MOHD. ABDUL MASOOD Vs. O. MURALIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Mohd. Abdul Masood, Petitioner herein and Original Complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) being aggrieved by the order of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), which dismissed his complaint of medical negligence against Dr.O.Muralidhar, Respondent No.1 herein and two others.

(2.) In his complaint before the District Forum, Petitioner had contended that he was a well-reputed Imam Teacher in Arabic/Urdu languages for which he was paid Rs.2000/- per month in addition to other benefits. He had been experiencing some problems pertaining to his eyesight for which he had taken treatment at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute. When the said problem recurred, a businessman i.e. Respondent No.3 dealing in spectacles referred him to the Vitreo Retinal Institute. After being examined there, Respondent No.1 advised him to undergo an operation in his right eye, which was to cost at Rs.16,000/-, which he paid. After his right eye was operated, he completely lost his eyesight. Respondent No.1 thereafter demanded Rs.8000/- for the second surgery pertaining to the left eye and promised that this eye would become normal, which he also paid. He was informed that new high power lens had been inserted in that eye but he could not regain his eyesight in that eye as well. Respondent No.1 then referred the Petitioner to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute for further treatment and Dr. G. Chandrashekar, a doctor in that institute, after examining him informed that he had lost his eyesight due to negligent treatment by Respondents in the Vitreo Retinal Institute and it would not be possible to restore his eyesight. Being aggrieved, Petitioner issued a legal notice to Respondents requesting them for compensation for the damage caused to him. However, not receiving a satisfactory response and also not returning him the various bills pertaining to his medical expenses which he had enclosed to facilitate the compensation sought, he filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and requested that Respondents be directed to pay him compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs with interest @ 12% per annum from 23.11.2005 till payment, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and expenditure and Rs.2000/- as cost as also any other relief to which the Petitioner could be entitled.

(3.) Respondents on being served filed their written counter denying the allegations of medical negligence made against them. It was contended that when the Petitioner visited the Vitreo Retinal Institute on 04.11.2004, he hardly had any vision in his right eye with only perception of light. Similarly, there was doubtful perception of light in the left eye. Petitioner had told the Respondent No.1 that he had been operated for cataract with IOL implantation in the right eye at the age of 10 years and a corneal transplantation was done in the left eye in the L.V. Prasad Eye Institute at Hyderabad and he was also on anti-glaucoma medication as advised by the doctors of L.V. Prasad Eye Institute. These details clearly indicate that his contention that he had reasonably good eyesight was baseless and in fact since his childhood he had a very poor vision, for which surgeries had been performed. These facts were also confirmed during medical examination by Respondents at the Institute wherein it was found that the Petitioner had Nystagmus indicating poor and unstable vision since childhood. After carefully considering the problems of the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 advised pars plana membranectomy to create an opening in the thick capsule membrane to assess the retina optic nerve and possibility of any navigational vision but with a very guarded visual prognosis since navigational vision was possible only if the retina and optic nerve were found to be healthy and these facts were clearly explained to the Petitioner before the surgery for which an amount of Rs.16,000/- was charged. During the procedure, it was found that both the retina and the optic nerve were not healthy and, therefore, there was little possibility for visual improvement, about which the Petitioner was informed. He was given oral and topical steroids during post operative care and the same was followed with weekly to 3 weeks check ups. He was advised for removal of IOL since it was touching the cornea. This procedure was also carried out and necessary medication was also given to him. It was denied that the Petitioner was advised for operation of left eye or that Respondent No.1 gave any oral assurance to make the eyesight normal without any problems. An amount of Rs.8000/- was paid for IOL explantation. Respondent No.1 further denied that he had fixed any new lens much less a new high power lens in the right eye of the Petitioner. It was, however, admitted that Respondent No.1 gave a letter to the Petitioner addressed to Dr. G. Chandrashekar of L.V. Prasad Eye Institute for better management of uncontrolled glaucoma in the right eye since this facility for the same was only available at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute. To sum up, it was contended that the Petitioner had visited Respondent No.1 with serious and congenital eye problems since his childhood, for which he had already undgone surgeries, including a corneal transplantation in L.V. Prasad Institute which had failed. He was also on anti-glaucoma medication. Under these circumstances, the complaint filed by the Petitioner was baseless and deserved to be dismissed.