National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Inderjeet Singh vs Dr. Jagdeep Singh on 19 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: III(2004)CPJ20(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondent. Dr. Jagdeep Singh.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant having problem in his left eye, approached the respondent doctor, who suggested implantation of lens in his eye. This operation was performed on 12.3.1998 for a consideration. But, despite this operation the problem of vision and floater subsisted. The respondent prescribed spectacles but the things did not improve. Upon which the petitioner consulted Dr. Thind, who is alleged to have told him that the problem in his eye is arising on account of wrong operation by the respondent. It is in these circumstances that a complaint, alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondent for permanently damage in left eye causing loss of 75% of vision, was filed before the District Forum, who after detailed examination of material and evidence brought on record, dismissed the complaint as the petitioner had failed to bring any expert medical opinion on record in support of his case. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, was also dismissed, hence this Revision Petition.
3. Since the petitioner was unable to come, we appointed an Amicus Curiae.
4. We heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length and perused the material on record. It is the case of the complainant that adequate expert material is on record by way of ultrasound scan report of one Dr. Neeta Seth which reads as under:
"Globe is normal in shape and size. Lens is seen to the outer and upper side of the normal. It is distorted in shape as seen in both sections."
A print of image of Scan of the left eye was also produced on record.
He also supports his case by medical literature according to which, "Subluxation/dislocation of the implant (especially posterior chamber IOL) can occur if the zonule or the posterior capsule were damaged at the time of surgery. The optic may decentre and sag down leading to monocular diplopia (sunset syndrome)."
5. On the other hand, it was contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that an ultrasound scan report by an M.B.B.S. Doctor cannot be treated as a report of an export. He also produced material on record in support of the fact that for scanning the strength of the machine should be 10 Mhz, whereas admittedly, the strength of the scan used for ultrasound scan report was only 3.5 Mhz. This point was extensively gone into by the District Forum to this effect. He also produced an expert opinion of one radiologist, which is reproduced below:
"Eye is one of the fine sense organs of the human body and, therefore, a very vital organ. An ideal examination of the eye, even ultrasound B-Scan, should be done with equipment dedicated to Ophthalmic Ultrasound and by a specialised person in the field.
The equipment should have a minimum of 10 Mhz probe with soft touch, internal fixation and capable of at least 30 frames/sec formation. Only an Ophthalmologist with requisite training in ultrasound or an Imageologist (Radiologist) with training in Eye scanning from an Ophthalmic centre should interpret or perform an Eye scan ideally.
Anyone who is not qualified for Ophthalmic scanning and does not possess dedicated Ophthalmic equipment should refrain from doing or interpreting ophthalmic ultrasound scanning in best interest of the patients."
6. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that report of one Dr. Gurpreet Singh was produced by the complainant. Keeping in view the importance of the case and the witness, the District Forum summoned him and cross-examined him, wherein he has clearly stated that the report related to some other Inderjeet Singh and not to the petitioner/complainant.
7. Both the lower Fora have held that there is no evidence brought on record by the complainant that there was any negligence shown by the respondent while implanting the lens in the eyes of the complainant resulting in persisting problem in the left eye.
8. After perusal of the material and the evidence brought on record and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties we are inclined to agree with the findings of both the Fora, below that sufficient material has not been brought on record, in any way, to rebut the contention of the respondent and also to prove a case of medical negligence against the respondent.
In view of this, we see no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed.
No order as to costs.