Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cataract in Kailash Malhotra vs Centre For Sight (Hospital) & Anr. on 17 July, 2017Matching Fragments
1. This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 23.12.2014 passed in C.C. No. 206 of 2008 by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint of the complainant.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the Appeal are that the complainant, Mrs. Kailash Malhotra (herein after referred as 'the patient') was diagnosed left eye cataract and was advised to undergo surgery. OP 2/Dr. Mahipal Singh Sachdev performed the surgery on 11.8.2006 at his hospital Centre for Sight / OP 1 and told that it was successful. Complainant alleged that on the date of surgery, OP 2 came late to the hospital, left the operation theatre midway during the procedure. By the time her turn for, the effect of anesthesia weaned off. The OP-2 performed left eye cataract surgery in hurry and negligently, which caused damage to her left eye and OP 2 failed to implant the lens at the proper place. Even after more than three weeks, her vision did not adequately regain; and hence she got it cross checked at Safdarjung Hospital on 06.09.2006, which revealed the procedure was not properly performed by OP-2. During follow up on 16.9.2006, OP 2 informed, that one more operation is to be performed. Patient was astonished and lost faith in OP 2. Accordingly, she approached Army Hospital (R & R), wherein an attempt was made on 04.10.2006 to salvage her left eye. But, in spite, of best efforts they could not save her left eye and she lost her left eye. Due to deficiency in treatment and negligent conduct of OP 2, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Commission alleging gross medical negligence and claimed compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs from OPs.
3. OPs 1 and 2 resisted the complaint by filing the written version and stated that the patient has concealed the real facts in the instant case. The OP stated the patient was aged about 78 years old, suffering from diabetes; she had high degree of loss of vision; after proper examination, she was diagnosed as advanced cataract of both eyes; and had hard dense brown cataract in the left eye; with poor pupillary dilation. Due to nuclear sclerosis in her eyes, firstly right eye was operated on 16.6.2006. The patient was completely recovered and her vision in right eye was improved from 6/45 to 6/9. Similarly, OP 2 performed cataract surgery for her left eye on 11.8.2006 and despite due care and caution during surgical procedure, the Posterior Capsular Rupture (PCR) occurred. Therefore, the treatment necessary at that point of time was anterior vitrectomy with Anterior Chamber Intraocular Lens Implantation ( ACIOL). It was performed by OP-2 with the consent of the patient and her attendants. After operation, the vision of left eye was better and it was recorded as counting finger ½ meter.
Both eyes showed Cataract with nuclear sclerosis. As the patient wanted to undergo right eye cataract surgery first, OP-2 had performed it on 16.6.2006.
9. I have perused the prescriptions available on the file given by the OP-2, the Army (R & R) Hospital and the Safdarjung Hospital. The prescriptions of Safdarjung Hospital dated 06.09.2006 and Army (R& R) Hospital dated 28.09.2006 have not opined there was anything wrong while the cataract surgery or ACIOL performed by OP-2. Hence, there is no prima facie negligence by OP-2. Also perused the expert opinion, issued by the Board of medical expert of Guru Nanak Eye Centre at New Delhi, and opined that there was no negligence in the instant case. The opinion is reproduced as under:-
The patient was advised pars plana vitrectomy under guarded visual prognosis at Centre for Sight. However he went to Army Hospital for further treatment."
10. The affidavit of OP 2 reveals that the patient was referred from Safdarjung Hospital and CGHS dispensary on 14.07.2006. After preoperative investigations, it was diagnosed as a hard cataract, known as Brown Cataract. Accordingly, OP-2 had planned for left eye cataract surgery with Posterior Chamber IOL (PCIOL) on 11.08.2006. The surgery was conducted under continuous cardiac monitoring and other parameters. However, despite all care and caution, the posterior capsular rupture occurred. Therefore, anterior vitrectomy with anterior chamber IOL (ACIOL) was performed. It was performed as per the international standard and the consent of the patient and the attendants was taken. It was performed after due informed consent from the patient and her attendants. Post-operatively, the patient was given proper anti-biotics and steroid. Also to prevent rise in Intra Ocular Pressure (IOP) ,' Timo 5' eye drop was prescribed twice a day for five days, also to prevent Glaucoma. OP-2 has pleaded that, visual recovery of the left eye was not good as compared to the right eye, because: