IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Medical practitioner - medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
(2) Medical protocol - while adopting a course of treatment, the duty cast upon the medical practitioner is that he must ensure that the medical protocol being followed by him is to the best of his skill and with competence at his command.
(3) Liability of Medical practitioner - A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—Infection is a risk of all surgeries. Endophthalmitis is a particularly worrisome type of infection because it can lead to severe vision loss, blindness, and loss of the eye. Some types of complications are hard for patients to understand. The common knowledge of occurrence of infection after surgery makes it harder for the complainants to allege lack of informed consent in endophthalmitis claims. In order to successful claim, the complainant must show that the treatment was below the standard of care.

Facts:

2. Mr. Upendra Kumar is the Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Patient’), a senior Surveyor working in the Insurance Company. He underwent cataract surgery with implantation of intra ocular lens (IOL) to his right eye in Nayandeep Eye Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 1’) at Muzaffarpur. It was performed by Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha, (the Opposite Party No. 1) allegedly without pre-operative evaluation of position of cataract and eye infection. It was alleged that pre-operatively few medicines were given and same were repeated after operation, which indicates eye infection was there. The Cataract operation was done on 07.03.2007 by phaco method. It was alleged that IOL was fixed without considering the supplier’s instruction which was supplied by Alcon Advance Medical Optics. The Complainant was discharged on the same day at 4.00 p.m. Few days later in spite of regular checkup and medication, the condition of operated right eye started deteriorating. It was alleged that at the time of operation the cornea was healthy. The infection in eye noticed after five days of the operation, but the Opposite Party No. 2 did not advise culture and sensitivity test for conjunctivitis and any tests to rule out fungal infection. The Opposite Party No. 2 because of his greed for money and negligence failed to manage the infection. Till 30.03.2007 the Opposite Party No. 2 gave some anti-viral and anti-bacterial drugs. The injections like Vanca Sipra, Vanco were injected in the right eye. He did not refer the patient to any vitreo retinal surgeon for further management. On 31.03.2007, on request and pressure from the patient’s attendants, the Ultrasonography test for eye was performed. It revealed post-operative Endophthalmitis. Thereafter, on 06.04.2007 the patient approached Centre for Sight, at New Delhi. The doctors advised for immediate surgery to the badly infected right eye. However, the patient on the same day, approached Shrof Eye Centre at Delhi, wherein immediate Vitreo-retinal surgery of right eye was advised. Accordingly, after investigations, the patient underwent operation on his right eye at Shrof Eye Centre and discharged on 08.04.2007. Even thereafter, there was no improvement in the eye. Till 20.04.2007 he took regular follow up check-up at Shrof Eye Centre. Again, infection was developed and on 24.04.2007 and Vitreo-retinal surgery was performed, but no improvement in the vision of right eye. Thereafter, on 27.04.2007, the patient approached PGI Chandigarh, the doctors there refused to give any suggestion for further operation and informed that he lost vision in his right eye. The complainant consulted at Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS, New Delhi on 03.05.2007. Thereafter, he consulted LV Prasad Eye Institute at Hyderabad on 05.05.2007. The doctors at both the places told that he has lost his vision in right eye. Being aggrieved by the alleged gross negligence of the Opposite Party No. 2 the Complainant filed a police complaint on 10.05.2007. The patient was taken to SK Medical College, Muzaffarpur, wherein, it was confirmed that the patient had complete loss of vision in the right eye. Therefore, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before this Commission u/s 21 of the Consumer Protection Act and claimed Rs. 1,97,50,000/- as compensation from the Opposite Parties.

Defense:

3. The Opposite Parties filed their respective