A SAIBABA GOUD Vs. L THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in O. P. No.843/1994 (C. D. No.843/1994) dated 7.9.1998 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad the opposite party filed this appeal.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that she consulted the opposite party on 27.5.1994 for treatment of her eye, who on examination advised her to join Geeta Nursing Home, Secunderabad for intra ocular lens implantation. He conducted the operation on 31.5.1994 and she developed severe pain in the operated right eye, but the opposite party was negligent to examine her and brushed aside her complaint as post operative pain. Not only that she was discharged forcibly on 2.6.1994 from the Nursing Home merely prescribing some pain killers like Combiflam, etc. However, the complainant appeared before the opposite party again on 6.6.1994 with a complaint of unbearable pain. He again disposed of her by merely prescribing some pain killers without bestowing any attention to the real problem which arose out of defective surgery, want of care and diligence. As there was no relief for her problem she consulted Dr. K. Ravi Kumar Reddy on 7.6.1994, who diagnosed the problem as post operative endopthalmitis and referred her to Dr. T. P. Das, Retinal Surgeon, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute where her right eye was operated and the I. O. lens implanted by the opposite party was explanted under vitrectomy by Dr. Ajit Babu and she was discharged on 17.6.1994 after getting cure and relief. However, though the pain was relieved, the sight which was deteriorated after the operation could not be improved, and she lost her vision in the right eye. The loss of her eye sight in the right eye was the result of negligent and careless acts of the opposite party in maternity home which was not properly equipped to perform eye surgery. Due to loss of sight she had fallen and sustained injuries. She was treated at NIMS for her fracture for a period of 1 months. The opposite party is responsible for this incident because her fall was due to imperfect operation done by the opposite party. She got a legal notice issued on 5.7.1994 to the opposite party which was replied with untenable allegations. She filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of sight and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering.

(3.) In the counter filed by the opposite party it is admitted that the complainant was admitted in the nursing home on 30.5.1994 and surgery was performed on 31.5.1994. The operation was successful and necessary precautions to avoid any post operative complications were also taken. She was discharged on 2.6.1994 in normal condition. Three days later she returned and complained of pain. After due examination pain killers were prescribed to provide relief. He has not shown any negligence or lack of care at any stage of the treatment and so he is not responsible for deterioration in vision or pain or other complications. The complainant filed her affidavit by way of evidence and marked Exs. A-1 to A-21. The opposite party filed counter affidavit by way of his evidence.