JAGDISHBHAI G SHAH Vs. SANTOKBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of First Appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, Court No. 13, in Civil Suit No. 1048 of 1981, by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed for recovering the amount of compensation for the negligence from defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 jointly and severally of Rs. 1,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the suit till the date of the judgment and at the rate of 9% from the date of the judgment till realisation together with costs.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff-respondent in the present group of appeals was an employee of New Textile Mills, Ahmedabad, and was working as a Machine-man. The plaintiff, as an industrial worker, has been covered under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Scheme for which necessary identity card has been issued to him as provided under the E.S.I. Act, 1948. The plaintiff had developed cataract in his left eye for which he approached the Civil Hospital after he had visited the E.S.I. Clinic. He was advised to come after three weeks for the operation stating that the cataract has not matured in the left eye. Thereafter, again he visited the Civil Hospital and was examined by defendant No. 3-Dr. Bhikubhai Patel. The plaintiff was admitted as an indoor patient and on 26-7-1979 defendant No. 3-Dr. Bhikubhai Patel performed the operation of the left eye for the cataract. It is also stated that on 31-7-1979 defendant No. 4, who was administering the medicines, had not exercised proper care while pouring drops of medicine in the eye, there was a dash on the eye with the instrument which resulted in the injury. Thereafter the dressing was made and the plaintiff was advised rest. However, he had pain and in fact blood had clotted in the eye as a result of which another operation was performed after defendant No. 3 examined the left eye of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had informed defendant No. 3 as to what had transpired and another operation was performed and he was treated as indoor patient for 36 days. It is averred that during this time the left eye had sepsis because of infection and the doctors were giving injections on the left eye and were administering the medicines for about 10 days. However, the condition did not improve in spite of such medicines and defendant. No. 3 again examined the plaintiff and he was discharged from the hospital with advice to take rest and visit the hospital every week. Thereafter, again, the plaintiff visited the Civil Hospital and was treated there by defendant No. 3. However, in spite of persistent query from the plaintiff he was not guided properly or conveyed as to what has happened, and therefore, the plaintiff had consulted Dr. Jagannath Patel who in turn informed that his left eye had become useless and it will have to be removed immediately. The infection had also spread in the right eye, and therefore, the plaintiff along with one co-worker Nanalal Vyas met defendant No. 3 with the said note of Dr. Jagannath Patel and in spite of that defendant No. 3 did not take any steps and asked the plaintiff to come to the Civil Hospital on 6-11-1979. Therefore, the plaintiff consulted defendant No. 5-Dr. Jagdishbhai G. Shah, got himself admitted in his private clinic on the same day and in the evening on that very day defendant No. 5 performed the operation on the left eye and removed the eyeball. However, the infection had spread to the right eye also and the plaintiff was having pain in the right eye. Thereafter on the 4th day defendant No. 5-Dr. Jagdishbhai Shah performed the operation on the right eye for the cataract and treated him in his private clinic as an indoor patient. Thereafer, as the operation was not successful and the condition of the right eye also had deteriorated and as the plaintiff was having some difficulty in breathing, defendant No. 5-Dr. Jagdishbhai Shah took the plaintiff to the L.G. Hospital in his car, got him admitted there and the plaintiff was treated there for some time. Thereafter under the advise of defendant No. 5, on 22-11-1979, the plaintiff got admitted as an indoor patient in Nagri Hospital and was informed that the vision of his right eye could not be restored but the treatment for infection was given and he was treated till 11-12-1979.

(3.) Thus, it is contended that the plaintiff has lost the vision of both the eyes because of the negligence and carelessness in the treatment given by defendant No. 3-Dr. Bhikubhai Patel at the Civil Hospital which led to deterioration of the left eye and when he consulted another doctor, the treatment was given by defendant No. 5-Dr. Jagdishbhai Shah and he performed operation on the right eye which also has spoiled the vision of the right eye, and therefore, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for claiming compensation for such negligence in the treatment on various grounds and also for other amounts as stated in detail in the plaint.