D RAMA KRISHNA Vs. K SREE KUMAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant's vision in his left eye was not clear and he approached opposite party No. 1 on 29. 11. 1999 for treatment and opposite party No. 1 diagnosed Cataract and advised him to undergo PHACO Emulcification surgery i. e. to remove the Cataract and to arrange the lens. Opposite party No. 1 gave a letter dated 1. 12. 1999 to opposite party No. 3 to admit the complainant in Sadhuram Eye Hospital on 3. 12. 1999. The complainant was admitted in the hospital of opposite party No. 3 on 3. 12. 1999. Opposite party No. 1 without proper evaluation of the case commenced the surgery at about 9. 00 a. m. in a hurried manner in opposite party No. 3 hospital by administering local anaesthesia and all of a sudden he stopped surgery and informed the complainant that there is a mechanical defect in the machinery and he will continue the surgery after getting the machine repaired. The complainant submits that opposite party No. 1 committed mistake while doing PHACO and that since only local anaesthesia was administered, he heard their discussions that by mistake the lens was dislocated and dropped on the retina and the opposite parties had to call Posterior Segment Surgeon who was not available in the hospital at that point of time. Opposite party No. 1 leaving the complainant in the middle of the operation rushed to opposite party No. 2 and both opposite pary Nos. 1 and 2 together after a lapse of 2 hours attended to the complainant and commenced the operation. The complainant submits that he could hear discussions of opposite parties 1 and 2 that the lens was broken into pieces and opposite party No. 2 tried to remove the broken pieces from the posterior capsule. While so, the vitreous chamber was punctured and the vitreous fluid poured out of the eye and caused retinal detachment with giant retinal tear. Opposite parties 1 and 2 tried to fish out the broken pieces for about four hours but in vain. Opposite party No. 3 collected an amount of Rs. 2,050 only since the operation was not successful. The complainant was discharged on 4. 12. 1999 and in the Discharge Slip issued by the opposite parties, it was mentioned by opposite party No. 3 that the PHACO converted into ECCR, vitrectomy Acid C/r etc. The complainant on the advice of the opposite parties to come for review approached opposite party No. 3 on several occasions and ultimately on 21. 12. 1999 the complainant was advised to approach Dr. Tara Prasad Das, Chief Retinal Surgeon, L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. Opposite party No. 2 wrote a letter to the Chief Retinal Surgeon dated 21. 12. 1999 admitting that opposite party No. 1 while doing PHACO there was P. C rent and total cataract lens dislocated on the retina. On 3. 1. 2000, the complainant approached L. V. Prasad Eye Institute and underwent BELT BUCKLING, PARSPLANA VITRECTOMY MEMBRANE PEELING, PERFLOURO CARBON LIQUID INJECTION, SILICON OIL INJECTION AND ENDO LASER for the left eye on 4. 1. 2000 and was discharged on 5. 1. 2000 and the complainant was advised to take complete rest for a period of two months from the date of operation. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 28,000 to L. V. Prasad Eye Institute for the treatment apart from medical expenses. On 16. 2. 2000 the Retinal Surgeon, Dr. T. P. Das advised the complainant to undergo further surgery, but for some reason the surgery was not taken place. On 10. 7. 2000, he was advised that further surgery for the left eye would not benefit much and therefore, he was asked to come for review every three months. On 21. 7. 2000, the complainant approached Shankar Netyralaya Medical Research Foundation at Chennai and Dr. Rajath Agarwal examined him and found that the left eye had total corneal haze. He was not advised any surgical intervention for the left eye considering that he had multiple surgeries done. He was advised cosmetic contact lens for the eye and regular follow up every month. The complainant admits that he sustained heavy loss and the complainant's left eye turned white. He got issued a legal notice on 14. 8. 2001 to pay a sum of Rs. 14,80,000 towards compensation for mental agony, disfigurement and loss in the profession, etc. and he received a reply on 30. 8. 2001 with all false allegations. Hence, this complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 14,80,000 together with costs of Rs. 5,000 and other reliefs.

(2.) OPPOSITE parties 1 and 2 filed their counter. Opposite parties 1 and 2 in their counter submitted that the complainant consulted opposite party No. 1 on 29. 11. 1999 and was diagnosed as having cataract in his right eye and after initial check up advised him for cataract operation and explained all the aspects of the surgery. After the complainant agreed, he advised him to get himself admitted in opposite party No. 3 hospital. The operation was fixed for 3. 12. 1999 and the complainant got himself admitted on the same day and the opposite parties 1 and 2 denied that no proper investigations were done prior to the operation. Dropped nucleus is a known occurrence during cataract surgery even in the most experienced hands and denied that the Posterior Segment Surgeon was not available at that point of time. They submitted that he is a super specialist who attended to the patient in about an hour on the request of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 denies that the complainant was left half way through the surgery and he returned after two hours. He denies that the vitreous chamber was damaged but in fact a three port parsplana vitrectomy was done and dropped nucleus was removed and this procedure can be done on the same day or the next day or even after a week's time. Opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that they did their best in discharging their duties and no negligence can be attributed to them. It was only in the interest of the patient that he was referred to Dr. Tara Prasad Das, Chief Retinal Surgeon of L. V. Prasad Eye Institute when opposite parties detected retinal tear and detachment during subsequent post-operative follow up. He further contended that L. V. Prasad Eye Institute should have been made a party to the case and that the complainant had gone to Shankar Netralaya on his own accord for which opposite parties 1 and 2 cannot be made liable and that they contend that there is no negligence on their behalf.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 3 filed counter stating that their hospital has nine doctors, who are known as Junior Opthalmic Surgeons. There are Honorary Consulting Opthalmic Surgeons, who are not on the pay rolls of opposite party No. 3. The complainant has given a consent to opposite party No. 3 for conducting the eye examination stating that he will not hold the management of the hospital liable for any untoward problem. It was only after the consent letter was taken that the procedure had begun. The complainant only to enrich himself has filed this complaint.