MUNNI DEVI Vs. R P TONDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 6.3.2003 passed by the State Commission, Ranchi, dismissing Appeal No. 50/2003 for the complainant/appellant/the present petitioner failed to prove medical negligence in the cataract operation of the right eye.

(2.) Brief facts giving an occasion for filing this revision are as follows: The petitioner Munni Devi had complaint of cataract in her right eye. On 16th December, 1994, she contacted Dr. R.P. Tandon who advised operation. After getting some pathological tests, her right eye was operated on 27.3.1995 for cataract extraction. According to the complainant she lost her vision of right eye completely. Despite complainant, the opposite party did not take care. She went to Ahmedabad, she was operated twice there. She claimed that on account of carelessness of Dr. R.P. Tandon during cataract operation and post operation stage, she developed redness and swelling in her right eye with acute pain and total loss of vision. Accordingly she claimed compensation of Rs. 4,65,000.

(3.) The respondent contested the matter inter alia on the grounds that after the complainant produced the pathological test report and medical fitness certificate saying that she was fit for operation, operation of her right eye was performed on 27.3.1995 for cataract extraction with intra ocular lense fitting at the right eye of the complainant. After about one week, the complainant reported pain, oozing of water, redness and swelling in her right eye. On examination the respondent found it to be a case of Uveitis for which he prescribed steroid injection. After taking one injection she did not turn up for second injection as prescribed by the respondent. She consulted some other doctor at Ispat Hospital H.E.C.. There is no dispute about the fact that Rs. 2,500 were charged for operation and Rs.100 were charged for prior consultation. It was contended that he had performed the operation very skilfully and that the post operation trouble of Uveitis is a common feature and it was not on account of the result of any carelessness on his part. The petitioner voluntarily abandoned the services of the opposite party since 19.6.1995 and did not heed to the advice of second steroid injection as was prescribed by him. He also disputed that the vision of the complainant/petitioner was totally lost, rather after operation her vision was restored to 6/36 while previously her visibility in her right eye was only reading upto two lines from the top of the chart.