JASWINDER SINGH Vs. NEERAJ SUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in his petition claimed compensation of a total sum of Rs. 19,55,100 under heads (a) to (e) for alleged medical negligence and carelessness on the part of the OPs regarding the treatment of the eyes of Shri Jaswinder Singh, complainant No. 1, a minor, through his natural guardian Shri Barjinder Singh, Advocate, resident of Sirki Bazar, Bathinda. There was a genetic physical deformity in the size of the eyes of the said minor Shri Jaswinder Singh inasmuch as the left eye looked a little smaller than the right one. Shri Jaswinder Singh was being shown to Dr. J.S. Saini of the Eye Department of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (for short hereinafter to be referred as PGIMER), Chandigarh who advised a minor operation in the left eye of Shri Jaswinder Singh who was admitted as an indoor patient. Earlier he was being treated as an outdoor patient and outpatient door card had been issued in respect of Shri Jaswinder Singh. A sum of Rs. 640 was paid as charges. The operation was performed on 26.6.96 by Dr. Neeraj Sud, OP No. 2 of the Eye Department. Dr. Neeraj Sud at that time was working as a Senior Resident in PGIMER. Subsequently, he left PGIMER and joined Guru Harkishan Eye Hospital, Sohana. It has been alleged that as a result of the operation of the left eye due to negligence, the Superior Rectus (SR) muscle was cut, resulting in injuries to the Cornea and eyeball of the left eye, which was operated. The instances of defects and injuries, which were resulted during the surgery, were detailed under six heads as under:

(2.) THE complainant No. 2, the natural father of Shri Jaswinder Singh found that there was no improvement in the operated eye at PGIMER and he took him to Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi where the treatment was still continuing though there was no hope of improvement. The complainant got the history of the case studied at St. Francis Medical Centre, Pitsburg, U.S.A. where an expense of US $ 20,000 for treatment were demanded and that too with no assurance/commitment of cure. It was in these facts and circumstances that the compensation aforesaid was claimed. Under the first two heads (A) and (B), expenses of hospital fee, medicines, visits from Bhatinda to Chandigarh were quantified at Rs. 25,000 and at Delhi from Bhatinda at Rs. 30,000. A sum of Rs. 15 lac was claimed as compensation for pain, suffering, disability, etc. as well as expenses for future treatment. Under head (D), compensation for loss of studies was claimed at Rs.1 lac and compensation for mental agony, harassment, loss in profession to the complainant No. 2 under head (E) was claimed at Rs. 3 lac.

(3.) THE OPs filed their replies. Dr. J.S. Saini in his reply took a preliminary objection of the complaint being barred by time as the surgery was performed in June 1996. Apart from it, it was contended that no cause of action arose and further the complainant had claimed an inflated sum of compensation. On merit, it was pleaded that the complainant demonstrated Ptosis (dropping of the left eye) at the time he was evaluated at the PGIMER. Dr. J.S. Saini categorically denied that he ever told the complainant No. 2 Shri Barjinder Singh that the physical deformity of Shri Jaswinder Singh, minor could be cured by a very minor operation. Dr. Saini further pleaded that he never examined Shri Jaswinder Singh nor did he advise surgery scheduled to be done on 25.6.1996. The name of the patient was mentioned in the records as a part of routine. Dr. Saini averred that he was to proceed on an official advance training course to U.S.A from 3.7.1996 and he did not advice the patient that he will be operated upon on 26.6.1996 by him, which was his last operation day before his departure to U.S.A.