By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
-2-
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The first Opposite Party is the Managing Director of Ahalia Foundation Eye Hospital, Kalpetta and second Opposite Party is a Doctor working there. On 13.07.2016, the Complainant was admitted in first Opposite Party hospital for treatment. He was undergone operation on his right eye and discharged on the same day. Due to recurrent pain, he came again to the hospital on 15.07.2016. Then, he was brought to Ahalia Eye Hospital, Palakkad and admitted there. Dr.Rajkumar Maheswari examined him and disclosed that possibility is only to recover 25% of his right eye vision. After treatment in this hospital, he was discharged on 28.07.2016. Even though, he was treated there for 13 days, he has not get any relief from the pain. So, he consulted Dr.Ruby working in District Hospital Mananthavady. She referred him to Calicut Medical College. When examined there, it is learnt that the vision of his right eye is completely lost due to cutting of a nerve at the time of operation in the hospital of first Opposite Party. Now he is undergoing treatment in Shri Sharada Eye and ENT Clinic at Sulthan Bathery. The Second Opposite Party thus negligently done the operation of the Complainant on 13.07.2016 on his right eye and therefore, his right eye sight was lost. Now he is depending upon others for his day to day affairs. He incurred an expenses of Rs.1 lakh for the treatment. Hence this complaint to get Rs.5 lakh as compensation for
-3-
the negligence of the second Opposite Party and to get his treatment expenses of Rs.1 lakh from both Opposite Parties.
3. Both the opposite parties filed version separately with same contentions. So, for the sake of convenience, I have to narrate their contentions in brief as follows:-
They admitted that the Complainant was undergone operation on his right eye in the hospital of first Opposite Party and it was conducted by Second Opposite party. But they denied that the second Opposite Party negligently cut a nerve during the operation and thereby the right eye sight of the Complainant was lost. The Complainant came to the hospital with the complaint of diminishing vision in right eye. He was undergone a cataract surgery two years back on his left eye. After examination, he was diagnosed to have cataract in his right eye. On the basis of this finding, he was advised cataract surgery on his right eye. The second Opposite Party conducted the operation by taking all care and precaution for such surgeries. With an advice for review on the next day, the Complainant was discharged thereafter from the hospital. The complainant was advised to take antibiotic and apply eye drops and other supportive medicines. He was advised not to rub or contaminate the eye with water. He was also advised to report
-4-
immediately in case of pain, redness or any other discomfort. On 15.07.2016, the complainant reported with complaints of pain, redness, watering and diminution of vision. So he was referred and taken to higher centre of first Opposite Party at Palakkad and admitted there. From there, the Complainant underwent vitreous tap, intravetrial injection of vancomycin, ceftazie and dexa. A scan was done and the complainant was treated with topical and systematic antibiotics and anti-inflammatory drugs on a diagnosis of post operative endopthamitis as per accepted medical practice by the expert medical practitioners having wide knowledge and experience in the cataract surgery and treatment field. He was discharged on 26.08.2016 after setting and curing infection and other problems. Therefore Opposite Parties have used materials and solutions available for ocular use in sterile packing. Proper care and hygiene were taken before the surgery, at the time of surgery and after the surgery. The Complainant was completely cured of infection due to post operative complication of cataract surgery. They had no knowledge of the treatment of complainant in other hospitals. After the discharge from the Ahalia Eye Hospital, Palakkad, he did not come for evaluation. He did not consult at first Opposite Party’s hospital at Kalpetta. The Complainant filed this case on an experimental basis in order to cause damages to the reputation of the hospital of Opposite Parties and get some money from them.
-5-
Therefore there was no deficiency in service from the Opposite Parties. Hence the Complainant is not entitle to get anything from the Opposite Parties and this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of these Opposite Parties.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite
Parties. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled to get anything
as claimed?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, OPW2, Ext. A1 to A5 Series, Ext.B1 and Ext.X1 Series. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that the Complainant was undergone cataract surgery on 13.07.2016 in the hospital of first Opposite Party and operation was conducted by second Opposite Party. The grievance of the Complainant is that he lost his right eye sight due to the cutting of a nerve negligently by the second Opposite Party at the time of operation. Therefore he wants to get treatment expenses and compensation. The Opposite Parties denied that there is negligence from second Opposite Party at the time of operation as
-6-
alleged by the Complainant. According to them, they gave proper care and attention at the time of operation and thus there is no deficiency in service on their part. As I already stated, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant was admitted in the first Opposite Party hospital on 13.07.2016 and on the same day he was undergone cataract operation and discharged thereafter. It is also admitted that due to pain, redness and watering, he came again to the hospital of first opposite party on 15.07.2016 and then he was referred to their heigher centre at Palakkad. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant admitted there and discharged on 26.08.2016. According to him, since there was no relief from pain, he consulted doctors attached to District Hospital, Mananthavady, Calicut Medical College and Shri Sharada Eye and ENT clinic, Sulthan Bathery. The Complainant specifically alleged that his right eye sight was lost due to the negligence from the second Opposite Party. According to him, on examination by the doctors attached to Calicut Medical College, it was revealed that his right eye sight was lost due to the cutting of a nerve at the time of operation conducted by second Opposite Party.
7. The Complainant has given evidence as PW1 who deposed in conformity with his case in the complaint. The Administrator of the first Opposite Party has
-7-
given evidence as OPW1 and second Opposite Party has given evidence as OPW2. Ext.A1 is the discharge summary given by first Opposite Party to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the discharge summary received from Ahalia Eye Hospital, Palakkad by the complainant. Ext.A3 series are the Doppler Report and Lab result received from Calicut Medical College. Ext.A4 is the notebook containing treatment details of the Complainant from the Calicut Medical College. Ext.A5 Series are the treatment documents of Shri Sharada Eye and ENT Clinic, Sulthan Bathery. So, Ext.A1 to A5 series contain details of treatment of the Complainant. As I already stated, the specific case of the Complainant is that the second Opposite Party conducted the operation negligently and his right eye sight was lost due to the cutting of a nerve by the second Opposite Party at the time of operation. According to him, the Doctors from Calicut Medical college found on examination that his right eye sight was lost due to the cutting of a nerve at the time of operation conducted by the second Opposite Party. But PW1 admitted that Ext.A1 to A5 series do not contain anything to prove that he has lost his eye sight due to the cutting of nerve by second Opposite Party at the time of operation. The Opposite Parties denied that the second Opposite Party negligently cut the nerve of the Complainant at the time of operation and that is the reason to lost the eye sight of the Complainant. Since they denied this allegation, the
-8-
Complainant has the duty to prove that his eye sight was lost due to the operation conducted by second Opposite Party negligently. As I already stated, Ext.A1 to A5 series do not contain anything to prove that the Complainant lost his eye sight due to the cutting of nerve by second Opposite Party at the time of operation. The complaint has not examined the doctors from Medical college Calicut or Shri Sharadha Eye and ENT Clinic to prove that his eye sight was lost due to the negligent operation conducted by second Opposite Party. He has not obtained any certificate from the Medical Board even after filing of this complaint to prove that his nerve was cut and that was occurred during the operation conducted by second Opposite Party as alleged. Ext.A3 series to A5 series do not show anything to prove that his eye sight was lost due to the damage on his nerve as alleged by him. So, here absolutely, there is no evidence to prove his case to show that his eye sight was lost due to the negligent act of second Opposite Party. So, here he miserably failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Hence the point No.1 is found against the complainant.
8. Point No.2:- Since, I found point No.1 against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
-9-
In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of February 2020.
Date of Filing: 03.03.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Joseph. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Shefeeque. Administrator, Ahalia Foundation Eye
Hospital, Kalpetta.
OPW2. Visesh. Ophthalmologist.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Discharge Summary from Ahalia Foundation Eye Hospital,
Kalpetta.
A2. Copy of Discharge Summary.
A3(1). USG/Doppler Report. Dt:02.09.2016.
-10-
A3(2). Lab Report. Dt:01.09.2016.
A4. Notebook containing treatment details of complainant from Calicut
Medical College.
A5(1). Prescription from Shri Sharada Eye and ENT Clinic
Sulthan Bathery. Dt:17.11.2016.
A5(2). Prescription from Shri Sharada Eye and ENT Clinic
Sulthan Bathery. Dt:28.12.2016.
X1(Series). Case Record of complainant from Medical College Hospital,
Kozhikode.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Statement.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
