The duty of a doctor to conduct necessary pathological tests before surgery and the implications of performing an operation without such examination, establishing medical negligence.

ORDER

Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member - Dr. B.K. Pani, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, has filed the present Revision Petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand which accepted the appeal of Smt. Sundri Devi, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent.

2. The facts of the case according to the Respondent/Complainant before the District Forum was that she was having problem in her left eye since 1995 and was under the treatment of one Dr. I.M. Prasad at Jamshedpur from 1995 till 1997. She was thereafter advised to consult the petitioner Dr. D.K. Pani who is an eye specialist/surgeon in ocular micro surgery in Jamshedpur. Respondent, thereafter, consulted the Petitioner in January, 1998 with relevant documents including the prescriptions of Dr. I.M. Prasad and also explaining that she had experienced diminishing of vision and regular flow of water in her left eye. The Petitioner advised the Complainant to have an immediate operation through micro surgery and assured her that following this operation her vision will be restored within one week. The Complainant accordingly reported for the operation on 6.1.1998 at 1 p.m., after having paid the requisite fees of Rs. 6,000 and at 1.30 p.m. on the same day she was operated upon without the Petitioner having conducted any pathological tests prior to the surgery. A few days after the surgery complications developed in her left eye and her vision also remained diminished. On the Respondent's request Petitioner referred her to Shankar Netralaya, Chennai for advice and further treatment. The doctors at Shankar Netralaya advised immediate removal of lens as it showed total retinal detachment. Infection had also developed in both her eyes. It was also opined that no further corrective surgery was possible. Thereafter the patient went to seek another opinion at the L.P. Eye Instituted Hyderabad who also confirmed that nothing could be done to improve the eye. Respondent contended that the case summary prepared by one Dr. Rajat Agrawal of Shankar Netralaya confirms that pain and loss of vision had developed following the surgery by Dr. Pani. In view of the above facts Respondent filed a Complaint before the District Forum on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and sought Rs. 5 lakh as relief from the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner in his written statement before the Commission has stated that he had conducted over a thousand such operations and no complaints of any negligence or deficiency in service had ever been received. So far as the instant case is concerned Petitioner does not recall having conducted the surgery or any details pertaining to it. He also denied that he could have given any assurance to the patient of 100% success of an operation because no good doctor would give such an assurance.

4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it accepted the complaint relying on the version of the Respondent and the case summary from Shankar Netralaya.

5. The District Forum directed the Petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 1. lakh to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order for the mental and physical harassment and financial loss suffered by the Respondent due to loss of vision in her left eye.

6. Aggrieved by this Order Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The Respondent also filed an appeal in the State Commission seeking enhancement of the compensation. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals and upheld the order of the District Forum regarding payment of Rs. 1.5 lakh by the Petitioner to the Respondent. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission in support of its conclusions is reproduced:

"Having regard to the rival contentions, we have perused the materials available on record including the findings recorded by the Court below. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that cat