DEVINDER SINGH GUPTA Vs. VIVEK PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by Devinder Singh Gupta, the original complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) and Appellant herein, being aggrieved by the lesser compensation awarded to him by the State Commission in respect of his complaint of medical negligence against Dr. Vivek Pal, Respondent herein.

(2.) In his complaint before the State Commission, Appellant had stated that following a minor complaint of a cosmetic nature in his left eye he consulted Respondent, who was an eye surgeon, in his clinic in Daryaganj in June, 1993, who after examining him informed that he was suffering from an innocuous growth known as Pytreygium and since there was likelihood that the growth may increase excision was advised through a minor surgery, which would ensure that the Appellant's eye would become normal within five days. Appellant, therefore, agreed to undergo this surgery, which was conducted in October, 1993 in Respondent's clinic at Masjid Moth, New Delhi and he was thereafter prescribed medicines for both local application, which included Mitomycine-C, as also oral medication. However, soon after Appellant's left eye became red and there was acute pain and irritation, which persisted, and, therefore, he consulted the Respondent, who assured him that if he continues to regularly use Mitomycine-C, his eye would become normal. However, during the course of using this medicine, Appellant's eye further deteriorated and became very dry and there was loss of vision in that eye. Appellant complained about this to Respondent, who changed the medicine, which only further aggravated the condition. Appellant, therefore, consulted another ophthalmologist Dr. G.C. Mukherjee, who informed him that his left eye had become very dry due to wrong prescription of Mitomycine-C and he was advised to consult Dr. P. Vishwanathan Gopal at Geetanjali Hospital, New Delhi, who confirmed that the eye had got damaged due to prolonged use of Mitomycine-C. Appellant thereafter went to All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, where this diagnosis was confirmed by a Cornea Specialist-Dr. Anita Panda. He was advised to stop using all the medicines, including Mitomycine-C. Being aggrieved because of the medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Respondent, because of which the Appellant's eye became dry, he issued a legal notice to Respondent to pay him Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation but received no response. Appellant, therefore, approached the State Commission with a complaint of medical negligence and deficiency in service against Respondent and requested that he be directed to pay Rs.10 Lakhs as damages and compensation since there was total loss of vision in Appellant's left eye, which had adversely affected both his professional and personal life, as also any other relief as deemed appropriate.

(3.) Respondent on being served filed a written rejoinder denying the above allegations, which he termed as false, frivolous and vexatious. It was contended that Appellant approached him with a condition known as Pytreygium, which is a growth of extra skin and if it reached the pupil area of the eye, it could permanently hamper the Appellant's vision. Surgery was, therefore, necessary, which was satisfactorily conducted. Appellant, thereafter advised both oral medication as also medicine through local application and a week later when the healing of the Appellant's eye was completed, he was advised to use Mitomycine-C for two weeks since this was necessary to prevent recurrence of Pytreygium. This medicine, which comes in the form of injection, was converted into eye drops for use three times a day and Appellant was verbally told that over use of this medicine for more than two weeks is harmful. Unfortunately, Appellant did not heed this advice and instead of coming back for a further check up appears to have continued using Mitomycine-C and taking treatment from various other doctors as per his own whim and fancy. It was only on 03.03.1994 i.e. after over four months that Appellant visited the Respondent and told him that he was still continuing the use of Mitomycine-C. Respondent immediately asked him to discontinue the same and to come back after 15 days. Appellant again did not heed this advice and consulted Respondent after three months i.e. on 22.06.1994 when he was prescribed natural tear drops and lacritube ointment. A perusal of these facts clearly indicate that it was the Appellant who was responsible for the damage caused to his left eye by prolonged use of Mitomycine-C on his own volition and against medical advice given by Respondent. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service or medical negligence of Respondent.