SUCHETA SANYAL Vs. MEGHNAD BHOWMIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The outcome of the cataract surgery, usually is not caused by negligence or even poor practice. However, defending bad outcomes is rarely easy. In this complaint, the complainant, Smt. Sucheta Sanyal alleged negligence that the opposite party Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik (OP-1) Eye Surgeon, failed to recognize and treat endophthalmitis one day postoperatively (cataract surgery) which resulted in the enucleating of her right eye. The OP-1 maintained that the complainant was properly treated. The complainant contended that the OP, Dr. Bhowmik, had appropriately treated her on the first postoperative day, she would not have suffered the loss of her right eye.

(2.) Facts of the Complaint:

(3.) Thereafter, the Complainant, again visited the OP Doctor on 10.09.2001, but he turned a deaf ear to the findings of Sankaradeva Nethralaya and told the Complainant to continue the medicines, as he prescribed. With an apprehension of the foul play of Dr. Bhowmik(OP-1), and since her condition of eye was worsening, she visited Dr. Amal Deb, a Senior Consultant Ophthalmologist, Retina Specialist, IOL & Phaco Micro Surgeon at Cooch Behar, on 11.09.2001. On examination, he informed her that in Phaco-surgery, there should be no stitch in the eye, whereas, a stitch was observed in her Right eye. He further told her to remove her Rt. eye (evisceration under local anesthesia) immediately, otherwise, there was possibility of brain hemorrhage. Thus, unfortunately, her right eye was removed on 29.09.2001 at Shankar Netralaya, Chennai, its discharge summary is dated 3.10.2001. Thereafter, the Complainant returned to Rangia, Assam and noticed that pus was coming out from her mouth, eye and nose. She again, on 16.09.2001 visited the Sankaradeva Nethralaya at Guwahati, and at last visited Sanakara Nethralaya at Chennai on 22.09.2001, then her eye was removed on 25.09.2001 and discharged on 3.10.2001 (Discharge Summery-Ext CW1/9). She was advised to revisit on 08.12.2001, for glass implantation. Complainant was examined as CW1 and it was substantiated by her husband as CW2. She filed the medical records marked as Exhibits CW-1 to 9).