IMPORTANT POINT
Medical Negligence – Eye operation for cataract using IOL technique – Vision post operation was normal – No deficiency in service.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member.—This First Appeal challenges the order dated 13.08.2018 in complaint no.80 of 2014 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) allowing the complaint of the respondent and directing payment of Rs.1.00 lakh towards hospitalization, medicines and treatment of the respondent with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization along with Rs.5.00 lakh towards mental agony with similar interest and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation along with 9% rate of interest for the period.

2. IA No.4869 of 2019 praying for condonation of delay of 51 days is allowed and the delay is condoned in the interest of justice for the reasons stated in the IA.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record.

4. The relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the respondent underwent, at the advice of the appellant no.1, an IOL Implant operation (cataract eye operation) on 14.05.2014 in the appellant no.2 hospital. While the operation was successful, there was congestion (redness) in the eye and corneal oedema was noticed. The respondent was discharged from hospital. The respondent’s vision was found to be 6/9 which in ophthalmological terms, means ‘normal’ vision. On the ground that congestion of corneal oedema was not uncommon in patients suffering from diabetes and hypertension, which the respondent was suffering from, he was advised to get his diabetes checked with his doctor and take care as advised by his physician. The respondent consulted various doctors after the operation and obtained further medical opinion. He then filed a complaint with the State Commission alleging medical negligence on the part of the appellant, alleging that the operation had not been successful which led to almost loss of vision of his right eye due to negligence during the operation and improper post-operative care. The respondent claimed refund of approximately Rs.1.00 lakh for the treatment and related expenses along with compensation for harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.20 lakh as compensation on account of loss of vision Rs.10 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs.51 lakh. The complaint was decided on contest, which order is impugned before us.

5. It is the contention of the appellant that pre and post-operative ocular and systematic evaluation including vision, auto refraction reading, subjective refraction, evaluation of the extra ocular movement, intra-ocular pressure with non-contact tonometer, dilated slit lamp and fundus evaluation, keratometry ultra sound and scan biometery, systemic evaluation for blood pressure, random blood sugar, etc., of the respondent was undertaken. Sensitivity tests for xylocaine and sensorcaine were also conducted. On the day of the operation also the blood sugar test was conducted on the patient. A qualified anesthaetist conducted the pre-anaesthetic check-up and was present during the course of the operation and for immediate post operation care. During the period when the respondent was in the hospital he had complete vision and the report of the four doctors submitted by the respondent before the State Commission mention that his vision post operation was 6/9 which is noted ophthalmologically as ‘normal’ vision.

6. The appellant therefore, states that the outcome of the operation was normal vision though IOL implant and that the State Commission had erred in holding that there was medical negligence on part of the appellant since corneal oedema or excessive swelling in a diabetic patient such as the respondent was normal in a cataract surgery. Such a swelling caused a haze to the vision which in course of time with regular medication was overcome with medication. It was also contended that the respondent’s vision of 6/9 post operation was equivalent to the vision standards for pilots prescribed by the Civil Aviation Authority and therefo