B SRI RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. NALLA SUVARNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party is the appellant.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the District Forum -II, Hyderabad in C.D. No. 64 of 1999 dated 10.1.2002, the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(3.) THE opposite party filed counter denying deficiency in treatment. It is contended that the opposite party has diagnosed Ulcer Cornea in right eye with Hypopyen and prescribed Auasel -A, Ampi -kid Tbs, Obacin eye drops and Neosprin eye ointment and the complainant was given Atropine 1% eye ointment after cleaning the eye. The mother of the complainant did not care to admit her as in -patient. He gave directions about usage of medicines. The complainant has seen the opposite party on 1.8.1997, 15.8.1997, 18.8.1997 and 21.8.1997 only for treatment, but not regularly. By 15.8.1997 the complainant responded well. On 18.8.1997 the complainant was prescribed Kenalog -S eye ointment. When the patient was brought again on 21.8.1997, the opposite party has examined her and diagnosed endopthalimitis right eye. As the complainant informed that she was feeling some white milky mass behind the pupil, he examined and found that she developed endopthalmitis and he gave subconjunctival, decodran 0.2 cc and the mother of the complainant was asked to bring older member on 22.8.1997 as the complainant requires surgical intervention in the hospital where there are facilities and such facilities are not available in the opposite party hospital. On 22.8.1997 when the mother of the complainant and another person came to him he examined the development of endopthalmitis and referred the case to Lions Hospital, Nidadavole which was affiliated to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute and gave letter. Thereafter, the complainant did not come to opposite party and he received notice. There is no negligence on his part.