Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Upon notice opposite party-Hospital appeared and filed written statement. It was denied that the complainant approached the opposite party-Hospital along with one Makhan Singh. It was also denied that on 17.11.2009 the complainant was accompanied by Makhan Singh and the attendants; namely, Amandeep Singh and Karamjit Singh. It was also denied that on examination of the eyes of the complainant operation of the right eye was advised. It was admitted by opposite party-Hospital that it had been assured that there was likelihood of improvement of the vision of the eyes of the complainant. It was averred that on 17.11.2009 the complainant had visited opposite party-Hospital and as per the record, the complainant had informed the Doctor that he was a diabetic for the last 13 years. He had already been examined at PGI, Amritsar and by Dr. Balbir Singh at Patiala and had undergone investigation of O.C.T. (Optical Coherence Tomography), FFA (Fluroecsrin Fundus Angiography), Perimetrey, VER (Visually Evoked Response) and C.T. Scan of the head had already been done, a week back. There was a complaint of defective vision for the last two years, which was decreasing gradually. On examination, the vision of the complainant was observed 3 feet counting figure of right eye and 4 feet counting figure of left eye. There were diabetic retinopathy changes. Further FFA revealed significant macular edema of both eyes and was advised Intravitreal TRIAMCILONE Avastin (in short, "IVTA"). Due consent of the complainant was taken before performing the said procedure. The surgery of right eye was done on 17.11.2009. On the further visit made by the complainant on 20.11.2009 he underwent laser in his right eye. On the next visit of the complainant on 8.12.2009, he agreed only for subconjunetival injunction and not for intravitreal of the left eye and laser of the left eye was done. On examination, on 22.12.2009 second sitting of laser of right eye was also done and he was advised to come after one month. His vision improved from right eye 4 feet and left eye 3 feet to 6/60 both eyes and, as such, the procedure done by opposite party-Hospital was successful. It is further averred that on 14.1.2010 when the investigation was being done, the complainant suddenly became aggressive and asked opposite party-Hospital that he did not want to have further treatment. The vision of both the eyes had improved because of the treatment given by opposite party-Hospital and the complainant was advised to get review at PGI, Chandigarh and get his treatment completed to protect his eyes from diabetics, which finally led to blindness. The complainant was issued prescription slip but he has not produced the same intentionally. The other allegations were denied. It is also the averment that there is always a risk of complication regarding which the complainant was explained in advance. In fact, no complication took place in the case of the complainant. When the complainant was examined for the last time, he had a vision of 6/60. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

In view of the law laid down in the case of V. Kishan Rao' case (supra) and settled proposition of law, it is not necessary to examine medical expert in every case of medical negligence. We do not think that in this case, expert evidence was necessary to prove medical negligence. The present complaint can be decided on the basis of evidence available on record of the District Forum.

12. Now, coming to the medical negligence. Admittedly the complainant was diabetic for the last 13 years and had earlier been examined at PGI, Chandigarh, at Amritsar and by Dr. Balbir Singh at Patiala. He had undergone investigation of Optical Coherence Tomography (in short, "O.C.T."), Fluroecsrin Fundus Angiography, (in short, "FFA"), Perimetrey, Visually Evoked Response (in short, "VER") and C.T. scan of the head and for the last two years his vision was decreasing gradually. On the day of examination vision of both eyes of the complainant was observed as 3 feet counting figure of right eye and 4 feet counting figure of left eye. In the medical history it is also recorded that there were diabetic retinopathy changes and FFA revealed Clinical Significant Macular Edema (in short, "CSME") of both eyes of the complainant and he was advised Intra Vitreal TRIAMCILONE Avastin (in short, IVTA"). Allegedly the consent of the complainant was taken for the said procedure in respect of right eye and the same was done on 17.11.2009. The complainant further made complaint on 20.11.2009 and he was subjected to laser in his right eye. Again on 8.12.2009 the complainant agreed only for subconjunetival injunction and not for intravitreal of the left eye and the laser of the left eye was done. On 22.12.2009 on the second sitting the laser of the right eye was also done and the complainant was advised to come after one month. It is alleged that eyesight of both the eyes was increased and the procedure was successful. It is also alleged that the complainant was aggressive on 14.1.2010. He was advised to visit PGI, Chandigarh, for review with a purpose to protect the eyes which may ultimately lead to blindness after the treatment was left incomplete. These facts were in the knowledge of the doctor and the medical staff of the opposite party-Hospital.