State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjay Kumar Arora vs Agarwal Eye Hospital & Ors. on 17 September, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR COMPLAINT CASE NO: 04/2006 Sanjay Kumar Arora s/o Gyan Prakash Arora r/o 45, Nagar Parishad Colony, Rajamal Ka Talab, Jaipur. ...........Complainant Vs. 1. Agarwal Eye Hospital, A-2 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg,C-Scheme, Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur through Dr.Amar Agarwal Joint M.D. 2. Dr.Amar Agarwal r/o Agarwal Eye Hospital, Ketherera Road, Chennai. 3. Dr.Umesh Hiramat r/o Agarwal Wason Eye Hospital, F-22, Raman Road, A.V.K.Nagar, Opp. New Bus Stand, Selam. 4. Dr.Rajkumar Sharma r/o 7-Dha-11, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. ...............Respondents Date of order 17.09.2012 Before: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashok Parihar- President Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra- Member2
Mr.Sanjeev Arora counsel for the complainant Mr.Vizzy Agarwal counsel for the respondents BY THE STATE COMMISSION
1. The complainant got his left eye checked up in the respondent hospital on 11.02.2005. He was called back on 12.02.2005 for urgent retina operation which was conducted in the respondent hospital on 12.02.2005 itself. The complainant was discharged on 13.02.2005. Having some problem in the left eye the complainant again went to respondent hospital on 14.02.2005. After examination the complainant was given some medicines and proper instructions. The left eye was again checked up on 15.02.2005 as also on 16.02.2005. Some more tests were done on 17.02.2005 and on 18.02.2005 and the complainant was advised complete bed rest keeping the head on 45 degree angle. It has been alleged that not satisfied with the treatment given by the respondents, the complainant had rushed to Ahmedabad on 20.02.2005. There also some medicines were given and the complainant was required to come after 15 days. The complainant again went to Ahmedabad on 11.03.2005 and remained there till 28.03.2005. Meanwhile the left eye was operated upon at Ahmedabad since there was very little hope for any progress and the complainant had lost his vision in the left eye. It may be pertinent to mention here that the complainant had lost his vision in right eye way back in the year 1989 itself. Since he had lost vision of both the eyes, a handicapped certificate was issued by SMS Hospital, Jaipur. It has been submitted that under the circumstances the complainant who was working as Sr.Finance Executive in RIICO India Ltd. had to seek voluntary retirement. Alleging medical negligence a sum of Rs.51,55,722/- has been 3 claimed after deducting the amount received by him from the employer company.
2. In the reply the allegations made by the complainant have been denied with the ascertion that there was no medical negligence so far as respondent hospital and the doctors are concerned. The complainant had lost his vision in both the eyes due to not taking proper care and adhering the advise given by the doctors.
3. Apart from the copies of related documents from the respondent hospital as also from the hospital at Ahmedabad, some affidavits have also been filed on behalf of both the sides.
4. Mr.Sanjeev Arora, the learned counsel for the complainant heavily relying on three reports of the respondent hospital dated 11.02.2005, 12.02.2005 and 03.05.2005 has emphasized on three different versions given by the doctors concerned. Taking it to be contradictions , it has been alleged that such contradictions itself shows medical negligence on the part of the respondents. On 11.02.2005 it has been reported that the patient came with history of hazy vision in the left eye, whereas on 12.02.2005 it was reported that the patient came to us with complaint of sudden decrease in vision ,however in the report dated 03.05.2005 it has been mentioned that the patient came on 11.02.2005 with sudden loss of vision. It has also been submitted that no proper post -operative care was taken by the respondents. Mr.Arora has also submitted that if a proper advise would have given by the respondents to the complainant, he could consult another senior expert to save his vision in the left eye.
45. An affidavit of Dr.P.N.Nagpal from Eye Research Centre & Retina Foundation,Aso-Palov Eye Hospital, Ahmedabad is also on record which contains entire history of the complainant so far as eye problem is concerned. It has been stated by Dr.Nagpal that the complainant had a history of Cataract Extraction with Intra Occular Lens implantation in his right eye in February 1998. The complainant had also a history of Cryo Therapy in the left eye. It has further been stated that the presence of Cryo marks in the retina of the complainant's left eye signified the fact that the attempts had been made earlier to prevent/ward off the Lesions ( Retinal Breaks/ Holes/ Tears ) from leadint to Retinal Detachment by resorting to Cryo Therapy. After examination and some surgeries done from time to time till October 2000, the complainant had lost vision of right eye. However, the complainant had been advised to come for review of the left eye after one year since patients with high Myopia already undergone Cataract Extraction and subsequent Retinal Detachment with still subsequent loss of vision in one eye are considered to be high risk patients for Cataract and/or Retinal Detachment in the other eye. However, the complainant never reported back after one year as advised on 13.10.2000.
6. Having gone through the entire record Dr.Nagpal was of the further opinion that standard line/mode of the treatment is complete bed rest with head positioned in such a way that the blood settles down due to gravity. The bed rest leads to the blood getting absorbed in a natural way and the positioning of the head helps in rapid clearing of the blood. The fact that the complainant had post-operative complications, otherwise known/common, does not necessarily ipso facto imply that there was no Retinal 5 Detachment and/or the surgery was inadequate in any manner and/or post-operative diagnosis/treatment was improper or lacking in any manner whatsoever. It has further been observed that the surgery performed was always a High Risks surgery as changes of PVR ( Proliferative Vitreo Retinopathy ) render the result of such surgery extremely poor.
7. An expert opinion of one Dr. S.Natarajan from Aditya Jyot Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. has also been submitted who on the basis of record made available to him was of the opinion that so far as the management of the hyphema or intravitreal hemorrhage is concerned, standard line of management is complete bed rest with head in a proper position so that the blood settles down by gravity. He has further observed that the fact that the patient had post- operative complications does not imply that the surgery was inadequate in any manner and/or the post-operative complications were not properly taken care of. However, there is no positive assertion by the complainant that he strictly followed the instructions given by the concerned doctors and took all necessary precautions.
8. On behalf of the complainant an affidavit of Dr. Anil Matai from Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur has also been filed. As per contents of affidavit Dr.Anil Matai had been treating the complainant in his left eye from January 2001 till February 2, 2005. However, subsequent to treatment given by the respondents after 11.02.2005 the complainant never visited Dr.Matai again, as such he could not have given any opinion as to any sort of medical negligence so far as respondents are concerned.
9. In the matters of medical negligence primarily the initial 6 burden is on the complainant to prima facie prove the allegations and then only the burden shifts on the hospital and the doctors to disprove the allegations by way of affidavits, relevant record or the expert reports. Be that as it may there cannot be any dispute that every specialist or doctor have their own way of examination, diagnosis and treatment in a particular case. No fix norms or technical procedure has been provided in the medical sphere. At the time of examination of a patient, the doctor on the basis of whatever information given by the patient or his attendent makes the assessment after proper examination accordingly. There may be the difference of opinion between the two experts but the same does not lead to the conclusion or presumption of medical negligence until and unless otherwise proved by evidence.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant has heavily relied on three sentences used by the doctors of the respondent hospital as referred above however, in our opinion just mentioning history of hazy vision or history of left eye sudden decrease in vision and even sudden loss of vision cannot be treated as inherent contradictions so as to presume the carelessness and medical negligence of the concerned doctors. As has already been referred above, the complainant had a history of high myopia and had already lost vision of right eye way back in the year 2000 itself and had been advised for review of left eye after one year. Since he could loose vision in the left eye also any time, it appears that the complainant did not goby the advise given by the doctors at Ahmedabad.
11. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties, material available on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations of medical 7 negligence on the part of the respondents so as to claim any compensation in the present complaint. The same is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. There will be no order as to cost.
(Anil Kumar Mishra) (Justice Ashok Parihar) Member President nm