Tamil Nadu
North Chennai
CC/276/2018
D.Vetrivel - Complainant(s)
Versus
Vasan Eye Care Hospital - Opp.Party(s)
R.Dhanalakshmi
06 Feb 2024
ORDER
Complaint presented on :17.02.2011
Date of disposal :06.02.2024
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (NORTH)
@ 2ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
PRESENT: THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L. : PRESIDENT
TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E., : MEMBER-I
THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II
C.C. No.276/2018
DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
Mr.D.Vetrivel (Died on 02.10.2012)
S/o T.Damodharan
No.17/12, First Street,
Govindarapuram,
Adyar, Chennai-600 020.
Represented by his Legal Heirs
1.Mrs.V.Rama, W/o.Late D.Vetrivel
2.Ms.V.Deepa, D/o. Late D.Vetrivel
3.Mr.V.Vignesh, S/o. Late D.Vetrivel
4.Mr.V.Vivekanandan, Late D.Vetrivel (Amended as per order in CMP.No.120/13
Dated 05.06.2013)
All are residing at No.17/12, First Street,
Govindarapuram, Adayar, Chennai-600 020.
.. Complainants. ..Vs..
1.Vasan Eye Care Hospital,
No.120A, Bazaar Road,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
Rep by its Director.
2.Dr.N.Kishore Kumar, M.S.D.O
Senior Consultant
No.120A, Bazzar Road,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015
... Opposite parties.
Counsel for the Complainants : M/s. Dhanalakshmi
Counsel for the Opposite parties : M/s. Cheran
ORDER
THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, prayed to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the agony and anguish both physical and mental he has suffered at the hands of the eye hospital and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of revenue incurred by the complainant.
This complaint filed before DCDRC Chennai South and numbered of CC 41/2011 was transferred to this commission as per the proceedings of the Registrar SCDRC in RC.NoA1/2282/2018 dated 11.09.2018 and renumbered as CC 276/2018
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The complainant’s state that their father was consulting Vasan Eye Care Hospital from 2005 by way of routine general eye check-ups. When he consulted the opposite party 2 doctor on 19.06.2009, the senior consultant examined the complainant and found that both his eyes were developing Cataract. Accordingly, he gave the opinion that the left eye required cataract surgery immediately since cataract seemed to have grow well. The complainant states that the opposite party 2 also informed him that his left eye has ‘Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis” condition. The complainant underwent pre-surgery tests on 01.07.2009. He got himself admitted in the opposite party 1 hospital and his surgery was done by the opposite party2 doctor on 06.07.2009. The complainant states that the whole surgery took more than 45 minutes instead of a shorter time a normal surgery ought to have taken and the complainant states that he was conscious of what was going on since he had been administered only a local anesthesia. Complainant was discharged on the same day, that is on 06.07.2009. The complainant returned home only to experience a very strong pain growing by the minute in the eye. Unable to manage himself, he returned to the opposite party1 hospital on 10.07.2009 itself and complained to the opposite party 2 doctor that the pain has grown unbearable and was in painful tears. He was asked to come back on 15.07.2009. The doctor told him that his left eye has developed a condition called “Mild Straite Keratits” he was given some medicine by the doctor. Now the said doctor informed the patient that he has developed another condition called ‘Posterior Capsular Opacity” The complainant returned to him on 14.10.2009 for further treatment only to be told that now his lens has shifted which condition is called “peeking of pupil”. The opposite party 2 doctor advised another of his expert surgery. The complainant states that he knew for certain that his left eye is in for further damage and chose not to return to this opposite party1 hospital or to the opposite party2 doctor, as is natural for any right thinking person. The complainants states that the amount of the excruciating pain and torment he suffered during these 5 months were intolerable and the mental agony and anguish he suffered brooding over this own ill-fate were indescribable. Taking advice from family members, he went to M/s.Rajan Eye Clinic on 03.11.2009 and told the doctor there about his misfortune and misery. He underwent treatment there and on 17.03.2010 he underwent anterior vitrectomy in the left eye under local anesthesia. He visited the same hospital subsequently for follow-up treatment and God bless his ailment got cured. The complainant is fully convinced that medical negligence and avarice on the party of the opposite party doctor alone has led to his misery all these days. The complainants state that he caused a legal notice dated 15.07.2010 to be sent to the opposite party 2 to which the opposite party 2 has sent reply notice undated and unsigned explaining his integrity and professionalism in so many medical jargon. The complainants states that the opposite party 2 doctor in his reply notice has admitted to have made an utter mess of the surgery right from the patient’s entering the surgery room. The complainants state that subsequent to his decision not to visit the opposite parties 1 and 2 he went to the government eye hospital where he learnt that all his problems were due to medical negligence during the surgery done on 06.07.2009. The complainants state that he approached the Rajan Eye Clinic, Valluvarkottam Nungambakkam on 03.11.2009. Doctor mohan raj gave treatment and advised him to go for resurgery in the left eye. Accordingly the complainant underwent resurgery on 19.03.2010 whereafter he was relieved of his persecuting pain and other ailments in the eye. Today he is a much comforted man without the pain and has begun to lead a normal life once again. When the opposite party 2 doctor examined him on 19.06.2009 and gave a finding the Complainant was only having CATARACT in both the eyes and was also having excessive GRADE III NUCLEAR SCLEROSIS condition in the left eye he must have anticipated the possibility of the rupture which happened on the surgery day which he himself admits is a reason for the tear in the left eye. The Opposite party 2 doctor should have forewarned the Complainant about the possible consequences. The Opp. party 2 doctor had the Complainant tested for blood as a routine of pre-surgery and called the results normal. Then the question arises why he should attribute the rupture to the GRADE III NUCLEAR SCLEROSIS condition as one of the two reasons for the tear to happen. The other reason he attributes is that the patient, the complainant was shaking his head. Here again it speaks for his gross negligence. The complainants states that he was fully convinced that some blunder had been perpetrated by the 2nd opposite party doctor. But not wanting to challenge him, or blame it on his diplomacy he kept quiet and returned to the said doctor on 15.07.2007 only to be told that the complainant patient has developed Mild Straiate Keratits in the left eye and his attributing it to the patient’s Inherent Factor. The complainants state that though no doctor is willing to come forward to attest against the Opp. party 2 doctor, as is wont among doctors/raternity, the fact remains that the Opp. party 2 doctor had failed to remove the biological waste from the eye in a proper manner and had left them in the eye itself while fixing the lens, thereby triggering off a chain of problems and an acute intolerable and Indescribable pain in the eye which the patient endured for no fault of his for nearly 8 months. The Complainants state that due to the gross negligence and the deficiency of service by the Opp. party 1 and Opp. party 2, the Complainant has endured inexpressible pain in the eye, experienced great mental agony and anguish, mental depression so as to contemplated even suicide, mental depression. The complainant prays to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the agony and anguish both physical and mental he has suffered at the hands of the eye hospital and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of revenue incurred by the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. WRITTEN VERSION OF 1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
First opposite party cannot decide the line of treatment. Opposite party just carries out the instructions of the Second Opposite party, dismiss the complaint against First Opposite Party, in addition to carving out the orders of the Opposite Party is responsible for facilities offered. It is pertinent to mention here that, all the cataract eye surgeries in the entire world is carried out under local anaesthesia given by the eye surgeon himself. So there is no separate anaesthetist made available by the hospital. The second allegation finds place in 27th paragraph. The allegation is that the hospital has failed to provide properly qualified and competent medical staff. This allegation cannot be true as far as Vasan Eye Care is concerned. Vasan Eye Care infact employes only over qualified people, that is people with special qualities and skill. The staff working under Vasan Eye Care are all very competent and very well trained for the job. The complainant shall specifically point out the names of such alleged unqualified and uncompetent staff. The first opposite party has not committed any omission or commission.
3. WRITTEN VERSION OF 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
On 01.01.2009 necessary pre operative investigations are carried out. The patient was suffering from Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis in Left eye. In grade III nuclear Sclerosis the lens would be very hard and it is closely adherent to posterior capsule. In addition he had posterior polar cataract. Posterior capsule is very thin like a cellophane paper and it is always difficult to separate the lens from the posterior capsule in nuclear sclerosis. Complainant admits that the cataract had over matured and the surgery had been unduly delayed. He is suffering from Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis and immediate surgery is advised. Pre surgery tests on 01.07.2009 and surgery was done on 06.07.2009. The surgery took longer time because the cataract was Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis and there was difficulty in separating the lens from the posterior capsule. However the fact that the patient was discharged on the same day explains the fitness of the patient. The complainant complains of pain throughout 8 months from day one. However it is strongly denied by 2nd opposite party. On 06.07.2009, IOPAR was prescribed in addition to steroid so wysolone. On 07.07-2009 Iben plus was prescribed. It is crystal clear now that the anti inflammatory drug which was prescribed for wound healing after the surgery was never changed later. No new drug was added. If the patient had pain and was complaining the same every now then, how is that no drug was ever prescribed. Even in 19.11.2009 prescription of Rajan Eye Clinic tablet "SUMO" is only prescribed which is the same drug as Iben plus or IOPAR. Moreover the complaint of pain does not find place in any of the documents submitted by the complainant. Mild striate Keratitis is only a routine postoperative feature which requires no treatment and in this case also no treatment was prescribed but it got cleared on its own. The pre operative vision was 6/24. Post operative vision was 6/9 which is near normal. Posterior capsular opacity is also a routine post operative feature which is managed very easily. So that post operative vision was 6/9. The only complication in this case was a small tear in the posterior capsule due to Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis. Every thing was normal upto 14.10.2009. On 14.10.2009, because of the small tear created during surgery, small amount of vitreous came up and moved the lens. For which the second opposite party advised another surgery. However the complaint preferred Rajan Eye Clinic where the surgery was prepared and the complainant became totally alright. Dr.Ganesh treated him with YAG Laser.There is no biological waste in the eye that can be removed. The 2nd opposite party has not committed any omission or commission.
3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?
The complainants had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 were marked on their side.The opposite parties1 and 2 had filed proof affidavit, the 2nd opposite party had filed written arguments and documents Ex.B1 and B2 were marked by the opposite parties.
5. Point No.1:-
1) The fact that the complainant’s father was consulting the 1st opposite party hospital from the year 2005 onwards and was having routine eye checkups their and further fact that he consulted the 2nd opposite party on 19.06.2009 and he gave opinion that his left eye repaired immediate cataract surgery and he was further inform that his left eye has “GRADE III NUCLEAR SCLEROSIS” for which he needed an immediate surgery and the complainants father underwent resurgery test on 01.07.2009 and surgery was done on 06.07.2009 under local anethesia and he was discharged in the same date is admitted by both the parties. But according to the complainant immediately on the next day of surgery he had acute pain in his left eye and hence he went to the 1st opposite party hospital on 07.07.2009 and he was prescribed certain medicines and further the complainant returned home only to experience a very strong pain growing by the minute in the eye. Unable to manage himself, he returned to the opposite party1 hospital on 10.07.2009 itself and complained to the opposite party 2 doctor that the pain has grown unbearable and was in painful tears. He was asked to come back on 15.07.2009. The doctor told him that his left eye has developed a condition called “Mild Straite Keratits” he was given some medicine by the doctor. Now the said doctor informed the patient that he has developed another condition called ‘Posterior Capsular Opacity” The complainant returned to him on 14.10.2009 for further treatment only to be told that now his lens has shifted which condition is called “peeking of pupil”. The opposite party 2 doctor advised another of his expert surgery. The complainant states that he knew for certain that his left eye is in for further damage and chose not to return to this opposite party1 hospital or to the opposite party2 doctor, as is natural for any right thinking person. The complainants states that the amount of the excruciating pain and torment he suffered during these 5 months were intolerable and the mental agony and anguish he suffered brooding over this own ill-fate were indescribable. Taking advice from family members, he went to M/s.Rajan Eye Clinic on 03.11.2009 and told the doctor there about his misfortune and misery. He underwent treatment there and on 17.03.2010 he underwent anterior vitrectomy in the left eye under local anesthesia. He visited the same hospital subsequently for follow-up treatment and God bless his ailment got cured. The complainant is fully convinced that medical negligence and avarice on the party of the opposite party doctor alone has led to his misery all these days. The complainants state that subsequent to his decision not to visit the opposite parties 1 and 2 he went to the government eye hospital where he learnt that all his problems were due to medical negligence during the surgery done on 06.07.2009. The complainants state that he approached the Rajan Eye Clinic, Valluvarkottam Nungambakkam on 03.11.2009. Doctor mohan raj gave treatment and advised him to go for resurgery in the left eye. Accordingly the complainant underwent resurgery on 19.03.2010 where after he was relieved of his persecuting pain and other ailments in the eye. When the opposite party 2 doctor examined him on 19.06.2009 and gave a finding the Complainant was only having CATARACT in both the eyes and was also having excessive GRADE III NUCLEAR SCLEROSIS condition in the left eye he must have anticipated the possibility of the rupture which happened on the surgery day which he himself admits is a reason for the tear in the left eye. The Opposite party 2 doctor should have forewarned the Complainant about the possible consequences. The fact remains that the Opp. party 2 doctor had failed to remove the biological waste from the eye in a proper manner and had left them in the eye itself while fixing the lens, thereby triggering off a chain of problems and an acute intolerable and Indescribable pain in the eye which the patient endured for no fault of his for nearly 8 months. The Complainants state that due to the gross negligence and the deficiency of service by the Opp. party 1 and Opp. party 2, the Complainant has endured inexpressible pain in the eye, experienced great mental agony and hence the complainants alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 while doing surgery on 06.07.2009 which has caused the subsequent increase in pain and further complications in the complainants father left eye and hence claimed compensation for the same.
2) But on the other hand it was contended by the 1st opposite party that it just carries out the instructions of the Second Opposite party and further contended , all the cataract eye surgeries in the entire world is carried out under local anaesthesia given by the eye surgeon himself. So there is no separate anaesthetist made available by the hospital. Vasan Eye Care infact employs only over qualified people, that is people with special qualities and skill. The staff working under Vasan Eye Care are all very competent and very well trained for the job. The complainant shall specifically point out the names of such alleged unqualified and uncompetent staff. The first opposite party has not committed any omission or commission.
3) The 2nd opposite party contended The patient was suffering from Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis in Left eye. In grade III nuclear Sclerosis the lens would be very hard and it is closely adherent to posterior capsule. In addition he had posterior polar cataract. Posterior capsule is very thin like a cellophane paper and it is always difficult to separate the lens from the posterior capsule in nuclear sclerosis. Complainant admits that the cataract had over matured and the surgery had been unduly delayed. He is suffering from Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis and immediate surgery is advised. Pre surgery tests on 01.07.2009 and surgery was done on 06.07.2009. The surgery took longer time because the cataract was Grade III Nuclear Sclorosis and there was difficulty in separating the lens from the posterior capsule. On 06.07.2009, IOPAR was prescribed in addition to steroid so wysolone. On 07.07-2009 Iben plus was prescribed. It is crystal clear now that the anti inflammatory drug which was prescribed for wound healing after the surgery was never changed later. No new drug was added. If the patient had pain and was complaining the same every now then, how is that no drug was ever prescribed. Mild striate Keratitis is only a routine postoperative feature which requires no treatment and in this case also no treatment was prescribed but it got cleared on its own. The pre operative vision was 6/24. Post operative vision was 6/9 which is near normal. Posterior capsular opacity is also a routine post operative feature which is managed very easily. So that post operative vision was 6/9. The only complication in this case was a small tear in the posterior capsule due to Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis. Every thing was normal upto 14.10.2009. On 14.10.2009, because of the small tear created during surgery, small amount of vitreous came up and moved the lens. For which the second opposite party advised another surgery. However the complaint preferred Rajan Eye Clinic where the surgery was prepared and the complainant became totally alright. Dr.Ganesh treated him with YAG Laser. There is no biological waste in the eye that can be removed. The 2nd opposite party has not committed any omission or commission.
4) It is found from Ex.A1 to A4 that the complainant father was prescribed medicines and eye drops on 30.06.2009 and 03.07.2009 and it is further found that the 2nd opposite party has evaluated the complainants father by taking various test prior to surgery and it is further found from Ex.A5 to A13 that the petitioner has underwent eye surgery in the 1st opposite party hospital which was done by the 2nd opposite party Doctor who was qualified and well experienced optholmist and it is further found that on 07.07.2009 and 10.07.2009 he approached the 2nd opposite party and he was advised to continue the eye drops and it is found from Ex.A7 that he was prescribed Iben plus tablet which is a pain killer and anti inflammatory drug and it is further from Ex.A14 that about 1 month after surgery he was prescribed with glass by the 2nd opposite party and from Ex.A15 it is found that the patient approached the 2nd opposite party on 19.08.2009 and he was advised come for review after 2 days and thereafter it seems that the complainant has not approached the 2nd opposite party but as approached Rajan eye clinic on 19.11.2009 as found in Ex.A16 and it is found from the discharge summary of Rajan eye care which is marked as Ex.A18 he underwent another surgery on 19.03.2010 for anterior vitrectomy which was done under local anesthesia and discharged on the same date and it is further found from Ex.A20 that prior to surgery he was diagnosed with chronic inflammation due to vitreous in anterior chamber in the left eye for which he underwent surgery and it is alleged by him that after the 2nd surgery his vision has become normal and pain also disappeared
and hence the complainant issued a legal notice alleging negligence to the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A21 for which a reply was given by the 2nd opposite party denying the negligence which is marked as Ex.A24. Though the complainant alleged that the 2nd opposite party had admitted his negligence in his reply notice on perusal of such reply it is found that no where in his reply such admission of negligence is found. But on the other hand in the reply it was stated by him that on 06.07.2009 surgery was done by him as per the approved medical standard adopted in similar surgery in other hospitals and further contended because of Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis the posterior capsular tear occurred due to which lens was fixed before anterior capsular and further contended and thereafter the occurrence of mild striate keratitis was diagnosed for which necessary treatment was given and such development was not due to his negligence but it was an inherent factor in such surgeries and further stated that on 05.08.2009 he was having posterior capsular opacity for which laser treatment was given and subsequently was 14.10.2009 he was having peeking of people which is movement of lens from the fixed place for which he advised to come after one month for another surgery at the patient thereafter has not return to 2n opposite party bur approached rajan eye clininc where he underwent another surgery and thereby denied the negligence on his part. Ex.B1 is the copy of case sheet on the complainants father where in it is found that on 19.06.2009 before admission he was fully informed about the consequences of surgery in his left eye and he has given concern for the same by affixing his signature and it is further found that on 19.06.2009 the patient approach the 2nd opposite party with compliance of bluring vision in his left eye and at that time he was having vision of 6/24 in his left eye and 6/6 in his right eye it is further found that on 10.07.2009 4 days after surgery when he approached the 2nd opposite party he complains about irritation in his side for which you have prescribed certain medicines. Thereafter approached the 2nd opposite party the review and on 19.08.2009 which is after a month from the date of surgery his vision in the right eye was found as 6/6 and left eye vision 6/9 which shows that after surgery there was improvement in his vision but on 16.09.2009 it was found that he was peaking of pupil for which he was advised to have another surgery after a month and it is further found from Ex.B1 that the patient has not returned to the 2nd opposite party from 14.10.2009 onwards and it seems that he has approached Rajan eye clinic on 19.11.2009 where he underwent another surgery on 19.03.2010 by which it was alleged by the complainant that is defect in the left eye was completely cured and he was also relived from pain. But there is no document filed by the complainant to show that how he was able to manage the alleged pain and reduced vision from October 2009 to march 2010. The complainant has not disclosed the treatment and medicine he has taken during the above said 6 months the complaint is silent about the same. The term nuclear sclerosis refers to cloudiness and hardening of lens due to which normally happens due to old age and further the term striate keratitis refers to corneal edema with descemets folds which occurs after cataract surgery further it is found from Ex.B1 that after performing the YAG LASER CAPSULOTOMY on 16.09.2009 for posterior capsular opacity his vision he was found to have 6/6 in his left vision and during that time the patient has not complaint about any pain or reduction in his vision which shows that there is no negligence on the part of 2nd opposite party in giving treatment to the complainants father it is further found that the complainants father on his own accord has not chosen to approach the 2nd opposite party after 14.10.2009 and thereafter approach rajan eye clinic and if the patient has again approached the 2nd opposite party he would have done the 2nd surgery and would have obtained the necessary relief in respect of left eye for which the 2nd opposite party cannot be blamed. The 2nd opposite party by referring to medical literature namely Phaco Nightmares by Amar agarwal wherein it was found that posterior capsule opacity is a common cataract surgery during which cloudy natural lens of the eye is removed and an intra ocular lens is implanted and it is further stated that after such surgery due to the presence of ephithelial cells after cataract surgery which will grow and the vision may become worse for which the Yag Laser Capsulotomy was done at the instance of the 2nd opposite party to remove the secondary or after cataract and thereby allowing the vision to be restored hence it is found that the 2nd opposite party has followed proper procedure after surgery for improving the vision in his left eye and there is no omission or commission in the surgery or treatment given by the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party is only providing the experienced doctors and other staffs and equipments and it acts as per the instructions of the 2nd opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party also.
5) The 2nd opposite party relied upon a decision reported in 2006 3 CPR 328 (NC) M.A.Ganesh Rao Vs T.M.A.Pai Rotary hospital where in it was held that posterior capsule tears are common during surgery and in that case also the patient who was advised to undergo another surgery but later on found that there is no negligence on the part of opposite party in treating the patient. In another decision reported in 3 2017 CPJ 418 (NC) Kailash Malhotra Vs Centre for sight (hospital) and another it was observed that posterior capsule rupture with or without vitreous loss is a known per operative complication of cataract surgery and anterior vitrectomy with IOL in anterior chamber is one of the recommended procedure to manage such event. Hence it is clear from the above said decisions that the alleged tear in the surgery which was done on 06.07.2009 is due to Grade III Nuclear Sclerosis and further due to the non cooperation of the patient while undergoing the surgery and it is not due to the negligence in the performance of the surgery by the 2nd opposite party as alleged by the complainant. It is further found from Ex.B1 that the 2nd opposite party has given necessary treatment after surgery on 06.07.2009 and his left eye vision was also improved after surgery and it is further found that there is not expert opinion produced by the complainant to prove the fact that the 2nd opposite party acted in a negligent manner while performing surgery on 06.07.2009 It has been held in various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble supreme court and national commission including Jacob Mathew vs Punjab and others that a professional may be held liable only if he was not possessed of the required skill which he professed to have possessed or he did not exercise the said skill with reasonable competence but in the present complaint the complainant failed to prove the aforesaid two factors which were essential to prove medical negligence and merely because a better or alternative treatment was also available so long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession no negligence can be alleged against the said doctor. In the present complaint also the complainant has failed to establish that the 2nd opposite party has failed to exercise due care in his duty and also failed to establish that the 2nd opposite party is not a qualified person to do the surgery and further the complainant failed to establish that the 2nd opposite party performed the surgery in a negligent manner at the 1st opposite party hospital hence it is found that the complainant failed to prove the medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. Point.No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:
Based on the findings given to the PointNo.1,since the complainant failed to prove the medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2, hence the complainant is not entitled for Rs.15,00,000 /- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for loss of revenue as alleged in the complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No Cost
Dictated by President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 6th February 2024
MEMBER I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 | 30.06.2009 | Medical prescription given by opposite party2 for pre-surgery |
Ex.A2 | 03.07.2009 | Medical prescription given by opposite party2 for pre-surgery |
Ex.A3 | 06.07.2009 | Day chart for Eye drops |
Ex.A4 | 06.07.2009 | Test Summary prescription for pre-surgery |
Ex.A5 | 06.07.2009 | Medical prescription given to pain relief for after surgery |
Ex.A6 | 06.07.2009 | Medical certificate given by opposite party2 |
Ex.A7 | 07.07.2009 | Prescription for tablet-after surgery |
Ex.A8 | 07.07.2009 | Prescription for drops-after surgery |
Ex.A9 | 10.07.2009 | Prescription for drops of cyclopest-after surgery |
Ex.A10 | 10.07.2009 | Prescription for drops to continue 5 days |
Ex.A11 | 15.07.2009 | Prescription for drops to continue 10days |
Ex.A12 | 15.07.2009 | Prescription for pain relief tablet-Ibenplus |
Ex.A13 | 05.08.2009 | Prescription for pain relief- days 7 days |
Ex.A14 | 05.08.2009 | Glass prescription to the petitioner |
Ex.A15 | 18.08.2009 | Prescription for pain relief-continue for 2 days
|
Ex.A16 | 19.11.2009 | Re-surgery of left eye in rajan eye care Prescription given by Rajan eye care for before Resurgery |
Ex.A17 | 13.03.2010 | Prescription given by Rajan eye care for before Resurgery |
Ex.A18 | 19.03.2010 | Discharge summary given by Rajan eye care |
Ex.A19 | 19.03.2010 | Admission card given by Rajan eye care |
Ex.A20 | 20.03.2010 | Medical certificate given by Rajan eye care |
Ex.A21 | 15.07.2010 | Legal notice sent to the vasan eye care hospital |
Ex.A22 | 27.07.2010 | Reply notice given by vasan eye care hospital |
Ex.A23 | 08.09.2010 | Postal cover of reply notice |
Ex.A24 | 08.09.2010 | Detailed Reply given by opposite party |
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 | Copy of case sheet of complainant. | |
Ex.B2 | Pamphelet of 1st opposite party |
MEMBER – I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.