S NARINDER SINGH Vs. R D SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. R. S.Sharma, learned Advocate for appellant, as well as Mr. Parmod Kohli, learned senior Advocate, for respondent 1 and Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel, for respondent 2, at length. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 21- 12-1999 propounded by the Jammu and Kashmir Consumers Protection Cordmission, hereinafter referred to as Commission. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the Commission has dismissed the complaint of the appellant for damages against the respondents on account of medical negligence and injuries/loss.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal in nutshell are that complainant-Narinder Singh approached respondent 1, Dr. R. D. Sood, on 23-3-1998 with regard to ailment of his left eye. After detailed clinical examination, Advanced Immature Cataract (ISC) was diagnosed and the complainant was advised to undergo a surgical procedure. A cataract extraction in left eye with intraocular lens was performed on the complainant by respondent 1 on 29-3-1998. On 30-3-1998, bandage of complainant was removed and clinical examination was done. It was found that the left eye showed signs of inflammation as exudates had appeared in front of the lens. It is asserted by the complainant that this complication has occurred because of lack of post operative care and management provided by the respondent. It is also stated in the complaint that left eye of the complainant had to be removed by the Eye Specialist on account of infection developed in it, resulting in mental torture, besides huge expenditure of operation hospitalisation in respect of which the compensation to the extent of Rs.5.50 lacs including the cost of medicine has been claimed by the complainant occasined due to operative negligence on the part of Dr. R. D. Sood, respondent 1.

(3.) The stand of respondent 1 before the Commission in the detailed affidavit filed is that, Cataract Extraction with intraocular lens surgery was conducted for the left eye of the complainant on 29-3-1998 after the complainant had undergone certain tests and his complete examinations, which included blood test, urine test, blood pressure and tension of the eye, were found to be within normal limits, besides ultrasonography. The complainant was also to undergo blood test to ascertain his blood sugar level a day before surgery. This was, however, done on 28-3-1998 and the blood sugar level was found within the safe permissible limits. It is further submitted by the respondent that complete surgical procedure was followed. Nothing abnormal was, however, detected after pre-operative tests of the complainant. After comprehensive test andi clinical examination, cataract extraction in left eye with intraocular lens was performed under local anaesthesis. After all possible operative and post-operative risks involved were explained to the complainant and secured his consent in writing, performed the surgery. The complainant discharged on 29-3-1998 after prescribing medicines and noting the precautions to be taken after the surgery. The respondent further claimed to be a qualified Eye Specialist with 13 years experience to his credit in the field of Ophthalmology. The bandage of the complainant was removed on 30-3-1998 and after clinical examination, respondent found the complainants left eye extremely in good condition. The respondent further stated to have examined the complainant on 31-3-1998, found making satisfactory recovery and asked the complainant to continue with the same medicine and report on 1-4-1998. on 1-4-1998, complainant, when reported, complained of having developed inflammation in his eye because he had rubbed and washed it with water. Respondent found exudates in front of lens and put him on treatment. Respondent also examined complainant on 2nd April, 1998 and found satisfactory improvement. The patient was again examined after two days on 4-4-1998 and by that inflammation cleared up. The condition of the complainant was again reviewed by the respondent on 6-4-1998 and found that exudative membrane had cleared up considerably, but there was still a small hypopyon in the eye. Respondent further submitted that upon questioning the complainant, the latter revealed that he had taken some alcohol after removal of bandage and on this the complaipant was advised to get his sugar level tested. It was on 9-4-1998, the complainant came with a report to his blood sugar test, Which showed 210 mg%. This was on higheir side. The patient was advised to consult Dr. T. S. Didwal (Physician) for control of his blood sugar. The respondent, however, also stated that on the instance of the patient, he referred him to Dr. Rajbir Singh (of Dr. Sohan Singh Hospital, Katra Sher Singh, Amritsar), a Vitreo-Retinal Specialist, for a second opinion vide letter Annexure-C3.