These two revision petitions arise out of a common complaint of medical negligence filed by Shi V. Sirajudeen before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. Revision Petitioner, Comtrust Eye Hospital in RP 4117 of 2011 was OP-1 before the District Forum. Revision petitioner Dr. Sreekanth Karat in RP No.4154 of 2011 was OP-2 before the District Forum. The complaint was allowed and OPs were directed to pay a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs to the Complainant. This decision was challenged in two separate appeals before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and was decided by a common order. The State Commission has allowed the appeals partially by reducing the compensation amount to Rs.2 lakhs. The two revision petitions, are filed by the two OPs, challenging the common order of Kerala State Commission.
2. We have carefully perused the records filed by the parties. Mr. Shyam Padman, Advocate has been heard on behalf of the two revision petitioners and Mr. Raghenath Basant, Advocate on behalf of the respondent/Complainant. The impugned order has been challenged on identical grounds in the two revision petitions. Therefore, both are taken up for decision through this common order.
3. Brief facts as seen from the records, are that the Complainant underwent surgery of his left eye for cataract at OP-1 hospital on 28.5.2001. Postoperative complaints of irritation and uneasiness in the operated eye were treated by the OPs, but without relief. On 2.6.2001, he was referred to Giridhar Eye Institute for better treatment. He was diagnosed to have pseudophakic endophalmitis. Result of Vitreous biopsy showed pseudomonas aeroginosa. Thereafter he was referred to Madras Sankar Netralya, for expert advice. Eventually, the Complainant lost his vision in the left eye.
4. The District Forum came to a conclusion that:-
“We are of the opinion that pseudomonas aerginosa is also a troubles some bacteria and it will also cause infection. Ext. P6 report clearly showed that his pseudomonas aeroginosa is the primary organism for causing infection to the left eye. So the contention of the opposite parties counsel that this bacteria is not injurious, cannot be sustained for a moment. It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties have not taken any steps to eradicate this bacteria on the strength that it is non pathogenic and it will not be injurious. But is is not so and it was proved to be the cause of the infection of the left eye, which was operated in the theatre where its presence was noted as early as on 9.5.01......................................................... The opposite parties have not taken sufficient arrangements to make the theatre free from injurious bacteria before the operation was conducted on 28.05.01. It resulted in causing infection to the left eye of the complainant which in turn resulted in loss of the vision of the left eye. So the opposite parties were guilty of negligence in not making sufficient precautions before operation was conducted in the theatre and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
5. The State Commission has noted the contention of the OPs that sterility test cultures from the operation theatre and equipment were examined by the Microbiology Centre run by a former Principal of Calicut Medical College and were found to be sterile in the relevant period. The Commission has also noted that “vitreous biopsy was done on the complainant on 2.06.01 at Dr. Giridhar’s Eye Institute and detected pseudomonas Aeoginosa as the primary organism. Evidently it appears, 1st opposite party hospital is not having facilities for conducting vitreous biopsy.” The Commission has also relied upon on the relevant medical authority to show that this organism is a classic opportunist pathogen with inmate resistance to many antibiotics and disinfectants and that more of this infection is contracted from the hospital.
6. Therefore, the State Commission arrived at the following conclusion:-
“After removal of bandage on the left eye and after that the YAG posterior capsulotomy to the right eye on 29.5.01. On the same day in the evening he came to the residence of the 2nd opposite party with complaint of pain and irritation to the left eye. We find that the time factor in the matter indicates that it is more probable that the complainant got infected from 1st opposite party’s hospital or from the medications supplied from the 1st opposite party’s hospital. It is specified in the version that the antibiotics and steroid on the drops were given from the hospital. Further we find that complainant ought to have been referred to a higher centre immediately detecting the complications rather than waiting for 3 days and treating for 3 days without realising the nature of the infection especially as the organ affected is the most sensitive one. Hence we find that it stands established that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties especially as the required facility to diagnose the cause of the complication was not available in the 1st opposite party hospital and reference to a higher centre was delayed. Hence we sustain the finding of the Forum below, although for different reasons.”
7. In the background of above findings of fact reached by the fora below, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the revision petitioner that the State Commission has given no reason for its findings. It is also contended that the finding of medical negligence has been given without any expert medial evidence in the matter. This contention looses all credence in the background of the fact that the Complainant underwent the eye surgery on 25.8.2001 and the vitreous biopsy done on 2.6.2001 established that a type of organism/pathogen, which in the nature of an infection contracted from the hospital, was detected.
8. The revision petitioner has also challenged the finding of inadequacy of facilities in the OP hospital. This is a strange contention coming in the background of the admitted position of the OPs in paragraphs 11 and12 of their written response before the District Forum that:-
“11. Since the condition was not showing any response and suspecting a vitritis, the complainant was referred to Dr. Giridhar’s eye institute for vitreoretinal problem as there is no proper vitreoretinal clinic in Calicut and Dr. Gridhar is a well known expert in this field having been trained at Sankara Nethrala, Cehennai.
12. It is understanding of the 2nd opposite party that the complainant was seen at Dr. Giridhar’s viteroretinal clinic on 02/06/01 and was diagnosed to have pseudophakic endophtalmitis. Vitreous biopsy and intravitreal antibiotics and steroids were given. The patient was put on vigorous topical and systemic antibiotics and steroids. Result of vitreous biopsy showed pseudomonas aeroginosa.”
9. In the light of the details examined above, we conclude that the decision of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we also deem it appropriate to award an additional cost of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the respondent/Complainant. It shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of this order. Delay, if any, shall carry interest at 10% per annum. | 
