LAWS(NCD)-2018-1-120

ASHOK PACHORI SON OF LATE G D PACHORI; R K TRIPATHI Vs. R K TRIPATHI; ASHOK PACHORI & ANR LTD; NISHI PACHORI, MSDO, MS DIRECTOR LASER SIGHT (INDIA) PVT LTD

Decided On January 03, 2018
Ashok Pachori Son Of Late G D Pachori; R K Tripathi Appellant
V/S
R K Tripathi; Ashok Pachori And Anr Ltd; Nishi Pachori, Msdo, Ms Director Laser Sight (India) Pvt Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, Mr. R. K. Tripathi, Sub Inspector, in the month of October, 1999 suffered injury of his right eye due to blunt trauma by bamboo stick. He approached M/s. Laser Sight India Pvt. Ltd. run by Dr. Dr. Ashok Pachori (OP1). After examination he was diagnosed as a case of dislocated lens. The patient was called on 19-12-1999 and, thereafter, he was operated by OP1 on 21-12-1999. Next day the bandage was removed but patient had persistent pain in his right eye. The OP1 advised him to come for further follow up on 25-12-1999. The patient initially got treatment of his right eye at B. S. Mehta Eye Hospital, Allahabad from 11-01-1999 to 22-01-1999 where he was thoroughly checked and was told that due to injury in his right eye the lens of his right eye was dislocated and advised to get the lens of his right eye be removed and new lens be placed after operation. Thereafter, he took treatment at Balrampur Hospital at Lucknow from 07-06-1999 to 21-06-1999 by Dr. O. P. Shukla who again suggested that eye has to be operated and injured lens has to be removed. Again on 10-07-1999, he got checked his right eye in Mansarovar Hospital, Lucknow and the doctors there advised the same. On 22-09-1999, he consulted, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherji Hospital, Lucknow who also suggested to replace the dislocated lens. Finally on 19-12-1999 he got his right eye tested by OP1 at their clinic in Agra wherein it was told that the operation of right eye is needed immediately. The patient was advised for routine laboratory tests. The OP assured that the patient's right eye will be completely well and fine after the surgery and new lens will be replaced. Accordingly, he was operated on 21-12-1999. On the next day, the bandage was removed but the operated eye shown swelling and pain. The patient was called on 25-12-1999 but in the meantime the condition of right eye drastically deteriorated and severe pain developed. The complainant with his wife approached OP clinic on 25-12-1999. The OP assured that nothing will happen. Everything will be settled and prescribed some medicines but there was no improvement and his right eye became completely blind. On 28-12-1999, the OP2 assured that the dislocated lens has already been removed by them and advised to take regular medicines for three weeks. The OP called the patient for further checkup to his clinic at Kanpur but due to non-improvement of the condition of the right eye on 31-12-1999 the patient went to Kanpur for checkup. Thereafter on 10-01-2000 the complainant consulted Dr. R. N. Mishra at Hari Netralaya Clinic, Allahabad who informed the complainant that without removing injury dislocated lens the OP1 implanted a new lens. Therefore, the implantation of IOL was not at appropriate place and there is retinal detachment also. The doctor also referred him to Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai. The patient consulted Kshetriya Netra Vigyan Sansthan, Netra Chikitsalya at Sitapur from 31-01-2000 to 01-02-2000 wherein the Chief Medical Officer verbally opined that patient's retina was torn and patient may develop neurological problem. On 23-03-2000 the complainant went to Sankara Netralaya at Chennai for checkup of his right eye where the doctors expressed to get operated without delay. Accordingly, after preliminary test he got admitted at Sankara Netralaya on 03-03-2000 and operated on next day. He was discharged from hospital on 05-03-2000.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the sufferings the complainant alleged medical negligence committed by the OP, Dr. Ashok Pachori as implanted ACIOL without removing his injured lens resulting into damage to the retina of his right eye, filed a complaint before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, "the State Commission")

(3.) The OP resisted the complaint by filing written version and submitted that he examined the complainant and found that there was a posterior sub luxation of lens in the right eye due to blunt trauma. The lens was dislocated laterally and inferiority, also there was vitreous herniating in anterior chamber. Hence, OP had planned for Intra Capsular Cataract Extraction (ICCE) on 21-12-1999 with A.C. Intra Occular Lens (IOL). The OP denied any negligence on the part of treatment of the blunt injury. The OP further submitted that he has tried to remove overlying vitreous with cellulose spunge, but it was not possible. Also anterior vitrectomy was done removing it by doing all these lens dipped into vitreous, as Zonules were very weak. However, papillary area was clear. He has performed to remove vitreous from anterior chamber and to ensure clear and better vision ACIOL was implanted. The same was informed to the complainant and was asked to come for regular follow up, but complainant never came after 22-12-1999 for follow up treatment or checkup.