SAI MAHIMA HOSPITAL Vs. ANIL RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 19.00 lakh alleging deficiency in medical service, the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) The case of the complainant/appellant is that the complainant approached Dr. T.M.A. Pai Rotary Hospital as he had developed cataract in his right eye. Dr. Gurudath Kamath, Eye Surgeon was contacted for Laser treatment. But, the complainant/appellant was advised to go for a regular operation, as the said facility was not available with the said hospital. He was admitted on 2.7.1998 and operated on 3.7.1998. After the post-operative treatment, the complainant/appellant was discharged on 4.7.1998. He was informed that the operation was successful and would gain the vision. But, the complainant/appellant was not able to see through his right eye. He underwent correctional operation as was suggested on 10th December, 1998 and discharged on 12th December, 1998. He could see through his right eye till about August, 1999. But on 13.8.1999, for the first time the complainant found that his vision in the right eye was totally blocked. On examination by Dr. Kamath on 17.8.1999, the complainant was advised to have another operation namely, 'Retinal Detachment'. Accordingly, the complainant underwent the Retinal Detachment Surgery. Since even after this operation, there was no improvement in the right eye of the complainant, the patient was suspected to have developed 'Endophthalamitis". Therefore, the patient was referred to Sankar Netralaya, Chennai. He got himself admitted there. He was operated on 17.9.1999 but unfortunately he lost his eye sight of the right eye. The complainant/appellant filed a complaint and claimed Rs. 19.00 lakh from the hospital, Dr. Gurudath Kamath, Dr. Shobha G. Pai and Dr. Sai Giridhara Kamath.

(3.) In written version the respondents claimed on examination of the complainant it was found that there was 'posterior polar cataract' in the right eye. Fundus was Myopic. A scan was done on 27.6.1998, which revealed an 'Intra-ocular Lens power of 120'. The patient was diagnosed as Myopia with Posterior Polar Cataract in the right eye. He was advised to undergo operation, which was done on 3.7.1998. After having done the surgery a small posterior capsular tear was noticed. Posterior Capsule tears are common during surgery and are compatible with good vision. It was stated by the respondent that since the patient was a myope and had Intra-ocular Lens of 12D, Intra-ocular Lens of 12D was implanted. On 10.12.1999, the complainant/appellant came again and it was found that his vision was dropped to 6/18. Since the patient had not been responding to conservative management, Pars Plana Vitrectomy was done after taking individual's consent. Thereafter, the complainant regained normal vision of 6/6 in his right eye after wearing spectacles and he had no complaint till 3.8.1999.