported by the said Lab that there is presence of gram negative bacteria (polymorphonuclear cells) and fungus in the cornea. The corneal ulcer had been duly highlighted by the opposite party No.2 in the diagram so made on the prescription slip dated 06.09.2008. Since, the complainant had sustained accident injuries leading to Legophthaimos i.e. facial palsy that it had been the cause of corneal ulcer but the same had nothing to do with the surgical procedure of Retinal attachment and it was an altogether different entity developed due to the said facial palsy by the complainant. The complainant himself negligent for not approaching the opposite party No.2 or any other opthtalmologist as he had been suffering from pain in the eye for the last about one week and he never cared to get examined thereby resulting in the large central ulcer by the time, he approached the opposite party No.2. 9. A perusal of Ex.C-3 which is the report given by Omega Diagnostic Centre shows that :- “On bone window, there are seen multiple fractures involving the left nasal bone, medical and lateral walls of the left orbit and frontal process of the left zygomaticarch.” The complainant was operated by Dr. J.S.Sra vide Ex.C-4 and it has been written in the Medical file also that :- “VISION. It is normal for your vision to appear blurred or to change from day to day initially after surgery. Please be patient as your eye heals. ACTIVITIES. In the days and weeks following surgery, you may resume all of your normal physical activities.” 10. The Medical File of the complainant Ex.C-4 page 10 shows that the complainant was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh which is reproduced as under :- “The patient Amarjit Singh has been operated for Retinal detachment on 20.06.2008. The retina is on. Hence, silicon oil was removed on 28.08.08. He had closed Globe injury & traumatic cataract and partial Rtg. RD. OD. Today, he was come with central corneal ulcer. Kindly, do the needful.” At page No.13, it was advised to the patient Amarjit Singh that he has been operated for surgery of left eye on 20.06.2008. He has been advised strict bed rest for 10 days. As per Ex.C-4 page 30, it has been written by Dr. Mona Gurkiran Kaur, Patiala that the patient visited to her on 01.10.2008 resolved facial weakness. Dr. Ramesh Superspeciality Eye & Laser Centre has also referred the complainant back to Dr.J.S.Sra for reconsideration and follow up on 13.04.2009. The report of Gamma Scan & Path Lab vide page 37 shows that :- “No evidence of vitreous hemorrgage. There is present complete retinal detachment with detached parts forming V echoes in the region of ora seratta. No retrobutbar mass lesion seen in the orbit.” 11. The case of the complainant was referred to the Medical Board by this Forum for its opinion. The opinion given by the Medical Board is given as under :- “In our opinion, the patient had suffered from closed globe injury lef eye and had retinal detachment with lagopthalmos for which, he was treated by Dr.J.S.Sra. Later on he developed corneal ulcer leading to corneal perforation and subsequent to corneal opacity and total retinal detachment. The development of corneal ulcer is not as a result of the surgical procedure carried out but can be due to lagophthalmos. From the above facts Dr.J.S.Sra has given treatment to the patient Amarjit Singh as per norms and accepted principles of medical science.” 12. As per Medical Books produced by the counsel for the opposite parties i.e. Archives of Ophthalmology in which, it has been written that :- “Phthisis bulbi. Treatment of phthisis is generally considered hopeless. Aggressive treatment of intraocular inflamation in uveitis or avoiding too much cyclodestruction in glaucoma during the early stage with hypotony may delay or prevent the final cellapse. In some rare instances of chronic cyclodialysis or severe cyclitic membranes, a surgical approach has been reported to be of some value. In general, however, if the intraocular pressure is closed to 0, the eye is collapsed, the cornea is edematous, the lens is cataractous, the ocular volume is reduced to half or one third of the normal volume, and the ocular layers are correspondingly thickened, no treatment has to our knowledge, been effective in restoring vision.” As per Medical book 'severe peripheral corneal ulceration' page No.277 which is read as under :- “Treatment:- Even with treatment vision is reduced to light perception in about 18% of eyes. The response to both topical and systemic immunotherapy is poor. The results of corneal grafting are also unsatisfactory with recurrence of ulceration in the graft. A wide range of therapies has been reported. The following graded therapeutic strategy governed by the severity of the disease and the response to initial treatment is recommended.” 13. The Treating Doctor J.S.Sra i.e. opposite party No.2 is qualified in the field and has performed numerous surgeries of Eye. Moreover, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Forum had sought an independent medical opinion with respect to the allegations in the complaint from the Medical Board at Civil Hospital, Bathinda which is reproduced above. The Medical Board had submitted a report to this Forum confirming the fact that the opposite parties have given treatment to the complainant as per the norms and accepted principles of medical sciences means that there is no negligence on part of the opposite parties and the complainant was himself negligent in his post operative care with respect to the said eye as he himself admitted that he was suffering from pain for last week. If he had been suffering from pain, why he had not approached the opposite parties i.e. Dr.J.S.Sra earlier and why he waited for the condition of his eye to deteriorate. 14. A perusal of record placed on file shows that no doctor has opined that the operation with regard to Renina detachment resulted in failure. The Doctor has treated the patient with utmost care and has performed his duties and exercised the ordinary degree of profession skill with competence and in such circumstances, no doctor can be held guilty of medical negligence. The support can be sought by law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Dr.Satish C.Gupta Vs. Raj Kumar Narula, 2008(3)CPR 26(NC), wherein it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Medical negligence –Complainant approached OP 1 Doctor with diminishing vision in his left eye – OP diagnosed it a case of immature cataract and a small hole in retina and advised complainant to get operated first to be followed by cataract operation – OP 1conducted operation on yet another recurrence of retina detachment – OP 1 thereafter undertook vitrectomy and injected silicon oil – Complainant on diagnosis after 2 years found that he lost his vision due to poor surgical prognosis – Complaint on plea that OP 1 doctor was grossly negligent in not removing silicon oil for long 2-1/2 years because of which he developed may serious complications – Allowed by State Commission – Appeal – Best judgment of OP No.1 Doctor to first undertake retinal detachment surgery vis-a-vis cataract removal was the proper course – It had been opined by two eminent eye specialists that both operations could have been undertaken simultaneously – Hence OP Doctors could not be held deficient – Since conventional method of cryopexy and use of silicon oil was prevalent procedure at relevant time the allegation that pneumatic retinopexy should have been adopted was misplaced – Since it had not been pleaded in the complaint it was an after thought – The blame game with regard to delay in removal of silicon oil had to be viewed in the back drop of 2-1/2 years of complaints free condition enjoyed by complainant and he could not be held liable just because the treatment/operation did not result in the expected outcome – Nothing found against the OP No.1, Doctor to hold him either negligent or deficient in service.” Further the support can by sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Smt. Kamla Bai Pandey Vs. P.C.Dwivedi & Anr., 2009(1)CPR 200 (NC), wherein it has been held that :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(b), 2(1)(g) – Medical negligence – complainant aged 65 years developed cataract in both eyes and was advised operation by OP1 complainant's case that instead of operation of right eye, operation was carried out in her left eye – However operation proposed unsuccessful resulting in removal of left eye – Complaint alleging medical negligence – Allowed by District Forum – Appeal – Allowed by State Commission setting aside order of District Forum – Revision petition – Relying upon medical literature brought on record, after split lamp examination, when the pupils were diluted and doctor found that there was less vision in left eye, he operated upon left eye – Onus of proof was on complainant to prove as to what the doctor did which he should not have done, or what he should have done and he did not do – No expert evidence in support of contentions advanced by complainant – Complainant completely failed to prove case of medical negligence against respondent doctor – However respondent 1 doctor not only relied upon his evidence as a profession, he also backed it up by the medical literature, in support of time of treatment adopted by him – Revision petition having no merit, dismissed.” Further, the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble M.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in case titled Dr.Arvind Dubey Vs. N.S.Yadav and Ors., 2008(1)CPR 56, wherein it has been held that :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – Medical Negligence – Cataract operation – Piece of nucleus was left in vitreous of the eye and lens was put without removing the piece – Complainant operated again for removal of piece of nucleus – Loss of vision as complainant suffered retina detachment – Distt. Forum holding doctors negligent awarded compensation of Rs.4 Lacs –Appeal – Doctor had been practicing vitreo-retinal sub-speciality for 15 years and was M.S. Ophthalmology and was thus qualified to perform surgery – Dropping of nucleus into vitreous cavity was, according to medical literature was a known complication of phaco surgery – Retinal detachment could be due to a number of reasons – Treatment given to complainant was in accordance with standard treatment given for the ailment – Complications developed by complainant were not proved due to negligence on part of treating doctor – Impugned order was liable to be set aside.” 15. The opinion of the Medical Board which is an independent opinion of the Doctor has also opined that Dr.J.S.Sra has given treatment to Amarjit Singh-the complainant as per norms and accepted principles of medical sciences. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Shri K.L.Nijhawan and Anr. Vs. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, 2009(3) CPR 67(NC), wherein it has been held that :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Complaint alleging medical negligence on part of Ops in not providing necessary medical treatment to daughter of complainants – Dismissed by State Commission – Appeal – Daughter of complainants complained of general weakness and was treated by a local doctor who prescribed syrups and tonics – On complainant's daughter – becoming breathless was admitted in OP/hospital on advice of local doctor –Despite various tests and investigations she continued to complaint of weakness till her death –Medical Board in its report held that all the possible steps were taken by Ops keeping in mind the changing clinical profile of patient and prevailing current based established medical practice to arrive at a clinical diagnosis – Unambiguous conclusions of Medical Board in its report proved that medical negligence could not be established – Appeal dismissed.” 16. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel of the complainant, they are distinguishable on facts. 17. In view of what has been discussed above,this Forum concludes that there is no deficiency in service as no medical negligence is established against the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 18. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 25-04-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
