V K GARG Vs. MASTER ANAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As Master Anas suffered injury in his left eye on 5.10.2003 by explosion of cracker in the wake of burning of effigy of Ravan on occasion of Dussehra festival, services of petitioner No. 1 - doctor who runs Garg Ophthalmic Centre - respondent No. 2 was availed by parents taking Master Anas to him on 6.10.2003. After Mr. Anas was examined by petitioner No. 1, it was noticed that patient suffered chemosis of conjunctiva, corneal limbal wound with prolapsed of iris and anterior chamber full of blood. Accordingly, patient was advised urgent surgical repair. That day itself, i.e. on 6.10.2003, petitioner No. 1 - doctor operated left eye of Master Anas, allegedly repaired cornea and washed anterior chamber of left eye under general anesthesia. During surgery, prolapsed iris was excised, nylon suture was applied to the wound and anterior chamber was washed of all haemorrhage. Intra Vitreal injection of Fortum and Vancomycin were administered and eye was bandaged. Patient was discharged on 9.10.2003 with instructions to clean the eye, use drops and oral antibiotic and anti-inflammatory and was further required to visit on 10.10.2003. However, it was noticed on that day that since there was blood in anterior chamber, oral steroid was added and again patient was called back on 17.10.2003 when ultrasonography of left eye was done so that posterior segment of eye could be assessed. Ultrasonography report issued by Dr. Hansraj of Mansarovar Eye Hospital, Lucknow showed soft eye with vitreous haemorrhage, though retina was unaffected. Though patient turned up on 27.10.2003 for follow-up action, for non-cooperation of child, he was further called to visit so that proper examination could be done under general anesthesia. It was on 28.10.2003 that with no view of retina, due to vitreous haemorrhage that patient was advised to undergo parasplama vitrectomy coupled with cataract extraction with silicon oil injection. Allegedly, all this was advised by petitioner No. 1 - doctor in view of left eye having become soft and non-functional and there being possibility of vision of other eye too getting lost for sympathetic ophthalmia which usually develops in normal eye when opposite eye develops phthisis. However, patient did not follow instructions and did not visit clinic thereafter.

(2.) Parents of child in view of latter losing vision, availed services of Dr. A.K. Paul on 3.11.2003 when injections of dexamathasone were administered in left eye. Patient was subsequently examined by Dr. Paul on 22.11.2003 under general anesthesia and after operation removed an elongated metallic wire, a foreign body from left eye. Patient was further examined by Dr. Paul on subsequent dates when stitches were removed and parents were told that infection that developed in eye was due to metallic wire remaining inside the eye for a long time and consequently vision was lost.

(3.) Alleging medical negligence attributed to petitioners, a consumer complaint came to be filed with District Forum which was resisted by petitioners. District Forum, however, having overruled contentions raised by petitioners, holding petitioners negligent in services provided to Master Anas, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,10,000 to complainants payable by them within a period of two months with a default clause in the order that in case of failure to pay award, within a period of two months, basic award would carry interest @ 10% p.a. Litigation cost of Rs. 2,000 too was awarded in the order. State Commission too, in appeal, having considered pleadings of parties and also reasonings assigned by District Forum in the order under challenge, while affirming basic award, dismissed appeal with cost. Petitioners are now in revision.