IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation/cause of action - Mere writing letters or emails do not extend the limitation / cause of action.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed by Dr. Debdas Biswas the US resident (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) under section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) against the Ophthalmologist- Dr. Sourav Sinha (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 1’) and B. B. Eye Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 2’) for alleged medical negligence due to wrong medical advice and the Complainant suffered permanent and irreversible damage in his left eye.

The Facts:—

2. The Complainant, a senior Scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, USA. Previously he underwent successful cataract surgeries in 2004 and 2006. The Complainant developed retinal tears in his right eye in 2007-08 and underwent laser treatment. In February 2012, he came to India to visit his family members in Kolkata. In India he suffered ‘Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment’ causing blurring of vision in left eye with dark peripheral vision. Therefore, on 13.02.2012, the Complainant consulted the Opposite Party No. 1 - Dr. Sourav Sinha, who advised surgery for retinal detachment. The surgery was performed by the Opposite Party No. 1 and at the completion of the surgery, Opposite Party No.1 injected a Perflouropropane (C3F8) gas bubble in the left eye to press the retina tightly against the eye wall. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 1 gave the prescription as ‘fit to fly’ after about 2 weeks of the surgery, knowing well about the complications to travel by Air. Accordingly, the Complainant took a flight on 02.03.2012 for US San Francisco via Singapore and Seoul. In the flight, he suffered severe pain in his left eye and was unable to see from left eye and the pain further became unbearable. On 03.03.2012, as soon as the Complainant landed in San Francisco, he rushed to the East Bay Retina Consultants Clinic. Dr. Eugene S. Lit (an associate of Dr. Scott S. Lee) examined him. The Complainant attended follow up visits thereafter on 05.03.2012, 15.03.2012, 21.03.2012 and 30.03.2012 for various tests and examinations. On 30.03.2012, recurrent temporal Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment was seen because the gas bubble was reabsorbed to less than 2%. Dr. Scott informed that because of flight travel the Complainant/patient had optic nerve injury and it caused permanent damage to his left eye. Due to flight journey, there was expansion of the gas bubble leading to increased intraocular pressure (IOP) and caused central retinal artery occlusion. The visual activity in the left eye was reduced to fingers counting from two feet. Therefore on 18.04.2012 ‘Scleral Buckling’ procedure was performed by Dr. Scott S Lee at the Eastbay Retina Consultants.

3. The Complainant alleged that due to gross negligence of the Opposite Party No. 1, he developed glaucoma in the left eye. It was evident from the Optical coherence tomography reports done before the surgery (19.01.2012) and one after surgery (15.08.2012). Thereafter, the Complainant and his wife telephonically contacted the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 and tried to settle the issue but no avail. Thereafter, Complainant issued a legal notice to Opposite Party No. 1 and demanded to pay $100,000 as compensation. Lastly, being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before this Commission and prayed Rs. 8,46,79,000/- as a compensation from the Opposite Parties.

4. In response, the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 have filed separate written versions and denied the negligence. They raised preliminary objections that the Complaint was barred by limitation. The Complainant took treatment from various hospitals and doctors. Therefore, the Complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further submitted that the allegations were based on mere narration of events without any corroborative medical evidence. Moreover, no allegation of any medical negligence with respect to the trea