The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the wife of the complainant was suffering from a Cataract trouble and was under the treatment of Dr.Arup Bose, the oP no.2 . The OP no.2 doctor advised the wife of the complainant to undergo a Cataract Phaconit surgery for a package of Rs.28,000/- and also assured that theer would be no chance of any injury in her
eye and she would get well soon. As per advice of the op no.2 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.28,000/- to the oP no. 2 doctor for the left eye operation of his wife. The operation was conducted on 18.1.2011 . The wife of the complainant was released on the same date on 18.1.2011 at 9.30 A.M. As per instruction of OP no.2 when the wife of the complainant opened her left eye she was frightened to find that she could not see anything only black drops were roaring to and two . The complainant then and there informed the oP no.1 and Op no.2 the situation, in reply the Op no.1 and 2 assured that she would get well soon. Thereafter, the complainant and his wife went to the chamber of Op no.2 on 20.1.2011. The Op no.2 told that since the pressure of the left eye was high , there was a little bit complication and told that after one hour saline treatment , the patient will get relief. However, the condition of said operated left eye became worse at night and she became restless due to severe pain in her left eye and she vomited all night. Thereafter, complainant and his wife visited Doctor on 20.1.2011 and doctor given some medicine to consume and few eye drops. Thereafter on 21.1.2011 , the left eye became swollen and the wife was brought to Op no.3 and Op no.2. Op no.2 gave some medicines but failed to control the damage. Op no.2 referred the complainant’s wife to Dr.Rupak Kanti Biswas i.e. Op no.3. Op no.3 check up the complainant’s wife and it was observed that left eye was completely infected and optic nerve was severely injured. Then Op no.1 conducted operation but patient does not gain back her vision in her left eye. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to Op no.1 and Rs.20,000/- to Op no.3 but operation was not successful. The wife of the complainant lost her vision in the left eye completely. Accordingly, the complainant raised allegations against all the Opposite parties. All Ops did not provide
sufficient service to the complainant’s wife and they conducted the operation in negligent way and for which the wife of the complainant lost her vision completely in her left eye. The complainant’s wife sustain immense pain and mental agony. Hence, this complaint for getting redressal.
The op no.1 and 2 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. It is stated the complainant was a patient of high myopia Glaucoma , Cataract , Chronic diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, hypertension since long. The doctor Op no.2 made operation after observing all parameters of surgical operation as per guide lines of eye surgery and as per guidelines of Text book and All India Ophthalmic Society guidelines. A package of Rs.28,000/- was chose by the patient . The operation was done and patient returned home. Later on some complication arose and the patient came to doctor . Doctor treated the patient and told that Air bubble takes 48 to 72 hours to get absorbed so long as it is not absorbed it caste black shadow on the retina which is very common. On 20.1.2011 and 21.1.2011 Op no.2 examined the patient and advised for proper treatment. The doctor after Ultrasonography found diffuse hedge with no evidence suggestive of retina detachment . The doctor after considering the Ultrasonography advised the patient party for attending Regional Institute of Ophthalmology Medical College, Kolkata or Dr.Rupak Biswas , Ex Vitreous Retinal Consultant of Shankar Netralaya , Chennai and Kolkata. The complainant went to Dr.Rupak Biswas who treated the patient.
The oP no.3 , Dr. Rupak Biswas filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. Dr. Rupak Biswas found there was post operative infection involving the Vitreous
and the Opposite party no.3 explained the same to the party as well as to her husband. The Op no.3 as per his averment in para 10 , was prevented from taking procedure to remove the defect i.e. to remove Vitreous Exudates caused by infection and to give intravitral anti biotic injection but the complainant was not agreed to the proposal of Op no.3 due to financial constraints. On 22.1.2011 Op no.3 imparted treatment on the patient and followed up on regular basis and infected eye was recovered to some extent. Accordingly, OP no.3 states that treatment sheets from 21.1.2011 to 24.3.2011 will show that sufficient step have been taken by the Op no.3 to give relief to the patient. Accordingly, there is no negligent on the part of the Op no.3 and the Op no.3 prays for dismissal of the case.
Complainant filed (1) Photocopy of pre-operation work up list (2) Photocopy of Discharge certificate and (3) Photocopy of prescription dated 18.1.2011, 20.1.2014 and 21.1.2011. Op no.1 and 2 filed some original documents. Complainant filed Affidavit in chief and Written Notes of argument. All Opposite parties filed Written version, Evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument.
Upon pleadings, Written version and the documents filed by both the parties the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
Points
- Whether the petitioner is a Consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
It is admitted fact that the Op no.2 conducted operation in the eye of the wife of the complainant and after observing all the formalities. The patient was released in good condition . Later some complication arose . Op no.2 offered his best of treatment and advised the patient for treating Regional Institute of Ophthalmology Medical College, Kolkata, because she found some disorder which was beyond control of op no.2. So, Op no.2 has discharges his duties like a prudent man.
But the patient went to Op no.3 Dr. Rupak Biswas and Op no.3 after scanning the report made operation and imparted treatment and the patient’s eye became more transparent . So, there is no defect or delay in taking step by Op no.3 upon the patient. The facts surfaced in the record shows that the Op no.2 and Op no.3 has discharged their duties diligently and with due care and attention so far the discharge summary of Op no.2 is concerned and on that date when the complainant was operated by Op no.2 there had been 11 and 12 patients operated by Op no.2 as reflected by document filed by Op no.2. On the other hand, the complainant did not discharge his burden of proof or did not discharge his onus of proof by adducing any evidence any shortcomings in the total procedure adopted by the complainant. Not only Op no.2 but also Op no.3 discharged their duties as per Treatment Protocol within their knowledge and within their experience. It is pertinent to note that power of observation , power of imparting knowledge all are depends upon the man’s capacity. When it appears that the person has applied his mind thoroughly in performing his duties as per his experience and efficiency he cannot be said that he has done deficiency in service or it cannot be said that he has not
discharged his duties without due care and attention. The documents filed by the complainant does not show any such discrepancy in the act of the Opno.2 in making operation . Annexure 3 Preoperative work out filed by the doctor , the complainant has nothing to say regarding preoperative work out . Complainant did not file any acceptable evidence showing negligency of doctor.
In the argument, filed by the complainant only narrated that the operation was not successful and patient faced trouble and she was referred by the op no.2 to elsewhere wherein she was treated and that Op no.3 treated the complainant. In this way, the complainant has drawn calculation that doctor was negligent. On the other hand, Op doctor has filed some Text to establish that there is possibility of infection , reference 6 shows risk factors for endophthalmitis following cataract surgery-out experience at a tertiary eye care centre in India, which shows that infection i.e. endophthalmitis continues to affect the outcome in one in 500 cases. In the instant case in our hand Op no.2 also suggested infection and referred the patient to the Op no.3 and Regional Institute of Ophthalmology Medical College, Kolkata. The Op has also referred Cataract Surgery and its complications by NORAN S JAFFE and others (6th Edition) wherein it has been observe “The eye, of course, cannot be completely sterilized before surgery ; it is surrounded by the eyelids, cilia and lachrymal apparatus and is contiguous with the nasopharynx and sinuses. In addition, numerous avascular structures within the eye traditionally resist infection poorly….The offending organism is rarely identified or reported. This problem is frequently not the fault of the surgeon”.
Apart from the above, the Op /doctor in their own initiative has brought opinion of a doctor of AMRI Medical Centre, Annexure XV dated 2.5.2015. All the papers were sent to that experienced doctor who after going through the records has written the report as hereinunder – …………………………………………………Additionally, Smt. Snigdha Basu was suffering from longstanding diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus is a systemic disease that increases the risk of infection. When the unfortunate complication did arise, Dr. Bose diagnosed the case early, injected Vancomycin intravitreally at the earliest, collected samples for culture and sensitivity and sent the patient to the Vitreoretinal consultant for Pars Plana Vitrectomy for the removal of collected inflammatory exudates and toxins to reduce the damage that might be caused to the vital structures like retina. I am of the opinion that Dr. Arup Kumar Bose treated the patient strictly in conformity to the medical norms and procedures as per internationally recognized standard protocol in a situation like this . This complication as developed in this case should be managed by the Vitreoretinal Surgeon after initial intravitreal antibiotics have been administered by the treating surgeon and Dr. Bose has appropriately followed this guideline by first injecting intravitreal antibiotics and then promptly referring the patient to the Vitreoretinal Surgeon urgently.
I am of specific opinion that there was no negligence or deficiency o treatment on the part of Dr. Arup Kumar Bose in the treatment of this patient.
The complainant did not raise any objection against this report brought and filed by the oP/doctors and the report has been prepared by eminent doctor, Consultant Eye Surgeon and Vitreoretinal Specialist . The complainant did not take appropriate step to contradict or bring
opposite opinion against this report filed by the oPs /doctor. During the entire proceedings the complainant did not make any whisper or make any denial or did not make any petition to fetch expert report for their case to show the negligency of doctor. No effective step has been taken by the complainant to file any document for the purpose of the case.
So after a deliberation and threadbare thinking and threadbare consideration over the phenomenon imparted in the record by help of evidence , counter evidence and questionnaire and Text Book reference we have no hesitation to opine that the complainant’s allegation is devoid of any merit and the entire acts of the Ops show no negligence , rather shows that Ops have discharged their duties with due care and attention to the complainant like other patients operated on 18.1.2011 . Accordingly, the case fails . Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 06 of 2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest. But no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
