DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.400/2012

Sh. Keshar Lal                                                        (Senior Citizen)

H.No. R-Z-83, Block-C,                                          76 years old   

Soni Bazar Chowk, Nihal Vihar,

Nangloi Road, Delhi                                                     ….Complainant

Versus

1.      Venu Eye Institute & Research Centre

          1/31 Sheikh Sarai Institutional Area,

          Phase-2, New Delhi-110017

2.      Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

          23, 2/13-14, Sarai Jullena,

          New Delhi                                                       ….Opposite Parties  

                                                  Date of Institution      : 07.08.12             Date of Order                : 07.04.18

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Unfortunate facts of the case as made out in the complaint are that on the last day of a camp held at Madipur Colony, Delhi by the OP No.1 the complainant had gone for free eye check up of his eyes where he had been told by the doctors to come to the OP No.1 hospital; that accordingly the complainant went to the OP No.1 hospital on 20.04.11 vide card No. C1284/04 /11 dated 20.04.11; that after checking his eye he was admitted in the OP No.1 hospital for eye operation somewhere around 16.06.11; that he deposited Rs.12100/-; that doctors carried out the operation in his left eye and fixed a lense; that he was discharged from the OP No.1 hospital after 3 days; that after a period of two months water started leaking from his left eye; that he went to the OP No.1 hospital where he was given medicines but to no effect. He became blind from his left eye. He deposited Rs.1100/- plus Rs.12,000/- equal to Rs.13100/- but the doctors of OP No.1 hospital again asked him to deposit atleast Rs.25,000/- for second operation so that the possibility of bringing the eye sight in his left eye could be found. Being poor he was unable to pay the amount and hence was thrown out of the hospital and his lense was also removed. He was charged Rs.5000/- for which no receipt was given.  According to him, due to wrong operation sight in his left eye has gone. Hence, this complaint.

Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP No.1 hospital who in the written statement pleaded that since there was no independent medical expert opinion on the record, the matter should be referred to the medical experts. On merits, it is stated as follows:-

“The complainant Mr. Kesshar Lal, 67 year old presented to the Opposite Party i.e. Venu Eye Institute & Research Centre on 20/04/11 with complaints of diminution of vision in left Eye since 4-5 months with visual acuity Right Eye -6/9 & Left Eye Hand Faint Movement and Perception of light. The complainant was examined and diagnosed with Left Eye Complicated Cataract with adherent leucoma with more than 2 quadrant of vascularisation. The complainant was advised Left Eye penetrating Keratoplasty + ECCE + PCIOL    Guarded visual prognosis. The poor visual prognosis, need for the surgery, risks involved with the surgery and outcome of surgery was clearly explained to the complainant. The complainant was fully counseled and was fully aware of poor visual prognosis. USG B-Scan was done which showed grossly normal posterior segment “inform”. The complainant underwent left Eye Penetrating Keratoplasty + ECCE + IOL on 14/06/11. The surgery and immediate post operative period was uneventful. Later the complainant developed graft infiltrate which was managed conservatively successfully with optical medications. The complainant was lost to follow and was irregular in treatment with poor compliance in the intermediate period. His last follow up visit was on 26/03/12 which showed Left Eye failed graft with vascularisation.  No further intervention or second surgery was done in the Institute of Opposite Party and the status of the Eye has been very well explained to the complainant. The poor visual prognosis was well explained to the complainant last follow up on 29/03/12.”  

It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

From a perusal of the file it transpires that on the application moved by the OP No. 1 hospital, the OP No.2 the insurer of the OP No.1 was arrayed as OP No.2.

          OP No.2 insurance Co. has filed a written statement and has admitted that OP No.1 had a policy bearing No. 272102/48/2011/1437 for the period of one year w.e.f. 06.10.11 to 05.10.11 for “Professional Indemnity– Doctor” only subject to compliance of standard terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence twice.

On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Abhishek B. Dagar, MS and Joint Director (Hospital Services) on behalf of the OP No.1 and affidavit of Sh. Ajay Soni, Sr. Divisional Manager on behalf of the OP No.2 have been filed.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1.

We have heard the complainant in person and the counsel for OP No.2 and have also gone through the record carefully.

 From the case of complainant himself it stands proved on the record that the first eye operation carried in his left eye in OP No.1 hospital did not give any opportunity of complaint for two months when he made complaint that water was leaking from his left eye. He was advised to go for second operation for which he did not agree.  We must say at once that no doctor or surgeon can give 100% guarantee for a successful treatment or surgery despite using all his medical abilities and after following the best norms of the medical science. Therefore, in a case where the patient pleads medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor or the hospital in providing medical treatment to him or carrying out any medical surgery one must not jump to the conclusion that “yes it is a case of medical negligence.”  Therefore, in order to reach to a just and proper conclusion, the matter was referred to the MS ,Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi with a direction to constitute a board of experts consisting of eye specialist to examine the papers of the complainant and to send a report in the matter.  This forum received final report No. 2-19/17-MR dated 29.08.2017 alongwith the medical expert report dated 22.08.17 issued under the signatures of Eye Specialist (CGHS), Consultant (CGHS) and Consultant & HOD of the department of  Ophthalomology VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital which has concluded that “ the medial board is of the opinion that there is no evidence of medical negligence in this case”.  The Complainant has not filed any export opinion or any medical paper to contradict the said report. Therefore, we are left with no other option but to accept the said report as absolutely correct.  Therefore, we are constrained to hold that no case of medical negligence on the part of OP No.1 hospital is made out.

          In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case.  Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 07.04.18.