Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

184/2005

consumer protection council & one another - Complainant(s)

Versus

v raghavan - Opp.Party(s)

g nalini

01 Nov 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 08.03.2005

                                                                          Date of Order : 01.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.184/2005

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 01^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

                                 

1. Consumer Protection Council

Tamil Nadu, South Chennai Branch,

Represented by its Secretary

Smt. V. Vasanthi,

No.28-A, Main Road,

Sheela Nagar,

Puzhudivakkam,

Chennai – 600 091.

 

2. Santhanam,

Old No.5, New No.11, 5^th Street,

Sheela Nagar,

Madipakkam,

Chennai – 600 091.                                                      .. Complainants.                                         

 

               ..Versus..

 

Dr. V. Raghavan,

No.3/4 F, Aarthi Apartments,

9 (4) Haddows Road, First Street,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainants      :  Mrs. G. Nalini

Counsel for opposite party    :  M/s. K.V. Ananthakrishnan & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service to Santhanam, the 2^nd complainant with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The 2^nd complainant is a Myopia patient (short sight) for quite a long time and that he has been wearing spectacles and has been changing the glasses with appropriate lenses as and when the power of the lenses decreases.  The complainants further submit that the 2^nd complainant Santhanam had been consulting the opposite party, who is having his clinic at West Mambalam, for a very long time with regard to the periodical change of appropriate lenses for his eyes.  The complainants further submit that in the month of January 2004, as the 2^nd complainant had difficulty in reading files, he consulted the opposite party for treatment.  Then the opposite party told him that he is having cataract and that he ought to be operated in his left eye and that at the same time the opposite party suspected the said Santhanam to have nystagmus, which is a condition in which there is involuntary movement of the eyes, he advised him to take an MRI scan.  That thereafter a scan was taken in the month of April 2004 the opposite party was consulted for further treatment.  The complainant further submits that on 02.05.2004, the opposite party advised Santhanam to go ahead with the cataract surgery in his left eye inspite of the fact that the opposite party suspected that Santhanam had the problem of nystagmus.  That the opposite party asked the said Santhanam to get admitted in the Apollo Hospital at Nandanam on 19.06.2004 at 08 a.m. in the morning as he would perform the surgery himself.  That accordingly the said Santhanam got himself admitted in the Apollo Hospital on 19.06.2004. 

2.     The complainants further state that accordingly on 19.06.2004, at 10 a.m. in the morning the said Santhanam was taken by the opposite party to the operation theatre.  That after one and half hour of the operation, when Santhanam indicated by signs to the opposite party that his pain was unbearable and that he was feeling tired, the opposite party abandoned the operation and left Santhanam in lurch and left the place.  The complainant further submits that the said Santhanam thereafter with an unbearable pain in his eye and thorough exhaustion went to his daughter’s residence at Vadapalani, after making a payment of a sum of Rs.6,500/- to the hospital as demanded by them.  That on reaching his daughter’s house, he had unbearable pain in his left eye and had frequent bouts of vomiting and loose motion.  That thereafter, his daughter enquired the opposite party about the same, when she was told that the cataract was not removed completely and that the retina had detached and that Santhanam had to get further treatment from Sankara Nethralaya and that he would give a letter to that effect.

3.     The complainants further state that the said Santhanam, when he got his eyes examined in the Sankara Nethralaya on 21.06.2004, was told by them that he had to undergo two surgeries in his left eye, as he had a massive choroidal haemorrhage and that the blood  had to be drained and that his eyes had to be examined every alternate days and that even then they cannot assure him the vision.  That the said Santhanam accordingly underwent two surgeries on 29.06.2004 and 08.07.2004 in his left eye and he had to spend nearly Rs.8,000/- and Rs.24,000/- respectively for the said two surgeries.  That he was admitted as an inpatient for nearly six days for the above said two surgeries.  That the said Santhanam thereafter underwent frequent check-up every alternative days by way of review in the Sankara Nethralaya and yet he has not got back his vision completely.  That the said Santhanam, had a clear vision except the slight difficulty in reading files and used to go to his office in a two wheeler and used to do all the normal activities without anyone’s help before his treatment with the opposite party.  After his treatment he lost his vision in his left eye, cannot go out during night times and during day times without anyone’s help and he is not in a position to drive a two wheeler.  That the said Santhanam whose job requires handling of the accounts is now not in a position to deliver the goods who is left with two more years of service.  To add fuel to the fire, the said Santhanam had to undergo great pain, suffering and mental agony in addition to the enormous medical expenses because of the wrong treatment given by the opposite party.

4.     The complainants state that the said Santhanam gave a representation to the 1^st complainant to take up his cause with the opposite party.  Based on his representation, the 1^st complainant gave a notice to the opposite party on 07.09.2004.  To the said notice, the opposite party gave a reply on 16.09.2004 stating interalia that during the course of the surgery, the said Santhanam had a massive choroidal haemorrhage and which was the cause of the retina being pushed out of position and due to which, the opposite party had to abandon the surgery.  That therefore, he was referred for further treatment to Sankara Nethralaya.   The complainants state that as admitted by the opposite party, Santhanam had only a moderate cataract and he was suspected to have nystagmus.  When a patient had a moderate cataract and suspected to have nystagmus, he ought not to have been operated.   Even assuming without admitting that a surgery could be done on a patient, he ought to have been advised to take a ‘B’ scan before going in for a surgery to verify the eye pressure and the position of the eye.  That when the vision of the said Santhanam enabled him to do all the normal activities on his own, including riding a two wheeler, the opposite party could have advised the use of bi-focal lens instead of going for a surgery.  Because of sheer negligence and deficiency in service the opposite party had advised surgery to the said Santhanam who had a moderate cataract and who was suspected to have nystagmus.

5.     The complainant further submits that due to the said surgery, Santhanam had suffered major complications which resulted in his loss of vision in his left eye and spending huge sum for consequent medical expenses, transport and for recuperating his health.  After the two surgeries at Sankara Nethralaya, Santhanam had to take two months bed rest without being able to do any normal activities, as he had to be administered drops every one hour continuously for two months.  For the said period, he was not able to go to his office disentitling to his income for those two months, which amounted to a loss of a sum of Rs.25,000/-.  That he being the only breadwinner in the family, his family were put to great hardship.  That to go to the Sankara Nethralaya Hospital for nearly fifteen times by engaging a call taxi for a sum of Rs.500/- up and down from Madipakkam to the hospital, he had to incur a sum of Rs.7,500/-.  That for extra nourishment and for medicines, he had to spend a sum of Rs.50,000/-.  That for three surgeries, Santhanam had to spend a sum of Rs.40,000/- for mental agony and hardship underwent by Santhanam, he is entitled for damages for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.  Hence the complaint is filed.

6.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party states that when it was found that the 2^nd complainant had nystagamus, he was advised for treatment.  Being a Government servant, he went to the Govt. Hospital and got treatment.  The opposite party being a Neuro Ophthalmologist prepared notes for perusal of the Doctor in the Govt. Hospital.  If the 2^nd complainant produces the notes, real position will be known.  After MRI Scan, it was found that there was no abnormality.  The opposite party did not treat him for nystagamus and there was no question of his advice for further treatment.   The above facts are stated in the reply notice of the opposite party and not denied in the complaint.  The opposite party being a specialist in Neuro services was a chair person in Neuro Science Programme held on 12, 13, 14 and 15^th of February 2005 at Chennai.  Booklet is produced.  The opposite party is attached to Public Health Centre as Neuro Ophthalmologist.  The letter-head is filed herewith.  End gaze nystagamus while looking to one side is found in normals.

7.     Further the opposite party states that the complainant alleges that during operation, he had unbearable pain and on his pointing this out, the opposite party abandoned the operation and left him in the lurch.  He went to his daughter’s house.  He had frequent bouts of vomiting and pain.  When his daughter contacted the opposite party she was told that cataract was not completely removed and retina detached.  He required further treatment in Sankara Nethralaya.  The above facts are nothing but issues of falsehood.  On account of local anesthesia none can feel pain during operation and for sometime thereafter.  After removal of cataract before implanting lens, sub-chorodral hemorrhage was noticed.  Hence, implanting was not done.  In such circumstances, a Surgeon is bound to close the wound so that, IOP may increase.   His brother accompanied him.  Operation notes were prepared and handed over to him for further treatment in Sankara Nethralaya.   On 19.06.2004, Proxyvan capsule was prescribed for patients.  Six capsules were purchased.  On 20.06.2004 when seen by the opposite party, he did not complain any pain.  The eyes were quiet.  No medicine was prescribed for pain because he did not have any pain. The bill dated:19.06.2004 for purchase of medicine prescribed by the opposite party has been produced by the complainant.   He claims that the 2^nd complainant was not seen by the opposite party after operation.   The complaint proceeds on the basis that the 2^nd complainant on his own initiation got treated in Sankara Nethralaya.  As stated above, chorodral hemorrhage was noted and the possibility of dislocation of retina.   He is not a specialist and hence he contacted Dr. Lingam Gopal from the operation theatre and requested him to treat the 2^nd complainant immediately.  This is why on 21.06.2004, the 2^nd complainant was examined.  The opposite party alone referred the 2^nd complainant to Dr. Lingam Gopal.

8.     Further the opposite party state that the complainants admit that the opposite party pointed out that there was detachment of retina and for this he must undergo treatment in Sankara Nethralaya.  The opposite party did surgery for cataract removal.  Unfortunately for him there was sub chrodial hemorrhage which affected the retina.  Such sudden development is rare and hence could not be foreseen.   A honest Doctor is bound to refer the patient to another specialist if he cannot treat the fresh ailment.  He had to pay for it.  This opposite party has nothing to do with it.   The complainant has not stated who told him that they could not assure him vision.  Lens was not implanted for the reason already stated.  On 02.08.2004, the left eye was tested and near vision was N8 and distant vision 6/24.  When checked in April 2005, near vision was N6 i.e.6/24.  When checked in April 2005, near vision was N6 and distant vision was 6/18.  There was improvement.  He was advised to have contact lens.   If the complainants file the report given by the opposite party regarding the quality of vision truth will come out.  His vision was improved on account of removal of cataract and loss of vision was avoided by prompt reference for rectifying retina disorder.  If he was able to attend duties before operation, he would certainly be placed in better position after operation.  He is attending office and if he is unable to work, Government will not pay him salary.  I learn that he is regularly attending office and doing work.  If there was any loss of salary he could have proved by producing records.  The surgery was not abandoned.  Implanting of lens was not done because of possible further operation to correct retinal disorder. 

9.     Further the opposite party states that the surgery would be no different from conventional cataract surgery and could be performed by any Ophthalmologist.  The complainants do not know the scope of B Scan.  It is not done to know the pressure and it cannot gauge the pressure.   When inner portions of the eye are not visible B Scan is necessary.  Cataract is moderate and hence without B scan inner condition can be seen.  Letter given by Dr. Arulmozhi Varman is filed to show that B. Scan is not necessary.  His vision did not improve with glasses.  This statement of the opposite party in his reply is not denied in the complaint.  Surgery advice was not negligent because his vision was bad. The 2^nd complainant approached the opposite party because he could not read.   It is not stated in what way there was deficiency in service.  The major complication could not have been foreseen.  Such risk is always inherent in every surgery.  It is not admitted that he did not get salary for two months.  There is no question of recuperation of health.  It is not admitted that he spent Rs.7,500/- for call taxi.  Where is the question of extra nourishment for eye operation.  He could not have spent Rs.50,000/- for medicine.  All the claims relate to the surgery in Sankara Nethralaya.   Sudden development of disorder, which cannot be foreseen is an inherent risk in all surgeries.  The opposite party is not responsible for this.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

10.   To prove the averments in the complaint, the 1^st complainant has filed proof affidavit as evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite party.

11.    The point for consideration is:-

Whether the 2^nd complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

 

12.    On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit, documents etc.   The 2^nd complainant is the alleged affected person.  The 2^nd complainant is the member of the 1^st complainant’s Association.  The 2^nd complainant has Myopia (short sight) and consulting the opposite party for treatment.  During the month of January 2004, the 2^nd complainant had difficulty in reading files.  While consulting the opposite party, he told that the 2^nd complainant is having cataract and that he ought to be operated in his left eye.  The opposite party doctor suspected that the 2^nd complainant have Nystagmus (i.e) involuntary movement of the eyes and advised him to take MRI scan.   After due consultation accordingly MRI scan was taken in the Government General Hospital.  On 02.05.2004, after going through the same report the opposite party advised the 2^nd complainant to go ahead with the cataract surgery in his left eye.  Since the Nystagmus problem had subsidised the opposite party instructed to admit in the Apollo Hospital at Nandanam on 19.06.2004 as per Ex.A2 and on the same day operation was conducted. 

13.    Further the contention of the 2^nd complainant is that immediately after the operation he had unbearable pain and the opposite party abandoned the operation and left the 2^nd complainant in lurch and left the place.  The 2^nd complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,500/- to the hospital also.  The 2^nd complainant had vomiting and loose motion also.  On enquiry with the opposite party the 2^nd complainant was told that the cataract was not removed completely and that the retina had detached and the 2^nd complainant had to get further treatment from Sankara Nethralaya Hospital and due letter also given.   Thereafter, the 2^nd complainant got his eyes examined in the Sankara Nethralaya on 21.06.2004; wherein he was told that he had to undergo two surgeries in his left eye to rectify the complication.  During the surgery he had a massive chorodial haemorrhage and that the blood had to be drained.  The 2^nd complainant had under gone both surgeries on 29.06.2004 and 08.07.2004 respectively in  the left eye and he had to spend nearly Rs.8,000/- and Rs.24,000/- respectively as inpatient for six days as per Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 and continued freuquent check up on every alternative days  in Sankara Nethralaya which caused great mental agony and huge medical expenses.   But it is not denied that Subchorodial Hemorrhage which occurred to the 2^nd complainant is unforeseen due to which he had to undergo two surgeries.

14.    The complainant further contended that on 02.05.2004, the opposite party gave notes of pre-operation Ex.A1 shows that the opposite party asked for fitness for surgery under local Anesthesia and for a scan.   But as per Ex.A17 scan, it was taken on 10.04.2004 quite early to Ex.A1.  As per Ex.A2 on 19.06.2004, the opposite party conducted operation and stated that there was a posterior capsule tear as soon as the nucleus was rotated and IOL was not implanted proves that the cataract was not removed completely.   Equally, the opposite party has not advised to take B Scan in order to evaluate over complication.  Ex.A3 to Ex.A7 is with regard to subsequent treatment at Sankara Nethralaya, wherein the 2^nd complainant was diagnosed with profound visual impairment in left eye and supra choroidal haemorrhage and the medication was given for left eye and due surgery was conducted on 29.06.2004.  Ex. A8 is the Discharge Summary.  The case summary is Ex.A9 wherein it is stated that during surgery, it was found that the retina was bulging into the papillary area and hence the  surgery was abandoned at that stage.  As per Ex.A15 dated:19.08.2003, the opposite party states that 2 years ago the complainant on his own got his eyes ‘Excimer Lasered’ and went to him for review in 2002 July and that time Santhanam was found to have moderate cataract, nystagmus and myopia.    Due to surgery he suffered major complications which resulted in loss of vision in left eye and spending huge amount for medical expenses.   But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that the complainant has not produced Vision Text Report.   Hence the complainant was constrained to file this complaint.

15.    The complainant cited a decision reported in:

2004 (2) CPR 130 (NC)

Between

Dr. V. Pahwa

-Versus-

Surindra Mohan Ghose

Held that

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 & 17 Medical Negligence – Appellant – doctor carried eye surgery for implanting  Intra Ocular lens but during surgery found that if was a case of retina detachment – complainant ultimately lost eye sight in operated eye – State Commission holder appellant negligent and deficient in service and awarded compensation of Rs.One lac in complainant’s favour – Appeal – Non-examination of any expert witness – Report of B-Scan was pre-requisite for knowing exact status of eye before carrying surgery and appellant had failed to get it done – it was clear case of negligence and no expert evidence was required – Amount of compensation could not be said excessive but was rather inadequate – No ground to interfere”.    But in this case, an expert opinion is given on the side of the opposite party that B Scan is not necessary as per Ex.B8.

16.    The contention of the opposite party is that the 2^nd complainant must prove the following that nystagmus patient cannot be operated for cataract, B scan should have been taken, instead of surgery and left him in the lurch.  The 2^nd complainant also should prove that he had foreseen subchorodial haemorrhage and paid for the service.   In this case, the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove that he has paid for the service rendered by the opposite party.   Ex.A10 – Ex.B9 for a sum of Rs.6,500/- is paid to Apollo Hospital wherein operation conducted; the opposite party has not received even single paise for his service.  He used to serve free of cost.  As per Ex.A14 the opposite party expressly stated that he did not receive any fees from the 2^nd complainant is not disputed in para Nos.5 & 8 of the complaint.  It is very clear that the complainant has not paid any amount to the opposite party, paid only to the Apollo Hospital who is not a party to this case.

17.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that cataract surgery to the 2^nd complainant was performed on 19.06.2004.  The 2^nd complainant has to prove whether Myopia can be operated for cataract?  Whether Nystagmus patient can be operated for cataract?  Whether B scan is necessary in all cases? Whether the subchoridal haemorrhage and consequential displacement of retina are foreseeable risk in cataract surgery?  Moreover on 20.06.2004, the 2^nd complainant did not make any complaint.  In this case, the complainant has not proved any of the facts.   The complainant has not produced any expert evidence, no expert also have been examined. 

The opposite party cited a decision reported in:

I 1999 CPJ 13 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

Between                      

CALCUTTA MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

-Versus-

BIMALESH CHATTERJEE & ORS.

Held that

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1) (c) (iii) – Medical Negligence – Wrong Blood Transfusion – Deficiency in Service – State Commission awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation – Hence appeal – Documents lacking essential technical details – Patient survived 4 years after treatment – No evidence to link blood transfusion with any resultant complications – Onus of proving negligence on complainant, not discharged – No negligence/ deficiency proved – Order set aside”.

18.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that B scan cannot be a gauge, the IOP and its resorted to have a clear vision of the interior can be seen with the help of the ophthalmoscope after dilation.   IOP is measured using the Applanation Tonometer.   The complainants allegation of non arrangement of B Scan establish the doubt.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the imaginary allegation that during the cataract surgery the complainant was abandoned by the opposite party is totally denied.  During the operation local Anestheisa was applied and its effect should have lasted for sometimes evenafter operation.  Evenafter removal of Cataract implanting of lens was not done.  Since the 2^nd complainant had the complaint of cataract for more than two years and it obstructs vision, the occurrence of sub choroidal haemorrhage is 0.25% such risk is not foreseeable.  The complainant has not produced any evidence or authority to prove that such haemorrhage is foreseeable one. 

Answered by Richanrd E.Gans, M.D.

“The simple answer to your question is “yes”.  Cataract extraction with lens implantation can be performed on an individual with albinism and nystagmus.  The surgery should be no different from conventional cataract surgery and could be perfor;med by any ophthalmologist”.

“Removing the cataract can potentially bring the vision back to its condition prior to cataract formation but it cannot correct the visual problems that are inherent to the albinism condition”

19.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that Ex.A2 shows the method adopted for surgery.  There is no dispute that it is not a correct one.  After removal of cataract, but before implanting the lens, the opposite party noted subchorodial haemorrhage in the eye.  In such circumstances, the surgeon must immediately stop the surgery and close the wound.  Immediately after closure IOP builds up and haemorrhage stops.  However, the blood already collected has to be drained.   But on a careful perusal of the medical literatures in Ex.B3, it is stated as follows:

“It is the most serious and devastating complication of intraocular surgery, but fortunately is uncommon with an incidence of approximately 0.25 per cent”.

  Therefore, the contention of the opposite party that since subchorodial haemorrhage was found implanting was not done is acceptable.

Daniel M Taylor MD in his book states as follows:

          “Therapy: Surgical: Immediate and rapid closure of the corneoscleral wound with temporary 7.0 or 8.0 interrupted black silk sutures is mandatory to permit a rapid buildup of the intra ocular pressure which in turn tend to tamponade bleeding from the ruptured arterial vessel.

By Hamilton Ray:

“Immediate and rapid closure of the corneoscleral wound is mandatory to permit a rapid build up of IOP which in turn tends to tamponade bleeding from the ruptured arterial vessel.  In the case of cataract surgery, modern small incision sclera tunnel wounds may be self sealing or may require a single suture to permit tight closure thus checking the progression of haemorrhage as the IOP rises”.

20.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of loss of vision is a deliberate lie.  The opposite party conducted surgery for removal of cataract alone.  The Sankara Nethralaya has not done anything for removal of cataract.  Removal of cataract alone can restore vision.  On 02.08.2004, his vision in the left eye i.e. the eye in question was 6/24 and N8 is proved from Ex.A9 case summary when he was examined proves that the vision was completely restored.  Dr. Lingam Gopal of Sankara Nehtralaya states that in the last check up on 02.08.2004 his left eye vision had improved.  He need contact lenses in the left eye in future after 2 to 3 weeks.  The opposite party further contended that the first surgery schedule of Sankara Nethralaya does not refer to any complaint of pain.  It is unthinkable that pain continued after surgery on 19.06.2004 alone even though on two occasions surgery was done after 19.06.2004.  If new ailment erupts, which has nothing to do with the ailment for which, he was treated mental agony cannot be the result of treatment of first ailment.  The claim of the complainant that the 2^nd complainant lost his vision in the left eye is a deliberate falsehood.  Immediately, after operation in the Nethralaya the distant vision of the left eye was 6/24 i.e. he could read the 3^rd line from the top out of 7 lines in the chart.  Nearer vision was N6 i.e. he could read the last line. 100% restored.  This is proved by the document No.9 filed by the complainant.  Mr. Santhanam was checked in April 2005 in the Sankara Nethralaya.   Distant vision  was 6/18.  There was improvement.  He could read the fourth line.  Nearer vision was the same.  This is proved by the letter given by Dr. Lingam Gopal to the opposite party vide Ex.B7.  In primary position, no apparent, nystagmus but there is nystagmus while looking to the left.  End gaze nystagmus while looking to one side is also found in normals.  In the medical literature submitted by the opposite party’s Counsel namely Ex.B2, it is stated as follows:

“Abduction is difficult to sustain beyond 35  and a physiologic end-gaze nystagums may be seen”. 

21.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that if nystagmus person cannot be operated for cataract, they will remain blind is not denied by the complainant that as per the document filed by the complainant he is a nystagmus patient but, surgery cannot be avoided since, it is essential one at the stage of cataract.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that after removal of cataract, but before implanting the lens the opposite party noted subchoroidal haemorrhage in the eye.  In such circumstances, the surgeon must immediately stop surgery and close the wound; is acceptable.  Hence, the lens was not fixed and referred to Sankara Nethralaya Hospital are all not denied by the complainant.   It is also seen that the complainant has not filed any expert evidence for loss of vision.  On the other hand, on perusal of entire records, it is seen that his vision was improved after surgery.  The unforeseen subchorodial haemorrhage is not fault of the 2^nd opposite party as per medical literature produced before this Forum.  All the claim is related to the surgery in Sankara Nethralaya alone.  Since the opposite party has not received any amount for surgery, the 2^nd complainant cannot claim any amount from him.   Admittedly, the 2^nd complainant had paid only to Apollo Hospital.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 01^st day of November 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	02.05.2004	Copy of pre-operation notes by the opposite party
Ex.A2	19.06.2004	Copy of operation notes by the opposite party
Ex.A3	23.06.2004	Copy of surgery schedule by Sankara Nethralaya
Ex.A4	29.06.2004	Copy of In-patient discharge bill by Sankara Nethralaya
Ex.A5		Copy of Discharge summary by Sankara Nethralaya
Ex.A6	05.07.2004	Copy of Surgery schedule
Ex.A7	09.07.2004	Copy of In-patient discharge bill
Ex.A8		Copy of discharge summary
Ex.A9	02.08.2004	Copy of case summary
Ex.A10	19.06.2004	Copy of receipt by Apollo Specialty Hospital for the payment of Rs.6,500/-
Ex.A11		Copy of medical bills
Ex.A12	19.08.2004	Copy of representation by Santhanam to the complainant
Ex.A13	07.09.2004	Copy of notice by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A14	16.09.2004	Copy of reply by the opposite party
Ex.A15	19.08.2003	Copy of notes by the opposite party
Ex.A16	27.03.2004	Copy of outpatient registration book
Ex.A17	10.04.2004	Copy of scan report

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS: 

Ex.B1	15.02.2005	Copy of Annual courses in clinical Neurosciences Protramme
Ex.B2		Copy of Neuro Opthaalmology by Joel Glazer
Ex.B3		Copy of “Expulsive Haemorrhage”  from the book Current Ocular Therapy 3
Ex.B4		Copy of report by Richard E. Gans
Ex.B5		Copy of Explulsive Subchorodial Haemorrhage from Master Techniques in Ophthalmic Surgery Book
Ex.B6		Copy of Systems of Ophthalmic by Sir Stewart Duke.  Elder Volume IX
Ex.B7	30.05.2005	Copy of letter from Sankara Nethralaya to opposite party
Ex.B8	03.06.2005	Copy of letter by Arulmozhi Varman
Ex.B9	19.06.2005	Copy of bill by Apollo Specialty Hospital
Ex.B10		Copy of letter Head of Public Health Centre
Ex.B11		Copy of Long Vision chart
Ex.B12		Copy of Near Vision chart
Ex.B13		Copy of B. Scan Ocular Ultrasound

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT