RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. P S HARDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the complainants in brief is that the complainant No. 1-Raj Kumar Gupta being partially blind (-15 and -12 vision) underwent four surgeries at the hands of Dr. P. S. Hardia and became totally blind due to his negligence.

(2.) RAJ Kumar Gupta visited Dr. Hardia Advance Eye Surgery and Research Centre Indore, on 17. 3. 1993. On 18. 3. 1993, after the surgery, doctor prescribed certain medicines to be taken and eye-drops to be used for about 2 months. As there was hardly any improvement, the complainant visited Dr. P. S. Hardia on 28. 5. 1993. After testing, another surgery was performed. During the subsequent visit on 9. 10. 1993, additional medicines were prescribed for two months. When the complainant visited the doctor on 2. 12. 1993 for checkup, Dr. Hardia advised another surgery to be undertaken this time with the use of laser and was asked to come after two months. On 3. 2. 1994 when Gupta visited the doctor, he told the complainant that machine was out of order and finally laser surgery was performed on 16. 9. 1994. He alleges that even after the surgery, there was no improvement in the eyesight, on the other hand, it deteriorated and on 22. 1. 1995, complainant lost complete sight in his right eye.

(3.) ON 27. 1. 1995, doctor informed him that retina of the eye has shifted for which there is no treatment and advised him to consult Dr. P. N. Nagpal of Retina Foundation, Ahmedabad. On 6. 2. 1995 after testing the eyes, Dr. Nagpal stated that as a result of use of laser, holes have irrupted in the retina. Civil Hospital also confirmed the above diagnosis. Subsequently, complainant went to Lumbni Ram Ambika Hospital, Sidhartha Nagar, Nepal. Doctor of said Institute referred the complainant to L. V. Parsad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. Doctors of this Institute-Hospital advised for "cornea transplantation", which was possible only in the right eye as the left eye was damaged totally. After waiting for some time in arranging funds in March, 1996, the complainant reached the said Institute. He was told that his eyes are irreparable. As a last effort, the complainant got himself examined at AIIMS, New Delhi but without any success. Wherever complainant had gone for checkup, he was advised that the damage caused in the operations carried out by respondent was irreparable.