Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and M. Shreesha, Member
Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Maxivision Laser Center Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal Nos.170 and 196 of 2013
Decided on 5.4.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: In person.
For the Respondent:Mrs. K. Radha Rao, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Performance of the Surgery without an informed consent amounts to unauthorized invasion and interference of the body of the complainant.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Medical Negligence-short sight problem – Doctor of the Lasik Center informed the Complainant that they had installed a brand new Lasik equipment imported from abroad and that he was well trained in Lasik Surgery-alleged that risks were not disclosed and only assured safe bladeless surgery-Instead of performing surgery by experienced Dr. Ravi Shankar, Dr. Satish Gupta performed surgery-Post surgery, the complainant experienced loss of vision. Defence-doctors did not issued 100% guarantee of the surgery. Procedure and meaning of LASIK surgery explained. Dr. Satish Gupta was doctor of 38 years’ experience. The complainant herself did not follow up. State Commission considered the Expert Committee Report and allowed the complaint. Hence, appeal.
Held, no evidence of earning was produced by the complainant. Similarly, the hospital perfomed surgery without obtaining informed consent. Prescriptions considered. Consent Form considered.
Held, the consent forms lack legal requirements. Risks are not mentioned in the Consent Form.
Further held, as the complainant was 31 years old at the time of operation, and was earning Rs. 30,000/- p.m. at private job, Rs. 50 lakh compensation is awarded.
M. Shreesha, Member—Aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”) in C.C. No. 50 of 2010, the Complainant has preferred First Appeal bearing No. 170 of 2013 and the Opposite Party, M/s Maxivision Laser Center Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Lasik Centre”) preferred Appeal No.F.A.No.196 of 2013 u/s 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Complainant was suffering from short sight problems and used to take treatment from the Lasik Centre since 2001. Her family members also used to take treatment for their eyes from the said Lasik Centre. Due to their long association with the Doctors and ophthalmologists of the Lasik Centre, they developed good acquaintance with them. While so, it is stated that Dr. Ravi Shanker of the Lasik Centre suggested Lasik Surgery for the Complainant to be able to see well without using spectacles. He informed the Complainant that they had installed a brand new Lasik equipment imported from abroad and that he was well trained in Lasik Surgery. It is averred that the Complainant was not briefed about the risks involved in the Surgery and was only assured that the Surgery was a safe procedure and had no complications and was a bladeless Surgery. Believing Dr. Ravi Shanker, the Complainant agreed to undergo Lasik Surgery on 16.02.2008. Prior to the Surgery, a card was issued in the name of Dr. Satish Gupta. When the Complainant protested that the Surgery should be performed by Dr. Ravi Shanker as he is well-experienced in performing such kind of surgeries, she was told that that the Surgery would in fact be performed by Dr. Ravi Shanker himself. However, it was performed by Dr. Satish Gupta and not by Dr. Ravi Shanker. Immediately, after the surgery, Dr. Ravi Shanker saw here with anguish and tried to adjust the flaps of both the eyes. On 17.02.2008, the day after the Surgery, it being a Sunday, no Senior Doctors were available and a Junior Doctor explained her but did not mention the presence of microstraie though his facial expression had changed. On 22.02.2008, Dr. Ravi Shanker examined her, stopped the usage of FML and noted ‘microstraie’. It is stated that post Surgery, Complainant had experienced loss of vision, both in clarity and quality and further suffered severe glare, contra sensitivity, hazy vision and light distortion. Dr. Ravi Shanker advised the Complainant to wait for three months for better results though he prescribed medication for only one month. The Complainant again visited the Lasik Centre and consulted Dr. Ravi Shanker on 29.02.2008, 08.03.2008 and 28.03.2008. Dr. Ravi Shanker tried various lenses but there was no improvement.
3. It is averred that the Complainant’s vision did not improve even after three months. She then consulted Dr. Satish Agraharam of VRI Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad on 02.06.2008 who referred her to Dr. Millind Bhide of Hyderabad Eye Centre who examined her on 03.06.2008 and observed wrinkles in both her eyes and advised for another Surgery to stretch the flaps. He also informed her the risk involved in the Surgery and explained the procedure of performance of Lasik Surgery. She was also informed that there was a high risk of epithelial growth which may require recurrent surgeries and chances of clearing the wrinkles were remote at that point of time. He opined that correct Surgery ought to have been performed within two to seven days after the Surgery. Armed with the said information when the Complainant approached Dr. Satish Gupta he behaved harshly with her and told her that “he was not God” and “mistakes do happen.” Devastated she once again consulted Dr. Satish Agraharam who referred her to Dr. Srinivas Rao of Darshan Eye Clinic at Chennai who on 10.07.2008 examined her and informed her that due to wrinkles in the corneal flaps there was loss in h
