Date of filing : 11.03.2013
Date of Order : 20.07.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE AT VELLORE DISTRICT.
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc. B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A. MEMBER - II
WEDNESDAY THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.11 / 2013
M. Kanagalakshmi,
W/o. C. Munirathinam,
Old No.255B, New No.2,
Kamaraj Nagar, 5th Street,
Thorapadi, Vellore. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Udhi Eye Hospitals,
(Run by Udhi Eye Hospitals Trust),
No. 9, Murrays Gate Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.
2. Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme,
ECHS Polyclinic type ‘a’ Vellore, (Military Canteen),
V.I.T. Back Side, Katpadi, Vellore. …Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. T.S. Kannaiyan
Counsel for first opposite party : Thiru. B. Cheran & Thiru. M. Nagarethinam
Second opposite party : Set exparte (26.03.2014)
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L. PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant has prayed to this Hon’ble commission to direct the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with 12% interest to the complainant from the date of surgery 12.09.2012 to the date of payment of the compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
1. The case of complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant was referred to first opposite party hospital for Bilateral Cataract on 12.09.2012, by the second opposite party. Accordingly, the complainant came to the first opposite party hospital for treatment, where complainant had under gone all pre operation and tests in first opposite party’s hospital. She was referred to first opposite party hospital on 27.09.2012 for surgery for Cataract in the left eye. Accordingly, the complainant was admitted in the first opposite party hospital and surgery was done in her left eye on 2.10.2012. The surgery was successful and there was not problem in the left eye. Again, she was referred to first opposite party hospital on 04.10.2012 for Cataract surgery in right eye. The complainant was admitted in the first opposite party hospital and surgery was performed in her right eye on 08.10.2012. But operation was a failure, it was done negligently. Even during her stay in hospital her right eye started watering. She was advised by the Doctors, that in due course the watering problem would be solved. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 09.10.2012. Since the problem was not solved, on 12.10.2012 she went to the first opposite party hospital and made a complaint. The first opposite party’s Doctors had once again advised to continue to apply drops, and that the problem would be cured. But there was no improvement and the problem aggravated. The eye became reddish and painful. On 18.10.2012 the complainant again got admitted, in the first opposite party hospital. On 20.10.2012 the first opposite party’s chief doctor, stated that the vision in the right is totally lost and there is no possibility of regaining in the vision. The complainant made a complaint, with second opposite party regarding the treatment given by the first opposite party. The second opposite party on 20.10.2012 referred the complainant to Sankara Nethralaya for further treatment. The allegation of the complainant is that, because of the negligent treatment by the second opposite party hospital, the complainant had totally lost to her vision in the right eye and the first opposite party doctors expressed their inability to regain the vision. Thereafter due to the best efforts of the doctors in Sankara Nethralaya. the complainant is very slowly regaining her vision till the date. She acquired 10% of the vision. She had issued a legal notice to the first opposite party on 22.12.2012 and same was served on the first opposite party. The first opposite party gave a reply on 22.01.2013. Further the first opposite party’s chief Dr. R. Raveendiran’s son, is working as a doctor in Sankara Nethralaya. With his help, Sankara Nethralaya records are manipulated to suit their needs. The first opposite party had also manipulated and fabricated false records in his hospital for the purpose of case. There is deficiency of service on the first opposite party hospital and therefore the first opposite party is liable to compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2.. The written version of first opposite party is as follows:
The complainant was referred by the second opposite party requesting for a Cataract surgery in the right eye. After a detail free operative examination of the right eye exactly the same like her left eye, pre-operative medications for her right eye was started. All her vital statistics were checked and found to be normal. Her right eye was scheduled for surgery 08.10.2012 morning under local anaesthesia. Her right eye was operated at 7.00a.m and she was brought out at 7.15a.m. After recovery post-operative medications were started on an hourly basis from 10.00a.m on 08.10.2012. She was reviewed by Dr. R. Raveendran on 08.10.2012 at 3.15p.m, and she was found to the very comfortable. Both her operated eyes were excellent. She was reviewed on 09.10.2012 at 9.30a.m, when the patient was found to be extremely comfortable. Her visual assessment was done on both her eyes at 9.45a.m and was found to be 6/6 in each eye separately. The same was demonstrated to the patient and attender. Dr. R. Raveendran did an eye examination on her at 10.05a.m and found that both her eyes were completely and successful cured. All the formalities that she went through after her first eye surgery, were repeated. A medical schedule for both her eyes were given starting from 09.10.2012 to 15.11.2012. Once she opted to get discharged, a discharge summary was handed to her. The discharge summary in addition to other details, had the patient’s condition at the time of discharge saying the patient is “Stable and Comfortable” and she was requested to come forward to review after 4 to 5 days at the patient’s convenience and after one month on a specified date. This review after 4 to 5 days is to make sure her compliance is good and her eye healing is good, since she is a diabetic. She came back to this opposite party hospital on 12.10.2012 itself at 10.00a.m for a routine post-operative visit as per suggestion, since, after that date according to her she had personal commitments. Her eye was examined by Dr. R. Raveendran. Both her eyes were found to be normal, both her eyes had vision of 6/6 separately. She had absolutely no complaints in both her eyes and very much comfortable. Patient and attender were demonstrated the normal visual status in both her eyes.
3. Further the necessary clarification were done. She was requested review after one month’s time. Again, she has visited on 19.10.2012 at 9.20 a.m with the following complaints:
1. Pain and watering, right eye since 18.10.2012 late evening. This is the first time since her both eyes surgery, she was complaining about pain and watering.
2. She was very clear that her both eyes was comfortable with normal vision till 18.10.2012.
3. She admitted that her diabetes was not under good control and that her blood sugar checked four days earlier to 19.10.2012 was 240 mg/dl.
4. She also admitted, she has not been on the medical schedule as per the timing of application specified by us. On examination she had the following findings:-
CLINICAL FINDINGS
1. Vision right eye – Counting Fingers at 1 metre
2. Lid edema.
3. Conjunctival Congestion.
4. Clear cornea.
5. 2 plus cells in anterior chamber.
6. No. hypopyon.
7. Fibrin in the anterior chamber.
8. Vitreous inflammation.
9. Normal retina, disc and macula – hazily seen.
CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS
With the above findings a diagnosis of sterile uveitis right eye or a low grade infective endophthalmitis right eye was made.
FIRST LINE MANAGEMENT
1. She was immediately admitted. Her general condition reassessed. Intensive topical antibiotics, steroids, cycloplegics and systemic antibiotics started.
2. She was reassessed by Dr. R. Raveendran at 3.15 p.m. on 19.10.2012 when her condition had started improving. Intensified medical treatment was continued. She was re-examined on 20.10.2012 at 8.30.a.m. when her condition in the right eye had further improved.
FURTHER MANAGEMENT
Dr. R. Raveendran felt that vitreous or aqueous aspiration has to be done.
a. Microscopy of the smears for bacteria should be done for gram staining and giemsa staining.
b. AKOH staining and calcofluor white should be done for fungi and microscopy done on such slide.
c. A portion vitreous or aqueous aspirate should be subjected to both bacterial and fungal culture including both solid and liquid media. This could be all or most of the following media:-
(i) Blood agar.
(ii) Chocolate agar.
(iii) potato agar.
(iv) Sabouraud dextrose agar.
(v) Thioglycollate broth.
(vi) Brain heart infusion.
Dr. R. Raveediran is not related to the concerned consultant at Sankara Netharalaya. Thus there is no cause of action. Then first opposite party had not committed any omission or commission. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency or action of first opposite party. Therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against the first opposite party.
4. Though the notice was received by the second opposite party from this Hon’ble Commission. The second opposite party did not appear before this commission. There was no representation on the side of the second opposite party and therefore, the second opposite party is called absent and set exparte.
5. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked. Proof affidavit first opposite party filed. Ex.B1 to Ex.B22 were marked. Written argument of complainant and first opposite party sides filed. Oral argument of complainant and first opposite party sides heard. Second opposite party set exparte.
6. THE POINTS THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION ARE:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
Parties 1&2 ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
7. POINT NOS. 1 & 2: The complainant was referred to first opposite party hospital for Bilateral Cataract on 12.09.2012 by the second opposite party. Accordingly, the cataract operation was done for both eye. In so far as operation done in left eye, the surgery was successful and there was no problem in the left eye. Again, she was referred to first opposite party hospital on 04.10.2012 for Cataract surgery in right eye. But the operation done in her right eye on 08.10.2012, became failure. After cataract surgery, in her right eye started watering. She was advised by the Doctors that in due course the watering problem would be solved. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 09.10.2012. Since the problem was not solved, on 12.10.2012 she went again with the opposite party hospital and made a complaint. The first opposite party’s Doctors had once again advised to continuously apply eye drops and the problem would be cured. But there was no improvement whereas the problem became aggravated. The eye became reddish and painful. On 18.10.2012 the complainant again got admitted in the first opposite party hospital. As there was no improvement. She was referred to Sankara Nethralaya for further treatment. The allegation of the complainant is that, because of the negligent treatment by the second opposite party hospital, the complainant had lost her vision in the right eye. Thereafter due to the best efforts of the doctors in Sankara Nethralaya. the complainant is very slowly regaining her vision till the date. She acquired 10% of the vision. The first opposite party gave a reply on 22.01.2013. In the present case, when the complainant approached the opposite party with complaint of watering in the eye. The opposite party in the first instance should have done culture test to find out cause for watering and pain for further treatment. But, the opposite party simply gave eye drops and was not done the culture test. Further, the opposite party did not give proper explanation as to how they obtain medical records of the complainant from Sankara Nethralaya. Where there is specific allegation there that the opposite party hand in glove with Sankara Nethralaya to correction the medical records on this ground as well. As a result, the complainant problem became worst and she was forced to take treatment in another hospital namely Sankara Nethralaya for further treatment. Therefore there is a clear case of short coming in the service of first opposite party. Therefore the act of the first opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
8. Point No.3: As we have decided in point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The first opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. This point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
9. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The first opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization. As against the second opposite party this complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20th July, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER –I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLIANANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 - Office copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant
Ex.A2 - Served postal acknowledgement card
Ex.A3 -22.01.2013 - Reply notice issued by the complainant
Ex.A4-12.09.2012 - Copy of ECHS referred from to Udhi Eye Hospital Serial No. 3
Ex.A5-20.10.2012 - Copy of Udhi Eye Hospital letter to Sankara Nethralaya Eye
Specialist Hospital
Ex.A6-20.10.2012 - Copy of ECHS Referral from to Sankara Nethralaya Eye
Specialist Hospital Serial No. 11
Ex.A7 - Copy of Sankara Nethralaya Eye specialist Hospital Glass
Prescription Serial No. 6
Ex.A8 - Sankara Nethralaya Eye Specialist Hospital Appointment Slip
Serial No. 13
Ex.A9 - Sankara Nethralaya Eye Specialist Hospital patient Flow Chart
Serial No. 7
Ex.A10 - Sankara Nethralaya Eye Specialist Hospital Bill Serial No. 20
Ex.A11-10.12.2012 - Sankara Nethralaya Eye Specialist Hospital Prescription bifocal
petals
LIST OF FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1 - Copy of Case Sheet of tmt. Kanagalakshmi
Ex.B2-02.10.2012 - Copy of consent for Left eye surgery
Ex.B3-02.10.2012 - Copy of surgery for advanced cataract with high refractive error
Ex.B4-02.10.2012 - Copy of post operative care in cataract surgery issued by first
opposite party
Ex.B5-08.10.2012 - Copy of consent for Right eye surgery
Ex.B6-08.10.2012 - Copy of surgery for advanced cataract with high refractive error
Ex.B7-08.10.2012 - Copy of post operative care in cataract surgery issued by first
opposite party
Ex.B8-22.10.2012 - Copy of Clinical Microbiology Lab Report (Final Report)
Ex.B9-22.10.2012 - Copy of Clinical Microbiology Lab Report (Preliminary)
Ex.B10-22.10.2012 - Copy of VRF Lab Report (Final Report)
Ex.B11-02.11.2012 - Copy of Clinical Microbiology Lab Report (final Report)
Ex.B12-12.09.2012 - Copy of Referral Form 1 from ECHS
Ex.B13-24.09.2012 - Copy of Case summary of Tmt. Kanagalakshmi before any
treatment, issued by Udhi Eye Hospitals
Ex.B14-27.09.2012 - Copy of Referral form 2 from ECHS
Ex.B15-03.10.2012 - Copy of Discharge Summary of Tmt. Kanagalakshmi issued by
Udhi Eye Hospitals
Ex.B16-04.10.2012 - Copy of Referral form 3 from ECHS
Ex.B17-09.10.2012 - Copy of discharge summary of Tmt. Kanagalakshmi issued by
Udhi eye Hospital
Ex.B18-20.10.2012 - Copy of Referral letter to Sankara Nethralaya issued by Udhi
eye Hospital
Ex.B19-28.12.2012 - Copy of case summary of Tmt. Kanagalakshmi issued by
Sankara Nethralaya
Ex.B20-24.09.2012 - Copy of Sterility Report of operation theatre issued by Hitech
Diagnostic Centre
Ex.B21-08.10.2012 - Copy of Patient details who were operated on the same day at
Udhi Eye Hospitals
Ex.B22-25.12.2012 - Copy of call details made on 20.10.2012
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER –I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
