National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Chander Mohan vs Gurancjit Sharma & Ors. on 19 March, 2014
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION
PETITION NO. 3239 OF 2013
(From order dated 29.07.2013 in First Appeal
No. 234 of 2010 of the
Punjab State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)
Dr. Chander Mohan
PCMS-I, Civil Hospital,
Rambagh, Amritsar,
Punjab-143 001 Petitioner
Versus
1. Gurcharanjit
Sharma
R/o H.No. 1563, Thanewali Gali
Inside Japani Mills, G.T. Road,
Chhehharta, Amritsar,
Punjab
2. Dr. K.K. Rattan
Rattan Hospital,
New Mohani Park, Opp. Khalsa College
Amritsar, Punjab (Performa Party)
3. Dr. Babu Lal
PCMS-I, District Family Welfare Officer,
Office of Civil Surgeon,
R/o 64, Kabir Park, Opp. Guru
Nanak University
G.T. Road, Amritsar Punjab (Performa Party)
4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch Office No. III, 26, Kennedy Avenue
Court Road, Amritsar, Punjab,
Through its Branch Manager
Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.M.MALIK,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Hari Kumar G., Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Subhiksh Vasu Dev, Advocate
Ms. Aagam Kaur, Advocate
Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 to 4 : Nemo
PRONOUNCED ON 19th MARCH, 2014
ORDER
PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. Facts in brief: The Complainant, Mr. Gurcharanjit Sharma, was examined by the Petitioner/OP-1, Dr. Chander Mohan, at Namita Hospital, Amritsar and advised a Cataract surgery on right eye. Accordingly, the operation was conducted by the OP-1 at Rattan Hospital, Amritsar on 4/10/2006 at about 8.30 a.m. The complainant paid Rs.3,000/- as a fee to Dr. Chander Mohan(OP-1). The OP-1 who was posted at Civil Hospital, Amritsar, was also practising privately. During post-operative period OP-1 did not attend the patient, despite several calls. OP-1 was negligent during operation, hence, the Complainant lost eyesight and his eyes got damaged. Thereafter, the complainant/patient was referred to Dr. Om Prakash Satyam Netralaya, on 05.10.2006, where he was examined by the specialist of the hospital and was informed that he has lost the eyesight permanently. Therefore, alleging negligence on the part of OP-1, the complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, District Forum) seeking total compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs.
2. The District Forum observed that the said complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by summary proceedings. The District Forum dismissed the complaint with liberty to avail remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction.
3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the complainant filed the First Appeal No.234/2010 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, State Commission).
4. The State Commission after hearing the parties and on perusal of evidence on file allowed the appeal and held OP-1 liable for negligence and directed OP-1 to pay Rs.5 lakhs as lump-sum compensation to the complainant. The State Commission dismissed the complaint, qua, OP-2 and 3.
5. Against the impugned order of State Commission, the OP-1 filed this revision.
6. We have heard the Counsels for the both parties, perused the medical records on file and the evidence adduced before both the fora below. The affidavit evidence submitted by Senior Vitrio Retinal Surgeons namely, Dr. Ajay Sharma of Dr. Om Prakash Satyam Netralaya, Amritsar and Dr. Vipin Vig of Dr. Sohan Singh Eye Hospital, Amritsar, opined about Expulsive Haemorrhage as ;
Expulsive haemorrhage is a devastating, unfortunate but well known complication of many types of intraocular eye surgery which can happen with all precautions taken even at the best hospitals of the world. Expulsive haemorrhage can occur intra-operatively & post operatively due to sudden & spontaneous rupture of blood vessels at the back of eye (posterior segment). This unfortunate complication is more likely to occur in the patients with history of generalized arteriosclerosis, high myopia, diabetes, hypertension & glaucoma as their blood vessels are more likely to be fragile. This sudden bleeding can cause immediate damage to delicate tissues of the eye & usually causes irreparable damage to the eye.
7. The counsel for the Petitioner/OP-1, brought to our attention a letter/certificate issued by the SMO, Civil Hospital, Amritsar that OP-1 was on duty, in the operation theatre of the free eye camp, organized by District Blindness Control Society, Amritsar and, from 8.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. The Complainant was operated upon for cataract in the eye, in the said camp on 04.10.2006, and the complainants name was at serial No. 8, in the Eye Camp Register.
8. The Counsel for the Complainant vehemently argued and brought to our attention certain documentsAnnexure P-16, Rattan Hospital, Patients Record, and treatment chart with columns having dates mentioned as 4/10/2006, 5/10/2006 and 6/10/2006. We are quite surprised to see it, because the entries appear to be erroneous and incomplete. The entry in the column Consultant, it is written as Cataract R/E. There is no mention of any Registration Number. Even the treatment sheet appears to be just, a created document, with certain dates. It does not bear any signatures of either Staff nurse or any doctor. Such like documents can be created at any time and by any one.
9. The Counsel for OP-1 brought our attention to the cross examination of Complainants son (CW-2), who admitted that Dr. Chandra Mohan is a Govt Doctor and conducted Surgery at Govt Hospital. The affidavit evidence of Dr. K. K. Rattan and Dr. Babu Lal, PCMS-I, clearly establishes the malafied intention of the complainant, by creating forged medical documents.
10. Even otherwise, the Complainants right eye was damaged due to Expulsive Haemorrhages. It was a known complication which has developed neither due to cataract surgery nor negligence committed by the eye surgeon. We are unable to rely upon the records produced by the complainant, because the record of Rattan Hospital, is devoid of any post-operative Expulsive Haemorrhages, but shows only a reference to higher centre.
11. Therefore, we are of considered view that, the complainant has made a futile attempt to create medical documents to prove his allegations against the all OPs. We are not inclined to give any importance to those documents. The question, whether the Cataract operation was performed in Camp or in Private hospital, is not relevant but what is most crucial is, to decide, whether OP-1 was negligent or not? We have referred and relied upon the medical texts in Norman Jafees book on Cataract Surgery and Its Complications, we have seen the evidence adduced by Vitrio-Retinal Surgeons that the Expulsive Haemorrhage is one of the most frightening and serious complications, post-operatively. Hence, due to the forgoing discussions, we do not consider, it as negligence, on the part of OP-1, in performing cataract operation.
12. It is apparent that the complainant approached the Consumer Forum with unclean hands, but we refrain from imposing any punitive costs upon him because our sympathy lies with him as, he, unfortunately, had suffered Expulsive Haemorrhage and lost his Right eye. Hence, we set aside the impugned order of State Commission and allow this revision petition and dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Mss/9