VITTAL RAO Vs. ANUMULA VIJAYALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 25.04.2017 in FA No. 219 of 2015 against CC No.1060 of 2010 passed by the Telangana State Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by Dr. Vital Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the Treating Doctor") and concurred with the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Hyderabad (for short "the District Forum").

(2.) The brief facts as stated in the Complaint are that the Complainant on 23.09.2008 approached the Treating Doctor for poor vision and cataract treatment of the left eye. After examining the Complainant, the Treating Doctor prescribed certain medicines but there was no improvement. It was averred that she had consulted the Treating Doctor again on 01.10.2008, 03.10.2008 and 10.10.2008 by staying at Hyderabad and used the medicine as prescribed by him. As there was no improvement as per the advice of the Treating Doctor she got herself admitted in Jagdamba Hospital, being run by the Treating Doctor on 18.02.2009 and the Treating Doctor conducted the cataract operation on 19.02.2009 and charged a sum of Rs. 15,060.00 for the same vide Bill No. 2807. She was discharged by the Treating Doctor on 19.02.2009 itself and also prescribed certain medicines to her. However, in spite of using the medicines as prescribed, there was no improvement in the eye sight of the Complainant and even the slight vision, which she had, was lost. On 21.02.2009, she once again visited the Treating Doctor who reviewed her on 24.02.2009, 06.03.2009, 17.03.2009, 19.03.2009, 07.04.2009, 29.04.2009, 25.04.2009 and 18.08.2009 but there was no improvement. Thereafter the Complainant got herself examined by another doctor, who opined that the Complainant had lost her eye sight due to negligence in the operation in having used unclean and unhygienic instruments because of which the Complainant lost her eye sight permanently. The Complainant got issued legal notice on 03.08.2010 calling upon the Treating Doctor to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs but the said notice returned unclaimed. Hence the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.00.

(3.) The Treating Doctor filed the Written Version stating that Complainant was suffering from a complicated cataract i.e. Chronic Iridocyclitis and, therefore, the treatment, surgery and outcome of the same cannot be compared with that of senile cataract. It was averred that the Complainant had an additional factor i.e. history of hemorrhage which was treated elsewhere. The Complainant did not produce any record of the treatment given to her earlier. The status of retina could not be viewed on account of the dense cataract. Indirectly, an idea can be confirmed by testing the perception of light and projection of rays. Some time was taken to treat her Chronic Iridocyclitis and when only perception of light was positive, she was advised cataract extraction to improve vision marginally and plan for the treatment of retinal condition to further improve the vision. In the first post-operative visit, vision improved from perception of light to hand movement. It was averred that within the first week of operation, Complainant developed stroke (CVA) involving brain stem and she was put on anti platelet and anticoagulants in another hospital. It was stated that Complainant developed bleeding in the eye which was on account of usage of the afore-noted drugs Her neurological status was responsible for her vision not improving further and it was denied that there was any inadequate sterilization either during the surgery or thereafter. It was averred that four months after the surgery, the Complainant was examined by another ophthalmologist who observed that the operated eye still had perceptional light, hence there is no negligence as the Treating Doctor had acted in accordance with the normal standards of care.