IMPORTANT POINT
Decisions of a consumer protection forum are not binding on a medical council.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Member—Heard learned counsel for both sides, and perused the material on record.

2. This is a case of alleged medical negligence, resulting in the loss of vision in the left eye of the complainant patient, after cataract surgery performed by the opposite party doctor.

3. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 09.08.2017 allowed the complaint and awarded compensation with interest.

4. A perusal of the impugned Order shows that the State Commission constituted an expert committee during the adjudication of the case before it.

5. The report of the said expert committee is reproduced below:

Report of the Committee of Experts Constituted by Administration Vide Order No.1136 Dated 30.03.2012

As per direction of the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, the experts committee, thoroughly examined the documents enclosed in the case no. 01 of 2012, as well as clinically examined, patient Mr. S.K. Alagiri, s/o Late Singan Kumarandi, r/o Anarkali P.S. Aberdeen, Port Blair appeared on 11.04.2012 at 11.00AM at the Eye OPD of G.B. Pant Hospital in response to letter served by committee.

Issue to be examined by the committee:-

(A) Lack of pre-surgical medical work up and investigation.

The Pre-surgical, medical work up and investigation includes;

1) Diagnosis of type of Cataract and surgical procedure to be performed.

2) Occular examination of both eye to rule out any septic foci and to give opinion regarding success of surgery.

3) Complete physical examination to rule out systemic illness like Diabetes, Hypertension, Cardiovascular complication, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) and renal diseases.

4) Complete blood investigation including blood sugar, urine examination, Blood pressure, ECG etc.

5) Keratometry, biometry to calculate accurate IOL power.

Comments: No documents submitted in support of above mention pre-surgical, medical work up and investigation.

(B) Non-refund of the amount paid towards operation the second eye.

Comments: Not Applicable.

(C) Immediate post operative care was non-existence and the complainant was asked to go home 1 hour after surgery.

Comments: With the available documents, the operative procedure done, post-operative medication and post-operative instruction is not available.

(D) Complainant was not given discharge summary or any detail of the surgery performed including details of lens implanted.

Comments: No discharge summary available in the enclosed documents. The documents regarding manufacturing, expiry, and type of lens used is not enclosed.

(E) That the left eye of the complainant was visionless due to usage of the expired lens and or retained foreign bodies.

Comments: The document regarding, lens card or sticker of the lens which contain, make, type of lens used, their manufacture date and expiry date is not available.

The only available documents: which is referral letter given by Rohin’s Eye Hospital to Dr. Mohan, Rajan Eye Hospital, Chennai, which show diagnosis of post-operative endophthalmitis left eye, lens used during surgery, intravitreal vancomycin given and vision was PL + PR in all quadrants of left eye were mentioned.

Comments: The dose of vancomycin and other standard medication for Endopthalmitis is not mentioned in the enclosed letter.

On Examination of patient:

We examined both eye of the patient and findings are as follows:

1) Torch light Examination:

Right Eye: Anterior Segment: * Early lenticular changes present rest is normal.

Left Eye: Anterior Segment: * Mild conjuctival congestion on upper Quadrant present.

• 3 Corneo-Scleral stitches present

• Cornea is hazy

• Anterior chamber well formed

• Pupil semi-dilated and up-drawn

• Papillary reaction absent

• Aphakia present.

The findings have been confirmed with the slit-lamp examination and slit lamp photographs taken.

2) Fundoscopy:

Right Eye:- * Media hazy due to early lenticular changes

* Optic disc, macula and general fundus