IN THE STATE COMMISSION�� : DELHI
( C o n s t i tu t e d u n d e r S e c t io n 9 c la u s e ( b ) o f th e C ons u m e r P r ot e c t i o n A c t , 1 9 8 6 )
��
�������������������� Date of Decision: 30th���� January 2006���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������
��
Appeal No. A-1738/2001
��
(Arising from the order dated 29-06-2001 passed by District Forum(North West), Shalimar Bagh,�� Delhi�� in Complaint Case
No.2628/2000)
����
Dr. Hardip Singh��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������� Appellant.
Vision Care Centre, Through
E-16/389, Sector 7, Rohini, Mr. Sandeep Kapoor,
New Delhi-85. Advocate.
Versus
Shri Surjit Singh��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������� Respondent
1450, Street No. 7, Wazirnagar, Through
Kotla Mubarakpur, Ms. Kumkum,
Delhi-110051. Advocate.
CORAM :
�������������������������������������������������� �������������������� Justice J.D. Kapoor-������������������ President
�������������������������������������������������� �������������������� Ms. Rumnita Mittal-���������������������� Member
�������������������������������������������������� ��������������������
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
��
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
The respondent is the attorney and brother of the patient Shri Nahar singh who was 80
years of age when both of his eyes were operated upon by the appellant Dr. Hardip Singh.
2. On account of having operated upon the right eye instead of left eye that had
developed advanced stage of cataract and without obtaining consent form for operating on
the right eye the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 29th June 2001 directed to
pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and s. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal.
4. Patient was bachelor and mahant. He came to Delhi in March 2000 for the treatment of
his eyes as his eye sight was getting weak and good medical aid was available in Delhi. On
19th March 2000 the respondent took Shri Nahar Singh to appellant-Dr. Hardip Singh at Guru
Harkishan Hospital at Bangala Saheb Gurudwara. The appellant tested the eyes of Shri Nahar
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI Page 1 of 4
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcrep/judgement...0SURJIT%20SING... 2/19/2010
Singh and told that there was a cataract in his left eye, which needed to be operated at his
personal clinic at Rohini. The appellant also told his fee as Rs. 4000-5000 for operation of one
eye. According to the respondent, the appellant extorted money from the patient by asking
them to come to his personal clinic even though examined the patient at Guru Harkrishan
Hospital at Bangla Saheb Gurudwara in the name of charity.
On 3rd April 2000 the respondent took his brother to appellant’s clinic at Rohini and the
doctor instead of operating the left eye operated the right eye without testing and
ascertaining which eye required operation. According to the respondent his brother had no
trouble in the right eye which was unnecessarily operated. After four days on 7-4-2000 the
appellant-Dr. Hardip Singh operated the left eye also without any test and assured the patient
and the respondent that the eye sight will be restored and he will not have to wear glasses.
According to the respondent the operations were not conducted with proper care and were
unsuccessful on account of which his brother Shri Nahar singh lost eye sight in both eyes.
5. On the contrary the appellant’s version was that after examination he told the patient
that he was suffering from advanced cataract with Central Corneal Opacity with nasal
Pterygium. Doctor also informed the patient that cataract was more in the right eye and the
vision in the left eye is less because of dense corneal opacity and ptergyium, these are retinal
problems. He explained to the patient and his attendant about the various surgical options
available for cataract removal which the patient agreed to undergo phacoemulsification
surgery which is the latest technique for stitchless cataract operation.
Since this facility was not available at the Gurudwara Bangla Saheb Hospital, the patient
was called at the Rohini Clinic of the appellant for surgery to which the patient agreed for
operation of the right eye first. He operated the right eye of Shri Nahar Singh on 3-4-2000 after
obtaining the consent of the patient and his attendant. During the surgery when cataractous
lens was removed, he found the retinal glow (Reflex) missing from the eye of Shri Nahar Singh.
He suspected some problem in retina and hence no IOL was implanted but the cataract was
removed successfully. The patient was informed about the absence of the retinal glow (Reflex)
which was detected on the operation table. Next day when the bandage was opened, it was
diagnosed that the patient was suffering from retinal detachment. Looking to the condition of
the patient he personally took him to the Doctor of Rajinder Prasad Eye Centre located at All
India Institute of Medical Science to consult retinal Surgeon. There Dr. R.P. Singh conducted
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI Page 2 of 4
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcrep/judgement...0SURJIT%20SING... 2/19/2010
certain tests including ultrasound on both eyes of the patient without any charge and the
diagnosis of the appellant about Retinal Detachment was confirmed. He then advised the
patient to get his left eye also operated for cataract removal and IOL implantation surgery.
A ccordingly with the consent of the patient he operated the left eye on 7-4-2000 and
did not charge anything for the above operation looking to the financial condition of the
patient. After that the patient failed to report at AIIMS for retinal surgery and did not contact
him. After one and a half months on 15-5-2000 respondent got himself admitted in Dr. Rajindra
Prasad Centre on his own and was discharged after sometime without any surgery. After three
months, the patient along with the complainant came to Bangla Saheb Hospital with
complaint of visual disability and misbehaved with the appellant before the staff and
concocted false case with ulterior motive to blackmail the appellant.
6. We have perused the impugned order. The District Forum has returned the following
finding of facts :-
“ A c cording to the respondent, he performed the operation after
obtaining the consent of the patient and his attendant but no such consent
letter-certificate has been filed by the respondent. If the patient had vision in
the right eye before he went to the doctor at the age of 80, why he gives his
consent for operation of the right eye instead of operation of the left eye. The
patient, Shri Nahar Singh lost complete vision in both eyes on account of the
negligence of the doctor (respondent) which amounts to deficiency in service;
hence in our view the respondent is liable for deficiency in service and to pay
compensation to the patient Shri Nahar Singh.”
7. The main contention of the Counsel for the appellant as to his being neither negligent
nor careless in conducting the operation is that normally during surgery after cataract operation
and removal of cataract we see retinal glow through the microscope which was not present in
this case and suspecting some problem he did not implant the IOL. On the next day when the
bandage was opened he found that there was retinal detachment in the eye which existed
prior to the operation.
8. Let us assume the contention of the appellant is correct. Still the fact remains that there
was no occasion for operating on the left eye after three days or four days if there was no
problem in the left eye. It appears that due to mistake or as per own understanding the
appellant preferred to operate upon the right eye first and when he was confronted with the
problem of vision of right eye was lost he conducted the operation of left eye. So far as theory
of retinal detachment is concerned, this also cannot come to the rescue of the appellant as at
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI Page 3 of 4
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcrep/judgement...0SURJIT%20SING... 2/19/2010
the time of operation on the right eye this fact could have been observed by extra care and
caution.
9. Taking over all view of the facts of the case, particularly the age of the patient and the
intricacies involved in detecting retinal detachment at a stage when the cataract is at
advanced stage, we feel inclined to reduce the amount of compensation particularly in view
of the efforts made by the appellant by taking the patient to AIIMS and also extending medical
help without charging anything. In our view compensation of Rs. 25,000/- besides Rs. 2,000/- as
cost of litigation, would meet the ends of justice.
10. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid terms.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of
charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to
Record Room.
12. Announced on the 30th day of January 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor)
President
(Rumnita Mittal)
Member
jj
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI Page 4 of 4
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcrep/judgement...0SURJIT%20SING... 2/19/2010