CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/198/2012

No. DF/ Central/                                                                      Date

Sh. Balbir @ Balbir Singh

S/o Late Sh. Hukam Chand,

R/o 54 9/19, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj,

Delhi-110007.                                                                      …..COMPLAINANT       

 VERSUS

The Chief Medical Officer/Chairman

Dr. N.C. Joshi Memorial Hospital,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.                                     …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                 Mr. R.C. Meena, Member

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1.       Instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Balbir Singh (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended against The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (in short OP) inter-alia pleading therein that he visited Dr. N.C. Joshi Memorial Hospital (in short OP) for treatment of Motiya Bind in his right eye where he was advised cataract surgery.  He was admitted on 10.01.2012 and the surgery was conducted on the next day by Dr. Mukesh Garg and the complainant was informed that the surgery was successfully conducted and lens was affixed.  On the next day i.e. 13.01.2012 the eye department declared that the complainant was O.K. and is in normal position and fit for release/discharge from the hospital and so he was discharged.  Thereafter he felt some problem in his eyesight of the right eye and was unable to see anything.  After 2-3 days he visited the OP hospital and showed his problem and he was informed by the concerned doctor that L-21 lens had already been affixed in his right eye and it will function properly in the future but the complainant did not recover.  He then visited St. Stephen’s Hospital on advice of OP where he was informed that no lens was affixed in his right eye by the OP hospital.  Complainant had already spent Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment.  He is unable to do his work.  He served legal notice to the OP on 30.01.2012 but did not receive any reply.  Hence instant complaint was filed seeking direction to OP to pay to the complainant Rs.20,00,000/-  on account of medical negligence.

2.       On receipt of notice, OP appeared and contested the claim vide its reply.  It is pleaded that complainant was diagnosed of having operable senile cataract in right eye. He was admitted on 10.01.12 and was operated on 12.01.12 for cataract extraction with intraocular lens placement (PMMA power 21.0 D) in the right eye by Dr Mukesh Garg , MBBS DNB (Ophthalmology) in presence and guidance of Dr Surender Narang (Specialist, Ophthalmology, Dr N C Joshi Memorial hospital).  It is further stated that on first post-operative visit to OPD on 16.01.12 it was found that the implanted intraocular lens had displaced into vitreous cavity in the Complainant’s eye. Complainant had unaided vision of CF 3 meters improving to 6/36 with pinhole.  The IOL was found to be sublaxated into the vitreous cavity and whole of the retina was attached and normal. Complainant was explained about the condition and was advised that he required a second surgery Vitrectomy and IOL extraction along with anterior chamber IOL if possible. As vitreo retina facilities were not available in the OP hospital Complainant was urgently referred to Retina Clinic at Guru Nanak Eye Centre (GNEC), Govt. of Delhi. Complainant visited the retina clinic the following day where keeping in view his condition he was advised surgery by the doctor in-charge at GNEC. As per the last visit of the Complainant on 20.01.12 in the OPD of OP hospital, all preliminary investigations of the Complainant had been carried out at GNEC and was posted for Pars Plana Vitrectomy and IOL extraction. It is further stated that thereafter the Complainant did not report back to the OP hospital and that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP.

3.       Complainant has stated that he was informed at St. Stephen’s Hospital that no lens was affixed in his right eye by OP hospital and that the doctors in OP hospital were negligent in his treatment. 

          OP has denied the same and has stated that complainant was admitted on 10.01.2012.  He was operated on 12.01.2012 having been diagnosed with operable senile cataract in right eye. 

4.       Complainant has not shown us any documents of St. Stephen’s Hospital which indicated that no lens was affixed by OP hospital as alleged by him.  In fact photocopy of prescription of St. Stephen’s Hospital is placed on record by the complainant wherein it is mentioned that ‘IOL decentralised/dislocation of lens.’  It is stated to be a case of dislocation of lens.  Therefore, his allegation that no lens was affixed by OP hospital is not supported by photocopy of the prescriptions of St. Stephen’s Hospital placed on record by him which are dated 22.02.2012 and 24.02.2012. 

5.       It is not denied that treatment was done at OP hospital by duly qualified doctors.  Dr. Mukesh Garg is MBBS DNB (Ophthalmology) who operated in presence and guidance of Dr. Surender Narang who is Specialist, Ophthalmology.

6.       What constitutes medical negligence is now well established through a catena of judgments.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 has observed as follows:

“(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the 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. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.

(4) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam case, WLR at p.586 holds good in its applicability in India.”

Applying these principles in the instant case, it can be seen that there is no evidence to conclude that the treating doctors at OP hospital did not have the necessary qualifications or that they did not exercise reasonable competence and skills in dealing with the ailment of the complainant.  Complaint is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

Announced this           Day of                       2019.