BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: MEZZANINE FLOOR.

KASHMERE GATE DELHI.



No. DF(Central)/2010/ Dated:

Complaint No.610/2008

Sh.Goverdhan Lal,

S/o Sh.Kishan Chand,

R/o G-20/144, Sector-7,

Rohini, Delhi-110085. Complainant



Versus.



M/s Mohan Eye Institute,

11-B, Ganga Ram Hospital Marg,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Opposite Party.



ORDER

SH.B.B.CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT.



1. The complainant has pleaded that he had some problem in his eye and, therefore, in the first week of March, 2008, he visited the Doctor Sh.Rajiv Mohan at his Mohan Eye Institute in Karol Bagh area, New Delhi (OP). The OP operated the right eye of the complainant on 05.03.2008 for cathartic problem. The complainant made the payment of Rs.25,000/- vide bill No.1316 dated 05.03.2008. Thereafter, some other serious problem developed in the operated eye of the complainant. The vision was reduced and the upper portion of the right eye (pluck) became down and as a result, the right eye is still half closed.



2. The complainant approached the OP and he was advised to undergo tests and investigations. The complainant had to make the payment of Rs.2,100/- to the OP vide receipt dated 28.04.2008 and Rs.10,000/- against different tests. However, all the treatment and investigations have not resulted in the improvement of the eye site.



3. The complainant has pleaded that the OP committed medical negligence in the conduct of the operation and as a result, he has suffered eye problem. On account of the same and also for harassment and mental agony, notice was issued to the OP on 01.07.2008 but the OP did not respond. The complainant has claimed Rs.4,50,000/- as damage to the eye and mental pain and agony etc.



4. The OP has filed written statement to deny any deficiency of service or negligence in the operation/ treatment to the right eye of the complainant. It has been pleaded that on 01.03.2008, the complainant visited the OP with the complaint of decrease in vision (RE) since one year and gave history of doubling of vision for a long time. On examination, it was found that the complainant was suffering from Immature Senile Cataract R>L with Optic Nerve Head Changes (Deep Wide Cups). The complainant was advised RE Cataract surgery with IOL implant. He was informed that even after surgery; he would require more tests to recover. The complainant underwent uneventful RE phacoemulsification with foldable PCIOL implant on 05.03.2008. The final checkup was done on 03.04.2008 and the complainant had 6/6 vision in RE, showing that the condition had improved remarkably from his pre operative condition. There was no dropping of right upper lid. The complainant was told to undergo few investigations in view of his long standing double vision and optic nerve head changes. On 28.04.2008, the complainant again visited the OP for tests as advised earlier. For tests and consultation fees, he paid Rs.2,100/-. The complainant had no complaints and there was no drooping of right upper lid. The complainant again visited the OP on 19.05.2008, with complaints of sudden onset of dropping of right upper lid since four days. On examination, the complainant was found having vision of (RE) 6/6 and eye site was quiet good. There was no sign of complications and other apparent ocular cause of drooping of RE upper eye lid. He was advised MRI (Brain). He was not charged any consultation fee. The complainant visited the OP on 29.05.2008 with MRI report, which showed age related changes in the brain. The complainant was advised to consult a Neuro Physician. On 02.06.2008, he visited the OP after seeking Neuro Physician opinion who had advised tensilon test after diagnosing complainant as a case of suspected ocular myasthenia. The complainant was told that the dropping of his right upper lid is a Neurological problem and is not consequence of surgery. The OP has denied that he committed any negligence in conducting the operation of the right eye of the complainant.



5. The complainant has filed the rejoinder and has denied the pleadings of the OP.



6. The complainant has filed his evidence by way of his affidavit. He has relied upon documents exhibit CW-1/1 to exhibit CW-1/12, which includes the tests conducted at the Institute of the OP and the payment therein and the legal notice. He has also relied upon the copy of the tests conducted in Jaipur Golden Hospital.



7. The OP has filed the evidence by way of his affidavit. He has filed the photocopies of the medical record of the complainant as prepared in the Institute.



8. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.



9. In the case of medical negligence, it is to be seen, if the diagnose undertaken by the medical practitioner, is so palpably wrong as to prove negligence. In other words, the mistake shall be of such nature to show wrong used method and absence of reasonable skill and care on its part. The skill shall be of an ordinary level in the profession. Further, the medical professional can be held liable for wrong diagnoses if the wrong diagnoses have caused injury to the patient.



10. In the present case, the complainant visited the OP with problem in his right eye and he was diagnosed as suffering from Immature Senile Cataract with Optic Nerve Head Changes. Accordingly, the OP conducted Cataract surgery with IOL implant on 05.03.2008. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the diagnoses were wrong or method applied by the OP in the conduct of the surgery , was incorrect. According to the OP, the operation was successful. Later on, the complainant visited the OP and after tests of MRI of the Brain, it was found that he was suffering from Neurological problem and it was affecting his right eye. The drooping of the right eye upper lid was on that account.



11. The complainant has placed on the file, photocopy of the MRI ‘Brain and orbits’. Dr. Sarit Kakar, Radiologist with the Orbit Imaging and Path Lab Pvt. Limited, Pusa Road, New Delhi has mentioned in the report dated 27.05.2008 that the scan findings reveal, age related cerebral atrophy with accentuation of sulci. Doctor has given the report to the effect “MRI findings are suggesting of age relating cerebral atrophy with accentuation and for area of gliosis displaying CSF signal intensity on all pulse sequences is noted in left temporo-parietal para-falcine region.”



12. The aforesaid findings as relied upon by the complainant himself, have confirmed the pleadings of the OP that the complainant was found suffering from Neurological problem and it resulted in the drooping of the lid in the right eye.



13. We find, it is not a case of medical negligence on the part of the OP. There is no merit in the complaint. The complaint is rejected.



14. Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per provisions of law. File be consigned to Record Room.



Be announced in Open Court on18/03/2010.



(M.SIDDIQUI) (B.B.CHAUDHARY)

MEMBER PRESIDENT