UPENDER KUMAR PARAO Vs. NAYANDEEP EYE RESEARCH CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Upendra Kumar is the Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the 'Patient'), a senior Surveyor working in the Insurance Company. He underwent cataract surgery with implantation of intra ocular lens (IOL) to his right eye in Nayandeep Eye Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party No. 1') at Muzaffarpur. It was performed by Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha, (the Opposite Party No. 1) allegedly without pre-operative evaluation of position of cataract and eye infection. It was alleged that pre-operatively few medicines were given and same were repeated after operation, which indicates eye infection was there. The Cataract operation was done on 7/3/2007 by phaco method. It was alleged that IOL was fixed without considering the supplier's instruction which was supplied by Alcon Advance Medical Optics. The Complainant was discharged on the same day at 4.00 p.m. Few days later in spite of regular checkup and medication, the condition of operated right eye started deteriorating. It was alleged that at the time of operation the cornea was healthy. The infection in eye noticed after five days of the operation, but the Opposite Party No. 2 did not advise culture and sensitivity test for conjunctivitis and any tests to rule out fungal infection. The Opposite Party No. 2 because of his greed for money and negligence failed to manage the infection. Till 30/3/2007 the Opposite Party No. 2 gave some anti-viral and anti-bacterial drugs. The injections like Vanca Sipra, Vanco were injected in the right eye. He did not refer the patient to any vitreo retinal surgeon for further management. On 31/3/2007, on request and pressure from the patient's attendants, the Ultrasonography test for eye was performed. It revealed post-operative Endophthalmitis. Thereafter, on 6/4/2007 the patient approached Centre for Sight, at New Delhi. The doctors advised for immediate surgery to the badly infected right eye. However, the patient on the same day, approached Shrof Eye Centre at Delhi, wherein immediate Vitreo-retinal surgery of right eye was advised. Accordingly, after investigations, the patient underwent operation on his right eye at Shrof Eye Centre and discharged on 8/4/2007. Even thereafter, there was no improvement in the eye. Till 20/4/2007 he took regular follow up check-up at Shrof Eye Centre. Again, infection was developed and on 24/4/2007 and Vitreo- retinal surgery was performed, but no improvement in the vision of right eye. Thereafter, on 27/4/2007, the patient approached PGI Chandigarh, the doctors there refused to give any suggestion for further operation and informed that he lost vision in his right eye. The complainant consulted at Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS, New Delhi on 3/5/2007. Thereafter, he consulted LV Prasad Eye Institute at Hyderabad on 5/5/2007. The doctors at both the places told that he has lost his vision in right eye. Being aggrieved by the the alleged gross negligence of the Opposite Party No. 2 the Complainant filed a police complaint on 10/5/2007. The patient was taken to SK Medical College, Muzaffarpur, wherein, it was confirmed that the patient had complete loss of vision in the right eye. Therefore, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before this Commission u/s 21 of the Consumer Protection Act and claimed Rs.1,97,50,000.00 as compensation from the Opposite Parties. Defense:

(2.) The Opposite Parties filed their respective written versions and denied the allegations of negligence. It was submitted that the Opposite Party No. 2 is reputed and experienced eye surgeon and conducted more than 5 lakhs eye operation successfully during his 33 years of practice. It was submitted that on 21/1/2007 the patient was registered with a unique Reg. No. 6312/07 and the complete record was maintained in the hospital, which was updated at each visits. At the time of discharge, the complete medical record was handed over to the patient and a copy was kept with the hospital. The medication such as Toba DM and Milflox Eye drops antibiotics routinely prescribed before and after any Ocular surgery. Such prescription does not imply existence of ocular infection. The hospital as a routine before surgery provides a leaflet to all patients, which consists of the list of antibiotic drops to be instilled prior to surgery. Prior to surgery Dr.O. P. Singh conducted physical examination of the patient. In any hospital, routinely the Culture & sensitivity of the Conjunctiva is not done but under only special circumstances any visible infection cultures advised.

(3.) We have heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the material on record, inter alia, the Medical Record and gave our thoughtful consideration.