Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Honble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President &
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi, Member
AIR COMMODORE SATYANARAYANA—Complainant
versus
L.V. PRASAD EYE INSTITUTE & ANR.—Opposite Parties
C.D. No. 30 of 1990—Decided on 26.8.1997
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - CATARACT SURGERY - INFECTION - LOSS OF VISION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - MAINTAINABILITY - DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE - NEGLIGENCE - RES IPSA LOQUITOR - COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a 75-year-old retired Air Commodore, underwent cataract surgery in the right eye at the LV Prasad Eye Institute. The surgery was performed by Dr. Chandrasekhar, the second opposite party. The complainant developed an infection in the right eye after the surgery, which resulted in the loss of vision in that eye. The complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties and deficiency of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, as the service rendered by the opposite parties to the complainant fell within the ambit of 'service' as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The court further held that there was no negligence on the part of the second opposite party in performing the surgery. The court also held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as they had taken all necessary precautions to prevent infection and had provided the complainant with the best possible care.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act? 2. Whether there was negligence on the part of the second opposite party in performing the surgery? 3. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, as the service rendered by the opposite parties to the complainant fell within the ambit of 'service' as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. 2. The court held that there was no negligence on the part of the second opposite party in performing the surgery, as he had taken all necessary precautions and had exercised a reasonable degree of skill and care. 3. The court held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as they had taken all necessary precautions to prevent infection and had provided the complainant with the best possible care.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and no deficiency of service.
Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—The complainant a retired Air Commodore, aged about 75 years having an industry at Neredmet, consulted on 21.5.1988 the Doctor at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute and paid a sum of Rs. 80/as evidenced by Ex. A-1, and on examination the Doctor diagnosed that the complainant was having cataracts in both the eyes more in the right eye than the left. Thereafter he consulted again on 14.10.1988 as evidenced by Ex. A-2 receipt and on 16.10.1988 as evidenced by Ex. A- 3 receipt for Rs. 3,350/- and was admitted on 16.10.1988 and Dr. Chandrasekhar performed cataract operation at 8.30 a.m. on 17.10.1988 and implanted a lens (Intraocular), and the complainant was advised to stay in the institute for one more day for post operative care. But the complainant on the very next day morning of operation developed head-ache and severe pain in the right eye and was again taken to operation theatre and was re-operated and a vitrectomy was performed by removal of intraocular lens which was implanted on the previous day. Thereafter the complainant developed infection in his right eye with a typical coliform bacteria for which the opposite party used massive dossages of high power drugs and the complainant was discharged on 21.10.1988 and lost eye sight of the right eye. For getting his left eye operated, the complainant went to Antwerp, Belgium and Dr. Stockmans examined the complainant on 1.9.1989 and found dense nuclear cataract in his left eye and the same was operated on 11.9.1989 and the complainant's vision on the left eye was restored with unusual clarity and no complications.
2. Alleging that the loss of vision of right eye is due to gross negligence and improper application of skills and lack of aseptic conditions and due to improper post-operative care which was indicated by the circumstance that he got good vision in the left eye after operation by Dr. Stocksman, that there is negligence on the part of the Doctor in performing the cataract operation and deficiency in service specially maintaining proper aseptic conditions to prevent infection, lack of emergency medical facilities, absence of resident doctor, anesthetist and trained nursing staff resulted in dis-figurement of me face of the complainant which was adversely effected his facial appearance and also loss in business, the complainant filed this complaint claiming in all a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs after issue of legal notice dated 7.11.1989, the opposite parties 1 and 2 i.e., (1) LV Prasad Eye Institute and (2) Dr. Chandrasekhar who operated right eye of the complainant for cataract.
3. The first opposite party in its version stated that the operation was carried out in most aseptic conditions using highly sofisticated instruments with utmost care and deligence, and the infection does arise in certain cases inspite of best treatment and efforts, the complainant is not a consumer and the service rendered by the opposite parties do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and that the omplainant got himself discharged on 21.10.1988 and was admitted in Challa Nursing Home and was attended by nephrologist as his general condition was not satisfactory. The complainant came to the opposite party hospital on 29.10.1988 and 4.12.1988 and was examined and was last seen on 6.2.1989. It was also stated that the second opposite party performed four other operations on 17.10.1988 in the same operation theatre and no infection was noticed in those cases. Inspite of the best care and aseptic conditions maintained in the hospital, the infection developed because of the age of the complainant and as he was diabetic and not due to any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4. The second opposite party in his version admitted the performance of the operation and stated that second operation became necessary due to infection and the complainant was orally informed of the necessity of operation and his son signed in the required
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
