State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jwala Prasad vs Dr. Shushil Rungta & Others on 15 February, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.FA/12/423
Instituted on : 14.08.2012
Jwala Prasad, S/o Shri Batuklal,
R/o. Indira Nagar, Sheetal Mandir, Kohka, Bhilai,
Tah. & Dist. DURG (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Dr. Shushil Rungta, Eye Specialist, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai, Dist. DURG (C.G.)
2. Dr. Anand Saxena, Shri Aurobindo Medical Research Centre, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
3. Director (Dr. Anand Saxena), S/o. Shri Vipin Bihari Saxena, Shri Aurobindo Medical Research Centre, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Manager, Parmanand Building, Rajendra Park Chowk, Durg Dist. DURG (C.G.)
5. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,s Divisional Manager, Akash Ganga Complex, Supela, Bhilai, Dist. DURG (C.G.) ... Respondents.
PRESENT: ‐ HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: ‐ Shri Pawan Awasthi, for appellant.
Shri W.P. Massey, for respondent No.1.
// {PAGE } // Shri S.S. Shukla & Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Shri L.K. Joshi, for respondent No.4.
Shri V.K. Bajpai, for respondent No.5.
ORDER Dated : 15/02/2013 PER: ‐ HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant having been aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (herein after referred for short as "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.30/2008 whereby his complaint, alleging deficiency in service on account of medical negligence against the respondents, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the complainant was the employee of Bhilai Steel Plant who having faced some vision problem with his right eye, consulted OP no.1/eye specialist on 22.02.2005 when OP no.2/ eye specialist of Raipur was also present, advised him for cataract operation of the eye. As per averment of the complainant, on 27.02.2005 his blood and urine was examined and an injection like item was used for the eye whereby he experienced severe pain with bleeding in the eye and at that time he heard conversation between OPs no.1 & 2 that some adverse effect had developed in the eye, so operation was not possible. Thereafter OP no.2 // {PAGE } // informed him that on healing of the wound, operation would be done meanwhile pain killer medicines were prescribed due to which he got relief from pain but he lost vision in the eye. Complainant averred that he also observed continuous tears in the eye when OP no.2/ Anand Saxena told him that hole in the eye had enlarged a little for which an operation could be done at Raipur on 11.03.2005 in "Aurobindo Natalya" with charges of Rs.22,000/‐so accordingly he went there and deposited Rs.25,000/‐with bed charges. The operation was done at 10 P.M. for about one hour. He again experienced severe pain and flow of tears in his eye when OP no.2 consoled him saying that with the help of medicines, the problem would be over in course of time and he was discharged after 5 days with advice to report back after 15 days. Accordingly he reported back after 15 days when oil was put into his eye and after about 6 months period, the same was taken out for which he had to spend Rs.8, 000/‐ also. A week thereafter contact lens was implanted in the eye and he was told that the operation had been successful. Complainant alleged that despite regular check up and use of medicines, his vision in the eye could not be regained, on the contrary a black spot in the eye had developed and on contacting OPs again, he was told that another operation of the eye was required to be done at an expense of Rs.1.50 lacs. Desperately he consulted another eye specialist Dr.D.C. Jain who ruled out possibility of // {PAGE } // vision anymore in the eye. Complainant also consulted another eye specialist Dr. Basant Verma who advised him to undergo a test for which expense of Rs.1.00,000/‐ would be there but with no guarantee of progress. As per his averment when complainant contacted OP no.1 & 2, he was told that due to initial error, the case got spoiled as such another operation would be performed free of cost, so not to go for litigation in court. Complainant averred that since he had lost vision in the eye, he was compelled for voluntary retirement by his employer and he became unemployed. Complainant also alleged that OPs had provided fitness certificate on 30.05.2005 which was deceptive one, since they were well aware of the fact that due to their negligent treatment only, his eye had damaged and subsequently second eye had also lost vision. Complainant prayed before learned District Forum seeking direction to OPs to pay him compensation of Rs.5, 00,000/‐ and also to provide proper treatment.
3. OP no.1 in its reply, while denying other averments of the complainant, averred that the complainant had consulted him for the first time on 08.03.2005 in his clinic at Bhilai, complaining short of vision in his right eye when Dr. Anand Saxena/OP no.2 a Retina specialist after doing his check up, opined that there was some problem in retina so he was advised to come to Raipur. OP no.1 specifically denied of any medical // {PAGE } // treatment given by him at his Bhilai clinic such as administration of drug or any operation done or having collected fees there for. OP no.1 averred that the complaint was false & frivolous so prayed before learned District Forum, for dismissal of the same.
4. OP No.2 himself and on behalf OP No.3/Hospital in reply has refuted the allegations leveled against them by the appellant / complainant and averred that on 08.03.05 for the first time in the clinic of OP No.1, the eye of the complainant was examined by Dr. Anand Saxena / OP No.2 and it was found that his right eye was having early cataract and its vision had decreased and could count fingers only upto 1 ft. Left eye was already operated for cataract 5 years back. The right eye had partial retinal detachment with retinal hole and appearance of high myopic changes (congenital / pathological myopia) was found present. Retina of the left eye was attached and feature of pathological myopia was present. On this diagnosis, the complainant was advised to come to Aurobindo Netralaya, Raipur for retinal surgery. No surgery etc. was done at the clinic of OP No.1 at Bhilai. When the complainant came to Aurobindo Netralaya Raipur on 11.03.2005, he was examined by Vit. Retinal Surgeon and after examination, proper treatment was done and measures were taken for retinal attachment. He was advised surgery for // {PAGE } // right eye and cataract surgery + vitreatomy + band bluckle + FGE + TC Crayo + Silicon oil injection under very guarded prognasis. Poor visual outcome was clearly explained to him and as it was a case of congenital Myopia, need of silicon oil removal from the eye after few months was also explained when Retina would be well attached. With the consent of the complainant, surgery was performed on the same day i.e. 11.03.05 and his condition was uneventful and retina was well attached throughout. His vision of right eye had also improved so that he could count finger upto 2 ft. Thereafter he was frequently checked up without any additional charges and considering the complainant's good attached retinal condition, silicon oil was removed from the eye on 27.08.05 as an essential procedure. His post operative condition was uneventful with well attached retina and he was discharged on 30.08.05. Finally on 01.10.05, he was checked up by retinal surgeon only. His vision was counting finger upto two feet in both the eyes and retina was well attached. It has further been averred that subsequently the complainant came to Aurobindo Netralaya Raipur on 06.12.05 complaining pain and decreased vision since four days in the right eye and on examination corneal ulcer was detected therein. The complainant was diabetic and hypertensive since last 10 years. During the earlier surgery, his blood sugar and blood pressure were normal, but subsequently on 06.12.05 his // {PAGE } // blood sugar was high, but as it was a case of corneal ulcer, he was attended by corneal specialist of Aurobindo Netralaya on the same day, who diagnosed the case as fungal corneal ulcer and advised treatment for it and asked to control diabetes at the earliest and come back immediately. The vision decreased to perception of light only due to corneal ulcer. It was totally not related to retinal problem. Thereafter the complainant came back on 22.12.2005 with controlled diabetes but that time his corneal ulcer was perforated. To protect further loss and to protect cornea, bandage contact lens + Glue was applied along with supportive treatment by corneal consultant of Aurobindo Netralaya. Aforesaid line of treatment did very well and corneal consultant was able to save the eye. The complainant was reviewed the next day and subsequently till 23.02.06 was reviewed from time to time. The bandage contact lens and glue was used to save the eye and for fast healing of early perforated corneal ulcer. As his ulcer had recovered well, the bandage contact lens was removed, as an essential procedure. It has further been averred that every big corneal ulcer after healing leaves corneal opacity which obstructs the vision and for which corneal transplantation is needed, so the complainant was advised for keratoplasty after 2 - 3 months but he did not turn up. Chances after corneal transplantation (keratoplasty) was fair as the retina was well // {PAGE } // attached and corneal ulcer was well healed up. The approximate charges for this operation was 15 to 20 thousands rupees and the Hospital also used to give services free or on subsidized charges to needy persons as it had been working as NGO's Hospital. It was averred that no negligence was committed by the by OP No.2 & 3 in the treatment of the complainant and the allegations were totally false, so prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP no.4 & 5 being the Insurance Companies and formal parties in the case have denied the averments of the complainant except the fact of insurance policies issued by them. Learned District Forum having perused the documents produced before it and heard arguments advanced by parties dismissed the complaint by way of the impugned order.
6. We have perused the documents on record and heard arguments of parties.
7. Initially the complaint was allowed by learned District Forum vide order dated 19.05.2010 which was challenged before this commission by the respondents herein by way of Appeal No.394/2010 which was allowed setting aside the aforesaid order and the case was remanded // {PAGE } // back to the District Forum with the direction to take on record the treatment papers and to call for opinion of an independent expert and then to decide the case afresh. Accordingly learned District Forum complied the directions of this commission and passed the impugned order which is under challenge in the present appeal.
8. The only question to be decided is whether the respondents herein have committed deficiency in service while providing medical treatment to the appellant/complainant as alleged against them by him and if so, compensation there for ?
9. Contention of the appellant/complainant is that the report of medical board, on which the impugned order was based, is incomplete and without conclusion.
10. We do not agree with such contention of the appellant/complainant since he has not specifically pointed out as to which fact or aspect of the medical treatment was over looked by the Medical Board. Further Medical Board Durg comprising of eye specialists had initially examined the treatment papers provided to them and then arrived at collective opinion vide its report dated 10.03.2011 (document no. C‐1) stating that prima facie there was no negligence on the part of // {PAGE } // attending doctors and subsequently the Medical Board after examining both the eyes of the appellant/complainant opined that there was no negligence on the part of attending doctors (document no. C‐2). Both the reports are reproduced herein below:‐ Document No.C-1 :
"1-Jh Tokyk izlkn Pathological Myopia ,oa mlds Complications ls izHkkfor FksA QyLo:i cka;h vkaa[k esa eksfr;k fcan vkWijs'ku i'pkr~ visf{kr n`f"V ugh vk ik;hA 2- Jh izlkn ds nk;ha vka[k esa eksfr;k fcan ds lkFk jsfVuy fMVSpesaV ,oa jsfVuy gksy ijh{k.k esa ik;k x;k FkkA ftldk mipkj us= fpfdRlk ds ekU; rF;ksa @ Standard Protocol ds vuq:i fd;k x;k gSA vkWijs'ku i'pkr~ B Scan dh tkap esa jsfVuk ,VSp ik;h xbZ gSA esfMdy cksMZ us fuEu fpfdRldh; rF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[kk gSA i. Pathological myopes are more prone to develop Retinal detachment. 40% of all cases of retinal detachment belongs to myopes.
ii. Prognosis of Retinal detachment surgery is not certain & depends upon various factors even in experienced hands. iii. Corneal Ulcer is not a common occurrence of Retinal Surgery.
Furthermore, Corneal Ulcer involving Stromal layer may lead to Corneal Opacity. Which is known causes of blindness. Diabetes are more prone to develop infection and where in body despite of control status of diabetes.
3. ekg fnlacj 2005 esa Jh Tokykizlkn ds nka;h vka[k esa gq, Corneal Ulcer dk mipkj Standard Protocol ds vuq:i gqvk gSA
4. nLrkostksa esa mYysf[kr rF; fd ^^vka[k esa nok Mkyus ls us= ls jDrL=ko gqvk** ls esfMdy cksMZ lger ugha gSA vka[k esa nok Mkyus ls Allergic Reaction gks ldrk ftlds ifj.kke Lo:i feuVksa esa Conjuctival Chemosis gksrk gS ,oa us= xksyd dh xqykch yky f>Yyh lwtu ds lkFk iydksa ds ckgj vk tkrh gSA mipkj mijkar mlh xfr ls fodkj Bhd gks tkrk gSA // {PAGE } // vr% izdj.k esa mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izFke n`"V;k mipkj djus okys fpfdRldksa dh ykijokgh izrhr ugha gksrh gSA sd/‐ sd/‐ sd/‐ lnL; lnL; lnL;
ftyk esfMdy cksMZ ftyk esfMdy cksMZ ftyk esfMdy cksMZ
sd/‐
flfoy ltZu lg eq[; vLirky v/kh{kd
nqxZ "
Document C‐2 :
"nkbZ vkWa[k :
1. Vision is ? P.L.
2. Dense Leucomatous corneal opacity size is about 7x6 mm which is central.
3. Posterior to cornea - A/C, Iris, Lens & Posterior segment could not be seen due to corneal opacity.
4. Pthiacical changes present ck;h vkWa[k :
1. Vision C.F. Close to face.
2. cornea clear.
3. Aphakic eye with after cataract.
4. Fundus : media slightly hazy due to after cataract.
Disc barely seen, with peripapillary atrophy with choreoretinal degeneration with high myopia.
Macular degeneration present.
After examination of Mr. Jwala Prasad, we reached to the conclusion that vision loss of right eye is due to corneal opacity which is probably due to healing of corneal ulcer & diabetic patients are more prone to have severe corneal ulcer with delayed healing. As per U.S.G. of both eye done on 21.11.2006 at Bhilai Scan & Research center which revealed in right eye that no retinal detachment and choroidal detachment with ? floater seen. Anterior chamber & lens are not well visualized.
// {PAGE } // Opinion :
In our opinion right eye of Mr. Jwala Prasad was operated for retinal detachement and cataract surgery. Post operative B scan of right eye was done which shows no retinal and choroidal detachment, which means operation was done properly. Therefore post operative visual improvement was there.
As per record after a gap of 9 month patient developed corneal ulcer with raised blood sugar, he was treated as per standard protocol. It is known that diabetics are more prone to develop ulcer even with minor injury & its severe complication, how ever treatment of ulcer led to corneal opacity which is a usual occurrence of ulcer healing.
On the basis of above facts it appears that prima facie negligence committed by treating doctor is not there.
Sd/‐ Sd/‐ Dr. Puja Mishra Dr. B.R. Kosaria Eye Surgeon Eye Specialist"
Medical Board is an independent & authorized government body comprising experts so there was no question to disbelieve their report.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd.
Ishfaq, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2049 had laid down in paragraph No.123 & 124 as under :‐ "123. The Courts and Consumer Fora are not experts in medical science, and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists. It is true that the medical profession has to an extent become commercialized and there are many doctors who depart from their Hippocratic oath for their selfish ends of making money.
However, the entire medical fraternity cannot be blamed or branded as lacking in integrity or competence just because of some bad apples.
// {PAGE } //
124. It must be remembered that sometimes despite their best efforts the treatment of a doctor fails. For instance, sometimes despite the best effort of a surgeon, the patient dies. That does not mean that the doctor or the surgeon must be held to be guilty of medical negligence, unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that he is."
11. In the facts of the present case, we find that the appellant/complainant has simply filed few treatment slips of the respondents no.1,2 &,3 and one prescription of Dr. Basant Verma, as Ex. P-12, one prescription of Dr. D. C. Jain, Ex.P‐14 and a report of Ultra Sonography Study of both the eyes. Aforesaid treatment papers do not contain any specific feature to draw a conclusion. Report of Ultra Sonography reads as under : ‐ • RIGHT EYE GLOBE IS NORMAL IN SIZE & SHAPE. IT MEASURES 2.3 CM IN AP DIAMETER.
ANTERIOR CHAMBER & LENS ARE NOT WELL VISUALIZED.
• FINE FLOATING ECHOES ARE SEEN IN THE POSTERIOR SEGMENT ‐ ? FLOATERS. NO RETINAL DETACHMENT / COROIDAL DETACHMENT IS SEEN. OPTIC NERVE SHADOW APPEAR NORMAL.
• LEFT EYE BALL IS DEFORMED IN SHAPE & ENLARGED IN SIZE MEASURING 2.7 CM IN AP DIAMETER.
ANTERIOR CHAMBER APPEARS NORMAL. LENS IS NOT VISUALIZED. LINEAR MOBILE BAND LIKE SHADOWS & FLOATING ECHOES ARE NOTED IN THE POSTERIOR SEGMENT ‐ SUGGESTIVE OF VITREOUS HAEMORRHAGE. OPTIC NERVE SHADOW APPEARS NORMAL.
NO RETINAL DETACHMENT IS SEEN.
// {PAGE } // IMPRESSION :
• DEFORMED LEFT EYE BALL WITH VITREOUS
HAEMORRHAGE.
• FLOATERS IN POSTERIOR SEGMENT OF RIGHT EYE
BALL.
TO BE CORRELATED CLINICALLY."
From aforesaid report, it is clear that there was no retinal detachment in the right eye, which was operated by the respondent no.3 and similarly there was no retinal detachment seen in the left eye also. So far as the right eye was concerned no deformity except floaters in posterior segment, was found and, so far as left eye was concerned it was having deformed eye ball with vitreous hemorrhage.
12. There is no material to show that the problem in the right eye, which was noted in the sonography report dated 21.11.2006 of Dr. Meenakshi Rai, was having any connection with the operation and treatment given by the respondents during treatment between 11.03.05 to February, 2006. The sonography report relates to the period which was after three months from the date of last examination by the respondent no.3, so this report cannot be said to be conclusive proof of any negligence on the part of the respondents. We find that the prescription // {PAGE } // of two doctors and report of sonography, nowhere mention that deformity of the ball of the left eye of the appellant/complainant's floaters in the posterior segment of right eye were on account of any negligence committed by the respondent nos.1 to 3.
13. The appellant/complainant had produced in support of his contention his affidavit dated 17.01.2008 and also an affidavit of Dr. Basant Verma dated 07.11.2009. Respondent No.1 / Dr. Sushil Rungta by way of his affidavit dated 11.03.2008 and respondent No.2 Dr. Anand Saxena by way of his affidavit dated 11.07.2008 refuted the allegations made by the appellant/complainant, so when there are two contradictory set of evidence, then the opinion of independent experts assumes much more evidentiary value. Affidavit dated 07.11.2009 of Dr. Basant Verma refers about the factual position of the questioned eye, but does not make any whisper about medical negligence committed by the respondents. Medical negligence being highly technical and most intricate issue can only be decided conclusively on the basis of opinion of some expert in the field.
14. The appellant/complainant had been a chronic diabetic patient so he was always prone to postoperative complications. Such type of // {PAGE } // associated complications could develop anytime due to fluctuation of sugar level at higher level.
15. Appellant/complainant by way of few more other contentions tried to establish medical negligence on the part of respondent doctors merely on the basis of presumptions & surmises but failed to produce any conclusive material in support thereof. As per his own version in the complaint, he proceeded with the process of medical treatment on 22.02.2005 through Dr. Sunil Rungta/respondent no.1 and got operation of his right eye at "Aurobindo Netralaya" Raipur on 11.03.2005 and continued treatment there till 22.08.2005 an d even a week thereafter. When he had noticed serious type of problem with his eye at the very initial stage of medical treatment in February 2005, he could have certainly brought the same on record but there is no evidence to that effect, on the contrary he continued treatment with "Aurobindo Netralaya" Raipur for another 6 months. Further as per documents produced on record, we do not find any evidence to show that the respondents had committed negligence. Appellant/complainant does deserve sympathy for the physical set back he suffered in his eyes but he cannot attribute negligence for the same on the part of attending doctors in the absence of any conclusive evidence.
// {PAGE } //
16. In this context it is relevant to cite case of Kusum Sharma & ORS. Vs. Batra Hospital & Research Centre & ORS, I (2010) CPJ 29 (SC), in which the conclusions under different case laws on the subject of medical negligence have been summarized as under :‐ "Para 90. In Jacob Mathew's case (supra), conclusions summed up by the Court were very apt and some portions of which are reproduced hereunder:
(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which is a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh) referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued.
The essential components of negligence are three: 'duty', 'breach' and 'resulting damage'.
(2) Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
// {PAGE } // (3) The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
Para 94. On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries especially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.
IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor // {PAGE } // is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which is honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.
X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.
XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals."
// {PAGE } //
17. In the facts of the case and foregoing discussion, we do not find substance in the appeal to succeed, therefore it is dismissed with aforesaid observation. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil) President Member Member /02/2013 /02/2013 /02/2013