AGARULAKSHMI RAJYAM Vs. K SUDHAKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the complainant is that the revision petitioner Agarulakshmi Rajyam was the complainant before the District Forum. She went to the respondent Dr. Sudhakar Rao for treatment of her eye on 15.11.1994 who examined her eye and prescribed certain medicines. Though she took the medicine according to his advice her eyesight was deteriorating slowly. Hence, she approached again on 16.12.1994 when he prescribed medicines and spectacles. There was no improvement and she suffered severe headache on several occasions. As her condition deteriorated she went to Modern Eye Hospital, Nellore on 5.7.1995 and consulted two doctors there. They advised her to proceed to Madras or Bangalore for better treatment.

(2.) The petitioner visited National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore (NIMHANS) on 19.7.1995 where she underwent Pituitary Adenoma operation. Her case is that she lost her eyesight totally in the left eye and partly in the right eye due to negligence and deficiency in the service of the respondent Dr. Sudhakar Rao for which she claimed compensation. The respondent doctor filed a counter stating that he was a qualified eye specialist in Ayurvedam having studied 4 years course in S.R. Government Ayurvedic College and had obtained a bachelor degree in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery from the Directorate of Indian Medicines and Homoeopathy, Government of Andhra Pradesh and also undergone House Physiciancy Training at Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Hyderabad. The Andhra Board for Ayurveda issued a certificate to practise on 10.4.74. .Further he worked under Dr. S. Koteswara Rao, Assistant Professor, Ophthalmology, Government Hospital, Guntur. When the complainant was examined on 16.11.1994 he found 0.25 error in her eyes and complainant went away without taking medicines and glasses. She came back a month later and in order to rectify the refractive error and headache he prescribed glasses and tablets for 15 days. When she came to him again on 20.2.1995 he advised her to consult a Neurologist and in the meantime gave her medicines to strengthen the nervous system. Her treatment at NIMHANS indicated that there was a tumour in the brain at pituitary gland which had affected the optic nervous system. In fact she went to the NIMHANS about five months after his advice. The District Forum after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant approached by filing appeal to the State Commission which held that: