Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
BABU LAL GUPTA AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
NAVJYOTI EYE CENTRE AND ORS. - Respondents
Original Petition No. 107 of 2002
Decided on : 01-11-2013
Mr. Manoranjan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Anu Narula, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that medical professionals are entitled to protection as long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence, and the interest and welfare of the patients must be paramount.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act - Sections 21, 22 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 21 and 22 - The court discussed the medical negligence and deficiency in service alleged by the complainant under Sections 21 and 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court analyzed the medical records, referral letters, and medical bills to determine the standard of care and the actions of the opposite parties.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in the treatment of his eyes, leading to loss of vision. The complainant sought compensation of Rs. one crore from the opposite parties, jointly and severally.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties acted with due diligence and as per the standards of Ophthalmic Practice. The court noted that the opposite parties sought opinions from specialists and higher centers, and their treatment was in line with the progression of the disease. The court concluded that there was no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged deficiency in service, medical negligence, and the complainant's entitlement to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of medical negligence and standard medical practice to determine the liability of the opposite parties. The court emphasized that a doctor is not negligent if acting in accordance with standard practice and that medical professionals are entitled to protection as long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint, finding no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member - The complainant has filed this complaint under Sections 21 and 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in the treatment of the complainant and has claimed compensation of Rs. one crore, with litigation cost from the opposite parties, jointly and severally.
2. The Complainant, aged about 57 years is a businessman, in Delhi, having lucrative business of electric bulbs and tubes. He was a patient of diabetes, which was under control by medication without any complications. The Complainant took some laser treatment in February 1999 and his eyesight was working quite well. In September 2000, Complainant consulted Dr. Shroffs Charity Eye Hospital, Kedarnath Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, for some pain in his eyes. Thereafter, on 14.9.2000, the Complainant was treated at Dr. Shroffs Charity Eye Hospital and he underwent operation on the left eye-fill in laser photocoagulation, by indirect laser ophthalmoscope. The said hospital vide letter (Annexure-1) dated 18.11.2000, referred him for the further evaluation and line of management to Dr. Lingam Gopal, Consultant Vitreo Retina Services, Medical Research Foundation, Chennai.
3. On 30.11.2000, the Complainant was examined at Medical Research Foundation, Chennai on OPD basis and advised surgical intervention in Right eye, virectomy with belt buckling and membrane pealing with silicon oil injection and endolaser. For the left eye, it was decided for laser treatment in case the heam absorbed spontaneously. Accordingly, the complainant was advised to be on waitlist, due to their backlog of appointments for the surgery and also agreed to accommodate Complainant in case of cancellation of any other patient. Further, to avoid delay and any unexpected complications during waiting period, he was advised to seek other medical facility, elsewhere. The Medical Research Foundation informed the Complainant that the staff or the management of Medical Research Foundation i.e. Sankara Nethralaya, should not be held liable or responsible for any such unfortunate complications, which can develop in the eyes of the Complainant, on account of the time lag between the time of examination of the eye of the Complainant and the actual surgery.
4. Therefore, the complainant approached OPs for further management because the OPs assured him that they were well equipped and would treat/conduct any surgery, on eye (Annexure 4). Complainant was examined by OPs and it was revealed that the complainant's visual acuity was only a perception of light in both the eyes, but there was no hand movement or finger counting. Complainant contended that the assessment made by the OPs was contradictory to the assessment made by the Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai. Since the Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai is a well-equipped, reputed Eye Centre, in the world, and several complicated cases are referred to them, therefore, their assessment must definitely be correct Thus, on comparing both assessments made, one by the OPs and another by Sankara Nethralaya revealed that the OPs did a wrong assessment of vision in both eyes. It was OP's malafied intention to create fear in mind of complainant; and gave immediate treatment to Complainant at higher cost.
5. Therefore, in view of above facts complainant's grouse that the OPs acted against the advice of the Sankara Nethralaya and their act was totally unscrupulous to extract monetary gain at the expense of the eyesight of the Complainant. On 6.12.2000, OP performed surgery of the left eye of complainant, instead of Right eye of the Complainant, as against the advice of Sankara Nethralaya, as laser treatment was advised. Then, on 17.1.2001, OP performed a surgery on Right eye of the Complainant. The complainant did not get relief, despite both surgeries, but in fact, he experienced further deterioration of vision in both eyes.
6. Subsequently, as per OPs instructions, complainant underwe
