Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President; Mr. B.L. Khare &
Mrs. Pramila S. Kumar, Members
DR. P.C. DWIVEDI—Appellant
versus
SMT. KAMALABAI PANDEY—Respondent
Appeal No. 1331 of 2001—Decided on 22.1.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Deepesh Joshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mukesh Mishra, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the patient's treatment in a government hospital, provided free of charge, did not fall within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the court emphasized the doctor's duty of care and vigilance in providing medical treatment.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act - Section 2(1)(d) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
Dr. P.C. Dwivedi, a doctor, was accused of negligently operating on a patient's left eye instead of the right eye, resulting in permanent loss of vision and subsequent removal of the left eye. The patient sought compensation for medical negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the doctor did not commit medical negligence and that the patient did not fall within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the patient can be considered a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. 2. Whether the doctor committed medical negligence by operating on the left eye. 3. Whether the loss of vision and subsequent removal of the eye can be attributed to the doctor's negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the patient did not fall within the definition of a consumer under the Act as the treatment was provided free of charge in a government hospital. The court also found that the doctor did not commit medical negligence and acted with due care and vigilance.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the District Forum was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Mr. B.L. Khare, Member—This is an appeal filed by Dr. P.C. Dwivedi, Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Opthalmology, Govt. S.S. Medical College, Rewa against the order dated 21.8.2001 passed in Case No. 376/1997 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (for short the ‘District Forum’).
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent/complainant Smt. Kamalabai Pandey, consulted the appellant on 3.12.1996 at his residence. The appellant advised cataract operation of her eyes. The respondent No. 1 was admitted in the Government Hospital on 6.12.1996 and her left eye was operated on 7.12.1996 and Intra-Ocular Lens (IOL) was implanted. She was discharged on 12.12.1996 but she was having pain in the eye, therefore, she contacted the appellant on 19.12.1996 who prescribed some medicines but when there was no relief, therefore, on 24.12.1996 appellant again examined her left eye and told that infection has developed in her eye, therefore, another operation will have to be conducted and the lens implanted has to be removed and for that there is no facility in the Government Hospital, hence, advised to go to Nagpur or Chennai. She consulted Dr. S.C. Batalia, on 25.12.1996 at Jabalpur who referred to Dr. Prashant Agnihotri of Nagpur who performed some operation on 26.12.1996 and charged Rs. 16,500/-. She was discharged by Dr. Prashant Agnihotri on 27.12.1996 still there was no improvement, therefore, she consulted Dr. S.C. Batalia of Jabalpur on 1.1.1997 who admitted her in his hospital but as infection had developed and there was no chance of regaining vision in this eye and to save right eye it was necessary to remove the infected eye, therefore, on 2.1.1997 Dr. S.C. Batalia of Jabalpur removed her left eye.
3. It is alleged by the complainant/respondent No. 1 that the appellant Doctor had examined her right eye and has made all necessary arrangements for operation of cataract of right eye but negligently operated her left eye. The operation was not conducted properly, therefore, infection developed as a consequence of that she has lost her eye permanently. She, therefore, approached the District Forum claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for medical negligence in performing first operation by Dr. P.C. Dwivedi and Rs. 35,000/- from Dr. Prashant Agnihotri because he knowing the fact that she has lost her eye sight still he unnecessarily operated her eye and charged Rs. 16,500/-. She has also claimed a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- of the expenditure incurred in treatment and in consulting other Doctors, hence total claim of Rs. 1,75,500/- from appellant and Rs. 35,500/- from the respondent No. 2. The claim was resisted by the appellant. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties held that Dr. P.C. Dwivedi was responsible for negligently operating the eye of the complainant. However, Dr. Prashant Agnihotri of Nagpur who had performed another operation was not found negligent, therefore, no order was passed against him. Appellant Dr. P.C. Dwivedi has preferred this appeal against this order.
4. The appellant Dr. P.C. Dwivedi has submitted that the District Forum has not appreciated the point that the patient was admitted in the Government Hospital and operation was also performed by him in Government Hospital and the treatment was also given in the Government Hospital. He has further submitted that he has been treating and doing cataract operations since last 10 years and has full professional skill.
5. In the operation of the respondent No. 1 he has taken all care in pre-operative and post-operative stages. The District Forum on the basis of a decision of Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 6 SCC 651, held that when any doctor renders any service after charging fees then he is covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) but the District Forum has not taken into con
