Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/49/2015

Soundari, W/o.P.Dhegaleesan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, M/s.Vasan EYE CARE, - Opp.Party(s)

A.Lakshmi Raj Rathnam

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  10.03.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY THE 21^st DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.49/2015

 

 

Mrs.Soundari,

W/o.Mr.P.Dhegaleesan,

No.C-6, TNHB Flats,

1^st Cross Street,

West Avenue Road,

MKB Nagar,

Chennai – 600 039.

                                                                                         ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Chairman,

M/s. Vasan Eye Care,

No.289/149, Paper Mills Road,

Peravallur, Chennai – 600 082.

 

2. Dr.Arun Kumar,

Managing Director,

Vasan Eye Care,

M-77, 3^rd Avenue,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 18.03.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. A.Laxmi Raj Rathnam,

                                                                    M.Vishwanathan, S.Shanmugam,

                                                                    S.Kumaran, M.Manikandan

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : M/s.S.D.S.Phillip & B.Priya

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.62,214/- which was paid to the 1^st opposite party and also to pay a sum of Rs.54,910/- which was paid by the complainant to Darshan Eye Cline for the correction surgery and also compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant suffered with visibility problem in her eyes. Hence she visited the 1^st opposite party hospital and she was examined on 28.09.2011 and diagnosed as cataract at the advanced stage and immediately requires operation. The 1^st opposite party took some tests and asked the complainant to come on 01.10.2011 to the hospital for operation. The complainant also went to the hospital on 01.10.2011 and she was admitted and operation was done in her right eye and discharged on the same day even without keeping her under observation.

2. After she returned home she felt unbearable pain in her right eye. Her son called the 1^st opposite party hospital and they informed that without checking the  pressure in the eye ball they have operated and that will not create any problem and called the complainant for check up on the next day. When she went to the hospital on the next day, she was informed that the doctor Sivakumar who operated and his father had expired and he will come to the hospital only after completing his last rights of his father. Dr.Sivakumar attended the complainant and told her that the pain is due to the thickening of the cataract which was removed and he directed her to use the eye drops prescribed to her.   

3. However, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party Perambur branch where the operation was conducted and they directed to go to 1^st opposite party’s Sangam Branch.           Dr.Suchithra took her time and did cataract operation for her left eye step by step. The complainant questioned the said doctor about the Perambur Branch that the procedure adopted by them, she declined to comment. The complainant lost her total visibility in her right eye due to the surgery done by the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party being the Managing Director of the 1^st opposite party tried to hide the true facts that she lost her right eye sight due to damage in cornea.

4. The complainant went to the Dr.Ravishankar for second opinion who in turn referred her to Darshan Eye Clinic, Anna Nagar, Chennai, where the complainant was examined and two operations was done in her right eye on 26.08.2013 and 16.12.2013  and she got the right eye sight back and now she is hale and healthy.  The opposite parties have done the procedure negligently in her right eye in conducting operation and thereby she is suffered with pain and mental stress which cannot be compensated by means. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.62,214/- which was paid to the 1^st opposite party and also to pay a sum of Rs.54,910/- which was paid by the complainant to Darshan Eye Cline for the correction operation and also compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          On 08.10.2011 the complainant came with the complaint of pain and on examination of the right eye, it was found that she had corneal edema and posterior chamber intraocular lens in situ. Hence, she was advised to continue the same eye drops and T.Diamox 3 times a day and advised to come for review after five days. The complainant was reviewed on 14.10.2011 with vision 3/60 with pin hole 6/60 with decreased corneal edema and on 24.10.2011, the complainant came with no complaint and her right eye vision was 6/36. The complainant visited again on 07.11.2011 and her right eye vision was 6/24 with correction (+1.50/-1.5 x 100) 6/18 petitioner, and she was advised to stop steroid and continue combigan and refresh Liquigel eye drops. Thereafter the complainant did not come with any complaint whatsoever.  On 04.02.2013 the complainant came with the complaint of eye pain and she was examined by Dr.Anuradha. On examination it was found that the complainant was using bandage contact lens for the past six months without cleaning it and removing it and she had developed corneal ulcer. The complainant was advised Vigamox eye drops hourly, Besivance eye drops 6 times a day, Cyclopent 3 times a day, Tab. Diamox two times a day and combigan eye drops two times a day. The complainant came on 06.02.2013 and her right eye showed corneal edema, ulcer healing, corneal vascularization. On 08.02.2013 and 11.02.2013 her right eye showed healing of corneal ulcer. On 25.02.2013, it showed healing corneal ulcer with vascularization. The complainant was advised to see the 2^nd opposite party, corneal surgeon regarding penetrating Keratoplasty. The complainant had contracted corneal ulcer in her right eye mainly due to use of bandage contact lens continuously on the right eye for six months without removing, cleaning and without following the advice of a doctor. The complaint are vague, general and without material particulars and do not make out any case of medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Due care and skill was exercised by the consulting doctor while treating the patient and performing the operation and the opposite parties have provided the best equipments and paramedical staff to assist the consultant in the treatment of the complainant. Dr.Arun kumar is not the Managing Director but he is only a corneal surgeon in Vasan Eye Care Hospitals in Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102. There is no chairman in Vasan Eye Care Hospital and therefore it is a mis-description in the name and position of both the opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for improper description of the opposite parties and for non joinder of necessary party. Hence, these opposite parties deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the complainant suffered with visibility problem in her eyes and  hence she went to the  1^st opposite party hospital  for check-up and she was examined on 28.09.2011 and diagnosed  that she was having  cataract at the  advanced stage and immediately requires operation and the 1^st opposite party took some tests and asked the complainant to come on 01.10.2011 to the hospital for operation and  the complainant also went to the hospital on 01.10.2011 and she was admitted and operation was done in her right eye and discharged on the same day  and Ex.A1 discharge summary with medicine prescription was issued to the complainant.  

8. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties are that after one week of her returning home she felt unbearable pain in her right eye and her son called the 1^st opposite party hospital and they informed that  without checking the  pressure in the eye ball they have operated and that will not create any problem and called the complainant for check up on the next day and before conducting surgery the opposite parties ought to have done eye ball pressure check-up and without conducting the eye ball pressure tests, the surgery was conducted in her right eye and that caused pain to her continuously and such act of the opposite parties is a negligent act which was supported by the doctors certificate dated 23.08.2013  issued by the  1^st opposite party hospital  and due to that  she  had continuous pain in her right eye and she went to the Dharshan surgical centre and had corrective surgery in her right eye as per Ex.A2 dated 26.08.2013  and another corrective surgery as per Ex.A3 dated 16.12.2013 and after both the surgery her right eye become normal and further the complainant also had cataract surgery  in her left eye in the 1^st opposite party hospital at Sangam Branch and left eye is very normal and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in conducting surgery in her right eye.

9. The opposite parties would contend that the complainant did not come for eye ball pressure check-up and however after her right eye surgery her vision was normal and further they conducted cataract surgery to her right eye and where as in the Darshan    Surgical Centre she had undergone corneal transplantation after two years of their surgery and both the surgeries are different  in nature and therefore the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service  and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

10. As per Ex.A1  the complainant was examined on 28.09.2011 and diagnosed that her right eye had hard brown cataract with vision 6/60 and left eye 6/24 and IOP (Intraocular Pressure) was right eye 32 mm hg  and left eye 34 mm hg and she was advised Combigan eye drops to control IOP and undergo cataract surgery and she was advised to review after two days to check-up IOP both the eyes  and however she did not turn-up and however  on 01.10.2011  directly cataract surgery was done in  her right eye and on 07.11.2011 and after surgery her right eye vision was 6/24  and asked her to review after five days. She again reviewed and her vision in right eye improved.

11. The complainant alleges that after one week of surgery she had pain in her right eye. She was also reviewed on 07.11.2011 and her right eye vision was 6/24 which is normal one. The complainant nowhere alleged that after one week she had continuous problem of pain till she had surgery at surgical centre. Admittedly, she had cataract surgery in her right eye. Whereas as per Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 discharge summaries issued by the surgical centre she had undergone procedure for corneal transplantation. The opposite parties specifically argued that the procedure done by the 1^st opposite party at Perambur branch is different from that of the procedure undergone at surgical centre after two years.  Absolutely, there is no evidence on behalf of the complainant that both the surgeries done in the year 2011 by the opposite parties and in the year 2013 at surgical centre are one and the same. The competent people to speak about both the surgeries are one and the same is the doctor who is an expert in the medical field. No expert evidence produced by the complainant to establish that both the surgery is one and the same. Therefore, in such circumstances, we hold that the surgery done by the opposite parties was different in nature than that of the surgery done at the surgical centre. Further, there is no expert evidence that due to the surgery done by the opposite parties only her right eye cornea was affected. Hence, it is held that the complainant has not proved that the opposite parties committed negligent act in conducting cataract surgery in the right eye of the complainant and further held that the opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

12. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 02.10.2014                   Copy of the discharge Summary of Vasan Eye

                                                     Care Hospital

 

Ex.A2 dated 26.08.2013                   Copy of the Discharge Summary of Darshan

                                                     Surgical Centre-I

 

Ex.A3 dated 16.12.2013                   Copy of the Discharge Summary of Darshan 

                                                     Surgical Centre – II

 

Ex.A4 dated 07.06.2014                   Notice sent by the complainant

 

Ex.A5 dated 09.06.2014                   Acknowledgement  by the opposite parties

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      ……. NIL ……

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT