MASTER AAYUSH DHAR Vs. K C GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is filed by Master Aayush Dhar, complainant No. 1 and his father Mr. Lalit Dhar, complainant No. 2, alleging medical negligence against Dr. K.C. Garg, Opposite Party No. l. Dr. V.K. Garg, Opposite Party No. 2 and Dr. Ramesh Chandra, Opposite Party No. 3. All the parties are from Lucknow, U.P.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are: Master Aayush Dhar was seven years old and was studying 3rd standard in St. Domanic Savio College, Indra Nagar, Lucknow. He sustained an injury to the left eye caused by wooden splinter while playing in H.A.L ground at about 1.00 p.m. on 30.3.1997. Complainant No. 2, his father, took him to Dr. Tahir Zaidi, an Ophthalmologist Surgeon, who advised for ultrasound of the left eye and further advised some injections to be given to him. Complainant No. 2 went at 5.00 p.m. for second opinion from Dr. K.C. Garg, an Ophthalmologist Surgeon Specialist. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 advised that urgent surgery was needed to arrest damage to the left eye of complainant No. l and told that the total expenditure for the surgery would be around Rs. 7,000. Accordingly, at 8.30 p.m. surgery was performed by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. While performing the surgery, O.P. No. 2 called complainant No. 2 and informed him that the lens in the left eye of complainant No. 1 was broken owning to the injury. He was also told that the broken lens would have to be taken out sooner or later and for this second surgery was inevitable and enquired from Complainant No. 2 as to whether he wanted to take out the broken lens or not. At the advice of O.P. No. 2, the lens of the complainant No. l was removed. This operation lasted for about two hours. Thereafter, complainant No. l was retained in the doctor s clinic for two nights and got discharged on 1.4.1997. Complainant No. l was required to come again on 5.4.1997 for follow -up action. Complainant No. 2 paid an amount of Rs. 6,500 at that time.

(3.) ON 7.4.1997, complainant No. l started feeling uncomfortable with pain in his left eye, which turned red, and immediately this fact was brought to the notice of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. Earlier, opposite parties told the complainant No. l to come on 12.4.1997, which was preponed to 9.4.1997. Opposite parties advised complainant No. l to continue with medicines already prescribed on 5.4.1997.