DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

C.C. No. 275 of 13-06-2012

Decided on 01-04-2013

Ranjit Kaur aged 65 years W/o Harnek Singh, R/o H. No. 28809, Gali No. 1, S.A.S Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Sra Eye Hospital, Near Hanuman Chowk, Opposite Omega Centre, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/MD/Partner

2. Dr. J S Sra of Sra Eye Hospital, Near Hanuman Chowk, Opposite Omega Centre, G.T. Road, Bathinda.

   .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

Counsel for opposite parties : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she approached opposite party No. 2 on 14-11-2011 for check-up as she was having acute pain in her right eye. The opposite party No. 2 gave assurance to the complainant that every thing would be done in a correct and accurate manner and she would improve within days and got Rs. 20,000/- as fees for the treatment besides the charges of medicine and tests. On 15-11-2011, after admitting her in his hospital i.e. opposite party No. 1 , the opposite party No. 2 operated the right eye of the complainant for cataract and put lens in it. The complainant was then shifted to the indoor hospital. On coming to the senses, the complainant felt acute pain and conveyed to opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 injected injection for relieving the pain. On the next day, the complainant was discharged from the hospital by opposite party No. 2 after injecting some pain killer from his clinic despite the fact that she was having acute pain and assured her that she would get relief from pain after consuming medicines which were given to her. The complainant did not feel any relief and on 17-11-011, she again visited the hospital of the opposite party who did some procedure after giving local anesthesia and sent her back to home. The complainant kept on visiting the opposite party No. 2 upto 24-11-2011, but did not feel any relief from pain. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 to save his skin started making lame excuses to get rid off the complainant and referred her to D.M.C. Ludhiana without handing over the original record or referral letter. The complainant alleged that she demanded the original record/reports, but the opposite parties refused to handover the same. Since the complainant was having acute pain and there was no vision in her right eye, she visited DMC, Ludhiana on 25-11-2011 wherein she was admitted and her treatment was started. The doctors of D.M.C. Ludhiana recorded the history of complainant wherein it was mentioned S/P cataract surgery of right eye done 15 days back. Complaint of pain and redness and decreased vision of right eye 15 days back. On examination and B-scan of ultrasound of right eye shows Vitreous exudates in the e vitreous cavity suggestive of Endophthalmitis right eye with underlying retinal detachment right eye. The doctors of D.M.C. Held ; there was pus cells ++. After admitting the patient, the D.M.C. Diagnosed Pseudophakia right eye, acute post operative endophthalmitis right eye. The IOL was removed from the right eye of the complainant and antibiotic injections were given to drain out the puss and control the inflammation. The complainant got treatment from Dr. Dinesh Garg of Advanced Centre for Eyes, Ludhiana till 16-12-2011. The complainant lost the vision of her right eye permanently due to the negligent surgery done by the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties concealed their negligence and wasted time by giving oral medicines and did not prescribe the same on the prescription slip. The opposite parties did not try to control the bacterial, inflammation which was cropped up during surgery and and even retinal detachment of right eye took place but the opposite party No. 2 never cared to treat it. This fact came into the notice of the complainant when she got treatment from D.M.C and Dr Dinesh Garg. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties failed to diagnose the problem and provide treatment according to the established line of treatment. The opposite party No. 1 gave false assurance that the patient would become fit within few days and discharged her in a critical condition. After coming from D.M.C, Ludhiana, the complainant and her son demanded the medical record and expenditure spent by her from opposite party No. 2, but the record was not handed over to her on the ground that it was destroyed. The opposite party No. 2 wrote a prescription on 12-12-2011 regarding treatment. The opposite party No. 2 intentionally gave a false comment about not turning up of complainant after 24-11-2011 to save his skin. The complainant alleged that despite spending an amount of Rs. 1.00 Lac on treatment of her eye, it could not be cured. The complainant further alleged that the condition of her eye would not have been critical if she was referred in time. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 8.00 Lacs as compensation for medical negligence; Rs. 1.00 Lac spent by her for treatment at DMC, Ludhiana ; refund Rs. 20,000/- charged from her and pay her any other additional or alternative relief.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and pleaded that complainant had visited the opposite parties on 13-11-2011 with a decreased vision in the right eye and after examination with Slit Lamp and FUNDUS examination, it was diagnosed a case of 'Cataract' that required surgical intervention. The complainant was advised Micro-Incision Surgery (MICS)(1.8) (STELLARIS) + IOL OD (Right). The complainant was advised to administer Moxicip eye drops 4 times/day (broad spectrum antibiotic) and Syslube eye drops 4 times/day (lubricating) before surgery. Besides this, she was also advised to under go blood sugar and other tests prior to operation. The complainant was admitted in the hospital on 15-11-2011 for operation of Cataract. On admission, the complainant and her attendant Jasdeep Singh were duly explained about the operation and the procedures and the risks involved in the operation and they after understanding the same had duly thumb marked on the consent form on 15-11-2011. The complainant had furnished the separate report of the blood tests of Jindal Diagnostic Lab and Goodwill Clinical Lab to the opposite parties. She had also got the blood sugar tested on 15-11-2011 from Bikaner Clinical Laboratory which was found within normal range. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 performed the operation of the complainant i.e. Extra-Capsular Cataract Surgery + IOL OD i..e in the right eye of the complainant. The operation was performed under the asceptic conditions with all sterilized instruments which were autoclaved. Pre-operatively the complainant was administered Vigamox (Moxifloxacin) Eye drops every half hourly. The peri-operative area was cleaned with betadine solution and microbicidal solution (Povidine iodine). Then a sterile disposable drape was placed on the face exposing only the right eye that was to be operated upon. The operation theater was sterilized by ultra violet light and fumigated with formalin. On completion of surgery, one drop of Vigamox Eye drop was instilled in the operated right eye and Microgot (Gatifloxacin) eye ointment was applied. After that sterile eye patch was applied on the operated eye. This protocol is followed for all the patients. The complainant after operation was kept as the indoor patient upto 16-11-2011 and was discharged on 16-11-2011. At the time of discharge, the condition of the complainant was satisfactory and she was advised the post operative care and treatment to be taken at the time of discharge on 16-11-2011. The complainant was advised eye drops ; Gatiquin P Eye drop – one hourly and Atropine eye drop 1-1. The discharge slip was issued to the complainant and its counter copy was thumb marked by her and signed by Jasdeep Singh, her attendant. The opposite parties have denied that the complainant had acute pain the right eye in the hospital and she was shifted from the hospital when she was having acute pain. The opposite parties have pleaded that the condition of the complainant was satisfactory and opposite party No. 2 after examining her right eye, found cornea clear and IOL in situ and anterior and posterior segment normal in the right eye. Thereafter the complainant was discharged after prescribing the eye drops. The complainant visited the hospital of the opposite parties on 17-11-2011 and her right eye was examined. Endophthalmitis was diagnosed in the right eye i.e. hypopyon in the anterior chamber. The opposite party No. 2 immediately injected Intravitreal antiobiotics i.e. Ceftazidime + Vancomycin in the said eye under complete asceptic conditions and she was asked to follow the following treatment :-

   Vancomycin eye drop half hourly

   Ceftazidime eye drop half hourly

   Vigamox eye drop every 15 min.

   Atropine eye drop 1-1

   Oral antibiotic Monocef 200 mg B.D. (Break Fast & Dinner) – 5 days

   The complainant was asked to visit the next day and on 18-11-2011, her right eye was again examined and Hypopyon were found and aforesaid eye drops were advised. The complainant again visited the opposite parties on 19-11-2011 and same treatment was continued. The opposite parties have denied that opposite party No. 2 referred the complainant to DMC, Ludhiana. It has been pleaded that on 20-11-2011, the opposite party No. 2 performed the following procedure on the right eye of the complainant to control and manage Endophthalmitis : AC Wash + Core-Vitrectomy and Intravitrial injection i.e. Vancomycin+ Ceftazidime were injected. The sample from the Vitreous was taken and sent to Lab of Pragma Hospital to confirm the response of antibiotic injections. The report of Pragma hospital showed that there was no fungal element found. The opposite parties have denied that the complainant lost vision of her right eye permanently due to opposite party No. 2. The complainant had been duly operated as per standard procedure and even her post operative care and treatment had been continued as per standard and accepted norms of medical sciences. Even as per the record produced by the complainant on 6-12-2011, the complainant had vision in the right eye (PL+ i.e. perception of light). Moreover the opposite party No. 2 had operated upon number of other patients also on the same day i.e. 15-11-2011 and none of patients had suffered any problem much less any complication and they are completely satisfied with the course of treatment and the procedure of operation followed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have pleaded that as per medical text the source of infection could be from eye-lids, peri-occular area, skin, air, dust and even in-advertent running of eye etc., The development of Endophthalmitis in the eye of complainant is unfortunate but there is no act of negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have denied that they did not try to control the bacteria inflammation which was cropped up during surgery and retinal detachment of right eye happened. It has been pleaded that there is no such observation reported even in the discharge slip of D.M.C. Ludhiana. There is no scope of any bacteria inflammation during surgery. In fact, it was the case of post operative Endophthalmitis that had developed after the discharge of the complainant from the hospital and the opposite party No. 2 had immediately started the treatment on 17-11-2011 by injecting the Intraveterial antibiotic in the said eye of the complainant and thereafter on 20-11-2011, the right eye was treated by following the procedure as mentioned above. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the attendant of the complainant Jasdeep Singh had visited them on 12-12-2011 requested for giving brief summary of the treatment as the same was required by the complainant for her medical reimbursement and the opposite party No. 2 bonafidely believing to him, given a brief note of the line of treatment on 12-12-2011 as per the record. The opposite party No. 2 has performed his duty as a medical practitioner with due diligence, reasonable and proper care, skill and as per the experience available with him. The opposite party No. 2 has adopted standard and acceptable medical procedure to treat and cure the complainant in the circumstances. He 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.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. In the case in hand, admittedly on 15-11-2011 the opposite party No. 2 performed the operation i.e. Extra-Capsular Cataract Surgery + IOL OD in the right eye of the complainant in his hospital i.e. opposite party No. 2. There is no allegation that opposite party No. 2 was not a qualified, skilled and experience opthalmologist for conducting the cataract surgery. The allegation of the complainant is that she has suffered the complication during surgery; she got treatment from DMC, Ludhiana, Dr. Dinesh Garg of Advanced Centre for Eyes, Ludhiana till 16-12-2011 and she lost the vision of her right eye permanently due to the negligent surgery done by the opposite parties. The evidence placed on file proves that before conducting the cataract surgery, the opposite party No. 2 got conducted several tests to know the fitness and suitability of complainant for undergoing such procedure. As per Ex.R -14when the complainant was discharged from the hospital, there was no complication and Endophalmitis had developed in the eye of the complainant after she was discharged from the hospital and during her stay at her house. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that he has performed the operation in complete asceptic conditions and the sterilization is made as per procedure. In support of their version, the opposite parties have placed on file affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Deen Dayal, Diploma in Optometry and is serving as employees with the opposite parties. He has deposed in his affidavit :-

   “...That the deponent supervises the Autoclaving and Sterilization of instruments used for the operation in the operation at the said hospital.

   That before conducting any surgery the operation theater is fumigated with formalin overnight. The operation theater is completely sealed. The ultra violet light are installed in the operation theater that are switched on to further clean the air in the operation theater. The Dehumidifier is also placed in the operation theater that removes the humidity in the operation theater.

   That the surgical instruments are cleaned in ultrasonic chamber and then placed in autoclave. Once the required temperature of 121 centigrade alongwith pressure of 1.1 bar is reached, the whistle of Autoclave is heard. After three cycles, the Autoclave is witched off.

   That this complete procedure is mentioned in the foregoing para had been followed by the deponent on 15-11-2011 prior to operation of the complainant as well as the other patients who were operated by Dr. J S. Sra on the said date.”

   The opposite party No. 2 has stated that on the same day, number of other patients have been operated and all the patients have been completely cured and they have accorded satisfaction to the treatment provided by the opposite parties. To prove this version, the opposite parties have placed on file affidavits alongwith discharge slips of Manohar Lal, Jarnail Kaur, Jatinder Singh and Joginder Singh Ex. R-5 & 6, Ex. R-7& 8, Ex. R-9 & 10 and Ex. R-15 & 16 respectively. The said patients have categorically stated in their affidavits that they have been operated by opposite party No. 1 on 15-11-2011 for Cataract with IOL implantation and they are completely satisfied with the operation so conducted by opposite party No. 1 and there is no complaint of any sort after the said of operation.

6. A perusal of file reveals that unfortunately the complainant caught up with Endophthalmitis, a known post operative complication. As per medical Text 'Posterior Segment Complications of Cataract Surgery – Prevention, Early Recognition and Management – P N Nagpal – Jaypee :-

   “ Risk Factors

   Occurrence of postoperative endophthalmitis may be isolated or in clusters. The risk factors may be different for isolated and cluster endophthalmitis. Patient factors play a predominant role in isolated postoperative endophthalmitis. External factors are the major risk factors in the causation of cluster postoperative endophthalmitis. There have been various reports from all over the world describing bacterial as well as fungal postoperative cluster endophthalmitis. Defects in sterilization of instruments, contamination of tap water, operative fluids and drugs have been held responsible for bacterial cluster postoperative endophthalmitis. Fungal cluster postoperative endophthalmitis has been reported after contaminated irrigating solutions, intra ocular lenses, viscoelastics, improper ventilation system, poor hygiene in the operating rooms etc., To prevent the occurrence of these cluster infections, we have to remain on guard for any breach in infections; use standardized irrigating solutions and drugs.”

   According to medical text 'Cinical Pathalmology (A systematic approach) – Sixth Edition by Jack J Kanski :-

   “Acute postoperative endophthalmitis – Pathogenesis – Acute endophthalmitis is a devastating complication of intraocular surgery. The estimated incidence following cataract surgery is approximately 0.15%

   ...Treatment :

   1. Intravitreal antibiotics are the key to managements. They achieve levels above the minimum inhibitors concentration of most pathogens and these are maintained for days. They should be administered immediately after culture specimens have been obtained. The two antibiotics used are ceftazidime, which will most Gram-negative organisms (including P. aeruginosa) and vancomycin, which will kill coagulase-negative and coagulase-positive cocci (including methicillin – resistant S. aureus)

   - The concentrations are ceftazidime (2 mg in 0.1 ml) and vancomycin (2 mg in 0.1 ml); amikacin (0.5 mg in 0.1 ml) can be used as an alternative to ceftazidime in patients allergic to penicillin but is more toxic to the retina.”

7. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the case titled Subhendu Majumdar Vs Ashish Kumar Bhattacharjee (Dr. ) & Anr. 2011 (III) CPJ 46 (NC) has held that :-

   “Medical Negligence – Eye operation – Improper treatment – alleged deficiency in service – Forum dismissed complaint – Hence appeal – Contention, eye of complainant contacted infection on account of negligence committed by Ops – Not accepted – Source of infecting organism cannot be identified with certainty – Absence of any cogent evidence been brought on record to show that bacterial infection and resultant complication was suffered by complainant due to certain unsanitized condition at nursing home or unsterilized instrument having been used for conducting said procedure – Medical negligence not proved.”

   In the said order the Hon'ble National Commission has discussed the aforesaid complication in detail and reproduced the medical literature which reads as under :-

   “....What could be the possible source of such pseudomonas bacterial infection has been stated in “Results of Endophthalmities Vitrectomy Study” as stated in the book “Clinical Opthalmology” A systematic approach, Third Edition by Jack J Kanski, MD, MS, FRCS, FRCOphth.

   What are the possible causes and source of a septic endophthalmitis arising from pseudomonas bacteria has been stated as under :-

   Acute Baterial Endophthalmitis – Acute endophthalmitis is a devastating complication that occurs is about 1 in 1000 cases. Despite early treatment about 50% of eyes become blind.

   “In order of frequency the most common causative organisms are Staph. Epidermidis, Staph. Aureus, Pseudomonas sp. And Proteus sp. Although in most cases the source of the infecting organism cannot be identified with certainty, it is though that the patient's own external bacterial flora of the eyelids, conjunctiva and lacrimal drainage passages is the most frequent culprit. Other potential sources of infection care contaminated solutions and instruments and enviornmental flora including that of the surgeon and operating room personnel.”

   .....In medical science cause of post operation Endophthalmitis may be several as has been pointed out in “Cataract Surgery and its complication, 5^th Edn. By Norman Jaffe at Page 507/8

   'Source of Infection'

   1. Airborne contaminants

   (a) Respiratory origin

   (b) Surface origin (skin, clothing and so on)

   (c) Air conditioning system

   2. Solutions and medications

   (a) Saline for irrigation and other purposes

   (b) Collyria

   (c) Ointment

   (d) Instruments disinfectants

   (e) Skin antiseptics

   (f) Alpha-cymotrypsin

   3. Tissues

   (a) Skin of hand

   (b) Skin of operative field

   (c) Lid margins and lashes

   (d) Conjanctival sac.

   (e) Lacrimal sac

   (f) Nasal mucosa

   (g) Corneal grafts

   (h) Vitreous implants

   (i) Fellow eyes

   4. Objects and materials

   (a) Optical instruments

   (b) Surgical instruments

   It is also well accepted in medical science that post operative endophalmitis may occur even in a flawless surgery. In this respect it has been written in Chapter 13 of Text Book of Opthalmology – Lens and Catract – Vol. 3 P. 13.1 by Norman S. Jaffe and Joseph Horwitz :

   “Post-operative endophalmitis is one of the most serious complication of cataract surgery aside from a tragic result for the patient in many cases. It is frustrating for the surgeon because it usually conscious after flawless cataract surgery.

   The fact that post-operative endophtalmitis is a deadly complication is also accepted in :

   (i) Clinical opthalmology 3^rd Edn. By Kanski P 299-300

   “Acute endophthalmitis is a devastating complication that occurs in about 1 in 1000 cases. Dispute early treatment, about 50% of the eyes become belind”

   (ii) Opthalmology, August, 1992 – Vol. 89 P 921 published by American Academy of Opthalmology – Infectious Endopthalmitis – Review of 36 cases by Dr. Carmen. A Puliafito M.D. & Ors.

   “Endopththalmitis is one of the estastrophic complications of ocular surgery, penetrating ocular trauma, and systemic infection :

   Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 24, June, 1998 – Preventive diagnosing and treating endopthalmitis, P 725 -

   “Post-operative bacterial infection remain one of the most potentially serious conditions that can occur after routine and otherwise uncomplicated ocular surgery”

   “The fortunately rare occurrence of bacterial endophthalmitis after cataract surgery, presently estimated between 5 and 10 cases per 10,000.

   The Hon'ble National Commission observed in the said order that :

   “..About source of infection, following observations are made in various medical books/journals :

   i) In most cases the source of infecting organisms cannot be identified with certainty.

   ii) Endophthalmitis most often occurs after surgery lens may develop from penetrating oscular trauma or local and systemic infection. Additional risk factors and features influencing outcome are largely unknown.”

   The Hon'ble National Commission has opined in para No. 14 of this judgement that “It is unfortunate that the appellant has been rendered almost a visually impaired person in one eye and the vision in his other eye has also been affected. But except expressing our heartful sympathy, we are unable to provide any succour to the appellant because it has been established on record that the eye of the complainant contracted infection of pseudomonas aeruginosa on account of either any negligence committed by opposite party No. 1 – Opthalmic Surgeon or any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No 2 – Nursing Home.”

8. The 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, but in the case in hand the complainant has failed to prove this allegation. On the other hand, the opposite parties have placed on file affidavit Ex. R-3 of Dr. H S Sodhi, a qualified Opthalmologist, MS in Opthalmology having experience of 30 years. He, after going through the record of complainant has deposed in his affidavit that the complainant had developed acute post operative endophthalmitis which is a known post operative complication world over and the standard line of treatment/management includes Intravitreal Injection of antibiotics. If the condition of eye of the patient does not improve then the procedure of core vitrectomy + intravitreal antibiotics, is followed. He has stated that the protocol followed by Dr. J S Sra is a standard operating procedure by injecting intravitreal antibiotics and followed by core vitrectomy, which is followed world over. He deposed that endophtalmitis and retinal detachment are two different entities. Endophtalmitis per se will not lead to retinal detachment. Retinal detachment can be treated easily by buckling, vitrectomy and silicon oil injection. But, Endophthalmitis is an infection, which is treated by intravitreal antibiotics and core vitrectomy. In Endophthalmitis there are membranes and exudates in front of the retina, which can mimic Retinal detachment on a B Scan report. Hence only a provisional diagnosis can be made on a B Scan of eye and it is not a confirmatory test. He has further deposed that the procedure followed by Dr. J S Sra is a standard line of treatment to circumvent Endophthalmitis.

   In this regard, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case titled Smt. Kamla Bai Pandey Vs. P C Dwivedi & Anr 2009(1) CPR 200 (NC) wherein it has been held :-

   “....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 doctor not only relied upon his evidence as a professional, he also backed it up by the medical literature, in support of time of treatment adopted by him.”

   The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the matter crystal clear and settled the law in the following titled cases :-

(i) Titled 2009(1) CPR 231 (SC) Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq :-

“....(ii) Medical Negligence – Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightway liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur – No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to the patient.”

(iii) Titled 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 836 Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., wherein it has been held :-

“ ....(3) No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient as the

professional reputation of the person is at stake.

(4) A surgeon with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient.”

10. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances, evidence and the aforesaid observations, this Forum is of the considered opinion no doubt a known complication “Endophthalmitis' developed in the right eye of the complainant after cataract surgery, but she has failed to prove that it took place due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties. In the case of medical negligence, the initial burden lies upon the complainant then it shifts upon the hospital that there was no lack of diligence on its part. The opposite parties have discharged their onus by producing on file sufficient material including medical literature to prove that they have adopted a established medical line of treatment and there was no negligence on their part and infection took place due to other factors which has been mentioned above. As per settled law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled 2009(3) RCR (Civil) page 174 Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka and Others wherein it has been held :-

“Evidence Act, Section 101, 102, 103 – Medical Negligence – Onus to prove – Held :-

In a case involving medical negligence, once the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant by making out a case of negligence on the part of the hospital or to the attending doctor concerned the onus then shifts on to the hospital to satisfy the Court that there was no lack of care of diligence 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 512 (SC).”

Hence, as the complainant has not been able to establish any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint deserves dismissal.

10. The complainant has alleged that no medical record was given to her and she was referred to DMC, Ludhiana by opposite party No. 2. The medical file of complainant has been placed on file as Ex. R-14 and no referral letter has been placed on file by the complainant to prove her version that she was referred to DMC, Ludhiana, by opposite party No. 2 . Moreover, the medical file of the complainant proves that she did not visit the opposite parties after 24-11-2012.

11. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the complainant, they are distinguishable on facts.

12. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced

01-04-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member