ASHA RANI Vs. ROHIT GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Asha Rani, aged 58, a housewife, went to Grover Eye and ENT Hospital, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, on 10.3.92 for the treatment of her eyes. She was examined by Dr. Rohit Grover and some medicines were prescribed. She was advised to come again on the following day and she was further examined on 11.3.92 and 16.3.92. The examination revealed that she required surgery of her left eye on account of 'Glaucoma'. She was admitted in the evening of 24.3.92 as indoor patient and on the next day, her left eye was operated upon for Glaucoma. However, after discharge from the hospital on 25.3.92 and thereafter she contacted the respondent on 27.3.92, 30.3.92, 31.3.92 1.4.92 and 4.4.92, but her eye-sight of the left eye did not revive. It has been alleged that the respondent did not pay attention to the real problem of the complainant and acted in a haphazard and negligent manner in performing the surgery and there was want of post-operation precautions. It has further been alleged that during the followup, while she was still under treatment, she was operated upon thrice on the left eye between 9.4.92 and 12.5.92, but it was of no avail. The complainant has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 9.99 lacs together with interest @ 18% p.a. for the deficient service at the hands of the respondent medical practitioner.

(2.) The respondent, in the written statement, took a plea that the complainant was not a consumer. Besides this, it has been averred that after investigation, it was found to be a case of Glaucoma in the left eye and the complainant was operated upon on 25.3.92. The clinical examination indicated satisfactory progress when the bandage was opened and a fresh bandage was applied at 8.00 p.m. on 25.3.92. However, on a subsequent examination of the complainant, the water level did not increase in the eye. The pressure in the eye started increasing and the interior chamber still remained flat and it was diagnosed as a case of 'malignant glaucoma'. Despite further treatment and application of Mannitol 20% and Drosyn 10% the water level in the eye did not come up. Such a situation arises only in rare cases. When the complainant was last examined on 4.4.92, the water level in the eye was decreasing and there was no improvement. This was informed to the patient and her attendants from time to time. The respondent also refunded the sum of Rs. 3,600/- by means of a cheque which he had received from the complainant. It has also been averred that respondent is a 'Gold Medalist' from Delhi University in MS Eye Surgery and possesses an experience of more than 5 years besides the training during the period of his education. He had performed about 500 operations of this kind and in all he has preformed about 10,000 eye operations and had also been holding 'free eye camps' from time to time. Even some cases have been referred to him by the PGI and Army Hospital with regard to certain tests and treatment. Nothing was haphazard in his hospital or performance of the operation now under consideration. There was no electric failure and the alternative arrangements always existed.

(3.) On behalf of the complainant it has been urged that other eminent doctors of Chandigarh as well as of Delhi turned their face in dismay telling her that surgery was performed by the respondent in a negligent manner resulting in the permanent incurable disability in the eye. The complainant has, however, not named any specialist of Chandigarh or Delhi, who examined her and came to such a conclusion. There appears to be no evidence that the respondent was absent from his clinic or premises during the period the complainant was under treatment.