D PHILIP Vs. NARAYANA NETRALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is filed on

(2.) 3.1999 by the above person against the above O.Ps. 1 and 2, praying for grant of Rs. 600 lakh as damages, and compensation to the complainant, direct the above O.Ps. to pay the same with interest from the date of complaint till payment @ 18% p.a. in the interest of justice and equity. Brief facts of the complaint are that D. Philip was working in Fine Line, No. C -93, ITI Industrial Estate, Bangalore -560048, as a mechanic, on the Drilling Machine. On 24.4.1998 at about 11.00 a.m., while drilling the Iron piece of the drill bit has broken and flew onto his right eye. He rushed to Dr. Ravi of Kapila Clinic, who examined him and advised to rush to OP 1 hospital. But he went to MINTO Hospital, who after examining him gave the report produced. He suffered severe pain in the eye (right) on the night of 24.4.1998, and directly went to OP1 hospital, and got him admitted on 25.4.1998. OP 2 Dr. K.S. Kumar examined him and advised to undergo operation immediately, and Iron piece fixed in his eye can be removed and asked him to get X -ray in Shastri Memorial Hospital. He told that the operation cost Rs. 20,000. In the presence of the Proprietor of the Fine Line, C -93, after bargain, it was brought down to Rs. 15,000. D. Philip and his wife went to X -ray, and wife brought the X -ray from Shastri Memorial Hospital. The patient was dressed with operation robe, and taken to operation table. After the operation, he was told by the Doctor that it was not successful, and OP 2 behaved rashly with D. Philip and his wife, and demanded Rs. 10,000 which was paid on 1.5.1998 as per Receipt No. 2025 of OP 1 Hospital, produced. They gave Discharge Summary, and in diagnosis clearly said RE penetrating eye using with Endophthalmitis with 7 retained IGFB dated 29.4.1998, produced. On the request of Philip, OP 2 examined him thrice, and said he is not the God to give him eye, and it is not like childs play, and behaved unpleasantly and rudely, and as a Doctor of that stature, and did not advise anything to the patient on 25.5.1998 he went to MINTO Hospital and got him examined as he was able to bear excruciating pain. It was reported that eye is completely lost and Iron piece in the eye and nerve connecting to the eye has been damaged in the process trying to remove it, and nothing can be done, which is produced. Patient went to Medinova and obtained 2nd opinion in getting C.T. Scan of the eyes on 3.6.1998, and in the report they have stated lens is absent, and cannot be cured, is produced. 2. Patient had insisted for the scanning of his right eye in OP 1 Hospital, which was refused by them, as not available there, and it is only done in Manipal Hospital, and only after 2 months can be done, as told by OP 2, when patient got him examined in MINTO Hospital on 24.4.1998, Doctor there told that the eye is alright, but because of the presence of foreign object in the eye, there is severe pain, which is intolerable, which made him to go to OP 1 Hospital, on the advice of Dr. Ravi of Kapila Clinic, and went in good faith with an intention that his eye will be operated by an experienced expert Doctor, and they will be able to remove the Iron piece, a foreign object in the eye. But due to negligence of the Doctor, OP 2 and deficiency in service, his right eye was damaged beyond all hopes, mainly because of inexperience and negligence on the part of OP 2 Doctor. When X -ray and Scanning was done, it was found that they operated his eye in a negligent manner resulting the loss of eye sight of the right eye of the patient. Operation is done for consideration as paid, and OPs 1 and 2 rendered service to him, as such he is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. OPs are bound to render service under the above Act. Because of negligence of OP 2 Dr. K.S. Kumar, who is working in OP 1 Hospital. OPs are liable to pay compensation to the patient, who had filed the complaint. His job is with drilling Machines, and eyes are most important for that nature of job, as an important organ in his day to day work. It has been lost and he is totally blind of the right eye, and his efficiency is dropped, and lost promotion in the employment. He is not able to move freely, because loss of sight in the right eye. For these losses, OP 2 is liable to pay Rs. 5.00 lakh to him. D. Philip, original complainant has got a daughter to look after her and also his wife. He has lost opportunity to earn more due to negligence on the part of O.Ps. 1 and 2. OP 1 Hospital is liable to pay Rs. 1.00 lakh. Complaint is in time. It was filed before the District Forum which returned, as claim exceeds its jurisdiction.

(3.) VERSION of OP 2 is as that of OP 1 in paras 1 to 3, 10, 11 to 13, 15 and 16 of his version, in addition to that OP 2 has added that on examination of the patient, it was noticed by him that front portion of the eye (Anterior segment) showed sever lid swelling with redness and pus formation (4mm hypopyon). The cornea was oedemations (collection of water) and cut injury (2 mm limbal toer) at 3.00 Oclock position was seen. Black portion of the eye (Ins pattern) was lost due to severe pus formation and then for lens could not be seen. There was no view of the back portion of the eye and view is (fundus) and no foreign body could be visualized. In view of these findings, clinical diagnosis of penetrating eye injury (right eye) with acute post injury pus formation with suspected intraocular foreign body was made and the patient was clearly explained the consequences -on the basis of examination, it was not possible to definitely make diagnosis of retained foreign body (metalic piece as told by the patient) in the eye. However, infection was so severe that any delay in removing the pus would be fatal to the eye sight. Complainant was advised to have C.T. Scan immediately. However, complainant pleaded inability, on the ground of cost secondary measure was advised to have at least X -ray. Intravenous antibiotic were started immediately, after arrival of the complainant. X -ray showed a radio opaque foreign body in relation to the eye. But it was not clear from the same whether foreign body was within the walls of the eye ball or inside the eye ball. However, as removal of pus and foreign body could be achieved, it found with the eye, by the same operation it was agreed upon to go ahead with the vitrectomy surgery. The patient was explained that the removal of the pus and the foreign body will be done only after viewing X -ray as the presence of the same could not be ascertained otherwise. After viewing the X -ray brought by the complainants wife, it was explained to both that there is a possibility of the foreign body (metal piece) being in the eye. By then infection has come even more severe. It was made clear that an urgent operation to remove the pus inside the eye is of primary importance. In view of the critical condition of the eye special informed consent was taken from the wife after explaining the situation, in addition to regular consent taken before any other surgery, produced at R1, R2. During surgery, pus within the eye is removed and antibiotic was injected. Despite thorough search foreign body was not seen within the eye ball. However, from the circumference of the injury, and X -ray findings of the metalic object in relation to the eye, it was felt that the foreign body could possibly be lodged in the walls of the eye ball. To enable removal of this, proper location with the C.T. Scan was necessary and the same was advised to the patient to be got done elsewhere as O.P. 1 Hospital does not have it, which is not available in any exclusive Eye Hospital. However, he did not come up for follow up thereafter. During the operation of the nerves of the eye (retina) was found to be severely damaged due to infection (aggravated by delay of 24 hours) and the same was clearly explained to the patient, immediately after surgery, and it was also mentioned in the thanking letter to Dr. Ravi. It was made clear to the patient even before operation that the condition of the right eye is critical and it is only to explore the remote possibility of storing the eye sight, the operation was advised, consequences of the operation was also told to his wife and him. He is a duly qualified Doctor having vast experience in treatment of problems related to eye. He is specially trained in the treatment of similar problems at the renowned Shankar Nethralaya, Chennai, following which he worked as Registrar in Vitreo Retina at Lions Hospital, Bangalore. By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that there was any kind of negligence or deficiency in service on his part. It was he who advised C.T. Scan to the patient, and not insisted for it nor he refused it. OP 2s liability for compensation is the imagination of the complainant/patient. Since there is no negligence on his part, he is not liable to pay it, as claimed or for any amount. Complaint is frivolous besides mischievous, and has filed with ulterior motive of unlawful gain. Complaint to be dismissed with exemplary costs.