Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, P.M, S.M. Kantikar, Member
ANMOL CHITLANGIA S/O. MR. MOHAN LAL CHITLANGIA - Appellant
Vs.
PERFECT VISION LASIK LASER CENTRE AND OTHERS - Respondent
Consumer Case No. 112 of 2002
Decided On : 07-09-2015
For the Appellant :Mr. Bharat Sood, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Bhupender S. Chauhan, Mr. O.P. Verma, Advocate for Ms. Anjali Kataria, Mr. B.K. Sood, with Mr. Gaurav Garg, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocate.
The central legal point established is that medical negligence in LASIK surgery is determined by the failure to screen the patient properly and not solely by the surgical procedure.
Headnote:
LASIK Eye Surgery - Medical Negligence - Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab 2005 (6) SCC 1, Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra - 1996 (2) SCC 634 - Orbscan, Ablation Zone, Corneal Thickness, Pupil Size
Fact of the Case:
The complainant underwent LASIK eye surgery and suffered severe vision problems post-surgery. He filed a complaint seeking compensation for his injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's vision was not substantially impaired post-surgery and that the surgery was performed within accepted parameters. The court dismissed the complaint, but directed the complainant to seek treatment at a specific laser center.
Issues: Alleged medical negligence in LASIK eye surgery, extent of vision impairment, and the complainant's eligibility for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the corneal thickness, ablation zone, and pupil size in determining the negligence in the LASIK surgery. It also referred to legal principles from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint but directed the complainant to seek treatment at a specific laser center.
ORDER :
S.M. Kantikar, Member
The eyes are probably the most important and interesting part of the human face. LASIK eye surgery is a routine procedure conducted to correct vision problems and grant people the opportunity to live a life free of contacts or glasses. Generally, the procedure is safe. However, when things go wrong, complications may be serious and the patients could be entitled to collect damages for their injuries.
1. The complainant, Mr. Amol Chitlangia (herein referred as "Patient") came across the representation and advertisement of the Perfect Vision Lasik Laser Centre, Jaipur, the opposite party No.1 in the local newspaper. Allured by the advertisement, he approached the OP-1 in February 2000 and met Dr. Virendra Kumar Aggarwal, who assured that, the latest technology available by which spectacles used for myopia can be removed. He read the brochure and came to know that, myopia, hyper-metropia and astigmatism was treated by Dr. Virendra Kumar Aggarwal, a Chief Lasik Surgeon equipped with high ended machineries. The OP-1 assured that after surgery, the eye sight becomes normal, no stitches or bandage is required. It will take one to two minutes by Lasik surgeon and after operation the patient can go to house within 12 to 24 hours and perform his routine functions within 12 to 24 hours. Patient underwent Lasik surgery on 28.3.2000. As Dr.Virendra Kumar Agrawal was not available, the surgery performed by Dr. Sameer Sood, OP-4 assisted by Dr.Anjali Kataria(OP-3) and Dr.Kamal B.Kapoor (OP-5). After the procedure the complainant was advised to go and take rest in the hotel, avoid dusty conditions in his journey. He should not take bath for a week to avoid any infection and asked for follow up on 29-03-2000 or for any assistance to contact Dr. Anjali Kataria. The complainant on 29-03-2000 complained about severe pain in the eye, headache and glare in the eyes. The OP-3 examined him in a casual manner and advised pain killers. The patient went to his hometown by AC train, but there was no improvement in his vision. Thereafter, the complainant became suspicious, contacted Rajasthan Laser Eye Centre Pvt. Ltd. at Jaipur for the assessment of the procedure. Dr. Nalini Sen ordered ORBSCAN on payment of Rs. 1,000/- as scanning fee. The complainant was informed that the procedure was adopted on 6.5 mm pupil while the actual size of the pupil was 7 mm. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contact Dr. Sameer Sood and Dr. Kamal B. Kapoor who performed the procedure on him in March 2000 and learnt that both have been shifted to New Delhi, engaged in practise. It is further alleged that Dr. Sameer Sood stated that the surgery is irreversible and the patient has to live the rest of his life with partial vision. He told the complainant that in the pre-operative assessment, Dr. Anjali Kataria never prepared a report and informed him about neither larger pupil nor Dr. Kamal B. Kapoor, who assisted him in the procedure cared to see the report. Dr. Sood gave his opinion which clearly endorses the view that, the operation was wrongly conducted. Thereafter, the patient contacted various doctors in Jaipur and Delhi namely Dr. Ashok Puri and Dr. Sanjay Chaudhary who prescribed Pilocar eye drops for temporary relief from glare and headache. He was also advised not to use Pilocar for long time which may lead to retinal detachment and rise in IOP causing Glaucoma. The same was also informed by AIIMS, Safdarjung Hospital and Sucheta Kriplani Hospital. The complainant also contacted various research institutes in USA and Canada for his corrective surgery.
2. The complainant alleged that, as a result of negligence, reckless Lasik surgery performed by OPs, he became practically blind, unable to see anything in the broad day light, unable to operate computers for accounting or research purpose. Also he cannot drive or even walk alone without the assistance of an escort; he cannot supervise his agricultural operations or work as partner in the Fina
