BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 14 of 2014
Date of Institution: 2.1.2014
Date of Decision: 20.5.2016
Mr.Kanwaljit Singh S/o Sh. Jagjit Singh R/o 134, Dashmesh Avenue, Gate No.1, Nr.GNDU, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Vasan Eye Care Hospital, Mall Road, Amritsar through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer
- Dr.Kanwaldeep Singh C/o Vasan Eye Care Hospital, Mall Road, Amritsar (Name of opposite party No.2 deleted vide order dated 21.4.2016)
- Dr.Navin Gupta C/o Vassan Eye Care Hospital, Mall Road, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant :Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1 :Sh. Rajinder Mahajan,Adv.
For Opposite Party No.3 : Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal,Adv.
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Kanwaljit Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date on the allegations that the complainant took treatment from the opposite parties from 29.12.2012 to 30.12.2012 and got the negligent medical treatment from the opposite parties. The complainant was suffered a lot and just reached the claws of death and also underwent a trauma due to the callous and negligent medical treatment by the opposite parties rendered to him. Opposite party No.1 is an eye hospital and opposite party No.2 is the treating doctor. The complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant during his routine eye check up approached opposite party No.1 which boasts itself to be the most reputed and highly super specialized in eye care . Whereas opposite party No.2, who claims itself to be the qualified eye specialist started the eye check up of the complainant and he was advised to come on 30.12.2012 for the specialized eye check up and on 30.12.2012, opposite party No.2 at the premises of opposite party No.1 in order to dilate the eyes of the complainant used the cycloplegic drugs and infused the same in the eyes of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that complainant is a known case of Epileptic disorder and under the Neurological treatment since long and it was made known to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 knowingly well that the complainant is a known case of suffering from epilepsy and under the neurological treatment continued with the cycloplegic drugs and keep on infusing the same in the eyes of the complainant. The complainant after infusion of cycloplegic drug in the eyes for the first time by opposite party No.2 felt uncomfortable and was loosing senses . Wife of the complainant, who was accompanied him reminded opposite party No.2 that the complainant is a known case of epilepsy and is under the neurological treatment . But opposite party No.2 did not pay any heed to it and he continued to infuse cycloplegic drug after every half an hour twice. The complainant after third infusion of the cycloplegic drug in his eyes by opposite party No.2 got seized and become unconscious and was not responding and opposite parties there became helpless and advised the wife of the complainant to make arrangement of shifting the complainant in some other medical institution for his life saving measure. It is pertinent to mention over here that opposite party No.1 did not have any arrangement for providing medical treatment in case of emergency except eye treatment. Opposite parties left the complainant in grave situation and his life was put under great risk. Wife of the complainant was told to take the complainant to some other medical institute. The wife of the complainant was put in lurch whether to look after her husband who is dying or to make arrangements to shift him to some other medical institution. Wife of the complainant somehow made arrangement to shift the complainant by the Ambulance of K.D.Hospital,Amritsar, where the complainant remained in ICU and admitted till 2.1.2013 and the neurological problem was further aggravated due to the wrong treatment applied by the opposite parties. The complainant had simply gone to get his routine eye check up from the opposite parties . But he was put in such a situation that his life was put to risk and he is still suffering from aggravated neurological disorder. The complainant has prayed for grant of following reliefs vide instant complaint :
i) Opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 70,000/- spent by the complainant on his treatment alongwith interest ;
ii) Opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 18 lacs to the complainant for the gross medical negligence committed by them ;
iii) Opposite parties be directed to pay adequate cost of the present litigation.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, both opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing separate written statements.
3. In its written statement, opposite party No.1 stated that each and every allegations made by the complainant in his complaint are denied except those which are specifically admitted and put the complainant to strict proof of those allegations that are not hereby admitted. Opposite party further states that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has made false allegations and suppressed material facts. Opposite party states that the complainant was given the standard of care as per accepted procedures and there is no question of any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. As per records available with the opposite party the complainant came to the first opposite party hospital on 29.12.2012 with complaint of difficulty in vision and was an old case of Epilepsy and the patient was attended by the second opposite party and as per standard procedure the complainant was evaluated on slip lamp . The complainant was advised convergence exercises , Cap.Neurokind, tear eye drop. No drop was administered into the complainant’s eyes for any procedure on 29.12.2012. When the complainant came back on 30.12.2012 the second opposite party was not in the hospital as it was Sunday and the complainant was attended by Dr.Navin Gupta and when the complainant was put on dilation drops he became unconscious but the vitals of the patient were normal . The complainant was immediately attended to by anesthetist Dr.Jasveen and the patient regained consciousness . The patient was shifted to K.D. hospital for further management by the concerned physician. Opposite party arranged for the shifting of the patient by ambulance which came from K.D. Hospital and a medical staff member of this opposite party accompanied the patient to that hospital. As such there was no deficiency in service whatsoever on the part of opposite party No.1. It is denied that the complainant got negligible medical treatment from the opposite parties and suffered a lot and reached the claws of death or underwent a trauma due to careless and negligent medical treatment. It is denied that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 which itself to be the most reputed and highly super specialized in eye care or that on 30.12.2012 the second opposite party in order to dilate the eyes of the complainant used cycloplegic drugs and infused the same in the eyes of the complainant . It is denied that the opposite party knew that the complainant was a known case of epilepsy or that he was under neurological treatment. It is also denied that the opposite party did not pay any heed to it and continued to infuse the said drug after every half an hour thrice to dilate the eyes of the complainant or that after the third infusion by second opposite party, complainant got seized and became unconscious . Remaining facts narrated in the complaint have also been specifically denied.
4. In his written statement, opposite party No.3 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant was not attended by replying opposite party. The true facts are that the complainant had earlier come to the hospital on 29.12.2012 and on the said date, complainant was attended by Dr.Kanwaldeep Singh and he was advised to have dilating drops. But the complainant on the said date was not having sufficient time and he opted to come next day. Next time, complainant came on Sunday on which date replying opposite party was on duty. Since the complainant had already been advised dilating drop by Dr.Kanwaldeep Singh, the complainant straightway approached the technician for administering dilating drops. As such the replying opposite party did not attend the complainant. The answering opposite party thus neither prescribed the dilating drops nor administered the dilating drops. As such the replying opposite party has been unnecessarily dragged in this case. This medical was prescribed by Dr. Kanwaldeep Singh and administered by the technician. The replying opposite party was not liable for any act on the part of remaining opposite parties ; even otherwise the medical prescribed and administered to the complainant cannot result into any unconsciousness as alleged in the complaint. As such there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in this case ; that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law and an attempt of the complainant to extort illegal money under the garb of the present complaint ; that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint which otherwise is not maintainable on account of suppressing true material facts from this Forum ; that the complainant is an old case of epilepsy and the patient was properly treated by the hospital and advised exercises and effective medicines . But the complainant was not administered or advised to take any medical which could result in the unconsciousness to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. On merits facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
5. Complaint against opposite party No.2 was given up by counsel for the complainant by suffering a statement on 21.4.2016, as such, name of opposite party No.2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of opposite parties accordingly.
6. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of medical record Ex.C-2, discharge card of K.D.Hospital Ex.C-3, copy of payment receipts Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, treatment slip of Dr.Prabhdeep Singh Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, summoned record of K.D. Hospital Ex.C-8 (consisting of 38 pages), wrapper of medical Ex.C-9, affidavit of Sh.Samneet Walia Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
7. To rebut the aforesaid affidavit opposite parties No.1 to 3 tendered affidavit of Dr.Kanwaldeep Singh Vijjan Ex.OP1,2,3/1, copy of doctor wise waiting report Ex.OP1,2,3/2, copy of medical record Ex.OP1,2,3/3, copy of doctor wise waiting report Ex.OP1,2,3/4, copy of consultation Ex.OP1,2,3/5, copy of literature Ex.OP1,2,3/6 to Ex.OP1,2,3/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 3.
8. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
9. From the appreciation of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant went for his routine eye check up with opposite party No.1 on 29.12.2012. He was checked up by opposite party No.2 as per standard procedure and the complainant was evaluated on slit lamp. The complainant was advised convergence exercises, Cap. Neurokind, tear eye drop. However, no eye drop was administered in the eyes of the complainant on 29.12.2012. The complainant was advised to come on 30.12.2012 for specialized eye check up at the premises of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 in order to dilate the eyes of the complainant used the Cycloplegic drugs and infused the same in the eyes of the complainant. The complainant was a known case of Epileptic disorder and remained under Neurological treatment for the last many years. The said fact was made known to the opposite parties. Opposite parties knowing very well that the complainant is a known case of epilepsy and also remained under the Neurological treatment, continued with the Cycloplegic drugs and keep on infusing the drops in the eyes of the complainant. The complainant, after infusion of Cycloplegic drugs , felt uncomfortable and started loosing his senses. Wife of the complainant, who accompanied the complainant reminded opposite parties that the complainant is a known case of epilepsy and is under the Neurological treatment , but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to it and continued to infuse the cycloplegic drugs after every half an hour twice. As a result of the infusion of cycloplegic drugs, the complainant got seized and became unconscious . There was no arrangement for emergency treatment nor there was any arrangement for shifting the complainant to some other medical institute for his life saving measures. The wife of the complainant, on her own arranged for transportation and took the complainant to K.D. Hospital,Amritsar, where the complainant remained in ICU and also remained there admitted till 2.1.2013 . But Neurological problem of the complainant was further aggravated due to the wrong treatment applied by the opposite parties.
10. However, counsel for the complainant vide statement dated 21.4.2016 gave up the complaint against opposite party No.2 and accordingly the name of Dr.Kanwaldeep Singh was deleted from the array of the parties vide order of this Forum of the even date. In such a situation, the alleged negligence attributed to Dr. Kanwaldeep Singh, stood negative and condoned.Dr. Kanwaldeep Singh has also made into the witness box as his own witness as Ex/OP1,2,3/1 and has testified that he was present on 29.12.2012, that he had advised dilation of pupil of eye with drug Tropicamide eye drops for glass check up. But the patient refused for dilation of his pupils and did not undergo putting any drops.On 30.12.2012 being Sunday, Dr. Kanwaldeep Singh was not on duty in the hospital. On 30.12.2012 Dr. Naveen Gupta, opposite party No.3 was on duty as in charge of the hospital. On 30.12.2012, Dr. Naveen Gupta registered the patient in O.P.D. The evidence on record produced by the opposite party seems that on 30.12.2012 , the complainant went straight to the technician for getting dilating drops administered in his eyes.. The very fact that no expert was present when the alleged eye drops were infused to the complainant, shows that there is negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 i.e. hospital and Dr. Naveen Gupta, opposite party No.3. In his cross examination Dr. Kanwaldeep Singh has stated that drug Tropicamide is used for dilating the eyes and is to be put into the eyes under the strict medical supervision . As Dr. Naveen Gupta was on duty on the said day and it was to be put under his supervision and the patient was to be attended to by him. Besides that the comdplainant has produced an extract of literature on Epileptic Seizure induced by Cycloplegic Eye Drops which states “that a small amount of Cyclopentolate drops could induce convulsions in young children after only minutes to less than an hour, while a larger dosage of atropine over the span of several hours could cause this rare and unpredictable complication. Predisposing factors were rare and those developing the seizures were healthy subjects. Generalized seizures were much more frequent than local convulsions”. The further factor that there was no arrangement for emergency treatment as well as there was no arrangement for transportation to carry the patient in a serious condition to some other hospital , are sufficient for reaching the conclusion that opposite parties No.1 & 3 were gross negligent in performing their duties.
11. Although complainant has produced medical treatment record Ex.C-8 regarding the treatment he was provided with at K.D. Hospital, but he has not produced any record regarding the expenditure incurred by him on his treatment regarding medicines and the fee of the doctors, allegedly paid by him there at that hospital. In such a situation this Forum is unable to award any compensation on account of the alleged treatment , the complainant had received at K.D.Hospital, Amritsar. But the complainant has proved negligence on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 3 for providing cycloplegic drugs in eyes of the complainant in the absence of supervision of medical expert. Further fact that there was absolutely no arrangement for emergency treatment at the hospital and no arrangement for Ambulance was there in the hospital for carrying the patient to some other hospital for emergency treatment fortifies the negligence & deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
12. On quantum of compensation, in our considered opinion, complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- for the aforesaid lapse on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 3 . Besides that the complainant is also awarded litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order ; failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest to the tune of 9% p.a from the date of passing of the order until full and final recovery. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 20.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
