Per Hon’ble DR. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member. 

1)    This is complaint filed by Shri Rajendra Kishor Pashine from Nagpur alleging medial negligence by the O.P./Dr.Rajesh.P.Singare  while the complainant received the treatment from the O.P. for left eye cataract the he lost vision from his operated eye, aggrieved by this he filed consumer complainant before this Commission.

Brief facts of this complaint are as follows.

2)    The complainant is accountant by profession and for his complaints of reduce clarity of vision in left eye he approached the O.P. who after examination diagnosed as cataract and advised operation. The cataract operation was performed by the O.P. on 06/02/2014 at 9.30 a.m. and the patient was discharged after two hours i.e. at 1.30 a.m. The complainant/patient further consulted the O.P. on next day for pain in the left eye after the operation, the O.P. reassured the complainant and asked him to follow-up again on next day. Since the pain continued and vision of left eye got reduced complainant immediately approached O.P. After examination of complainant’s left eye the O.P./Dr. informed him that there was infection in his eye. O.P. immediately referred the complainant to Dr.Prashant Bawankule Nagpur where who runs Sarakshi Netralaya, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Since the complainant needed further expert treatment alongwith medicine Dr.Bawankulre advised him re-operation immediately as there was infection in left eye. On 8/02/2004 means on second post operated he was again operated in which lens inserted in left eye was removed. In the follow-up of the patient the Dr. continued to do dressings and removed pus. Further as per advise given by Dr.Bawankule seeking the second opinion from Shankar Netralaya Chennai  which is India’s best eye hospital, the complainant/patient reached the Chennai on 2^nd March 2014. Once again he was operated and was kept under observation till 20/03/2014. But the conclusion of the treatment was total loss of vision, realising that the vision of his left eye is totally lost after operation. The complainant/patient was disturbed and filed this complaint against the first operating Doctor Dr.Rajesh Singare alleging that there was deficiency in service and medical negligence in giving treatment to him and that the Dr. was not qualified Ophthalmology, he was general surgeon as he bears the degree of M.S. surgery and not specialisation in Ophthalmology. Alongwith filing complaint he also  filed police complaint against the O.P. In the complaint complainant has sought damages on account of loss of vision and loss of income to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,00,000/- towards physical harassment.

3)      The O.P. defended this complaint by filing written statement and evidence affidavit. Considering the rival contentions of both the parties, arguments advanced during final hearing and documents filed on record, the following points arise for our determination.

Reasons :- As per point No.1 :- The O.P./Dr. treated and operated upon the complainant for which he charged Rs.18,500/- towards operation charges and other charges as per receipt No.563 dated 16/12/2014. In view of consideration paid to O.P./Dr., the complainant is consumer of O.P. hence the answer to point No.1 is affirmative.

As to point No.2:- Learned advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant’s left eye was operated, cataract operation was done on 06/02/2014 and immediately on the next date the patient’s complaint of pain, on consulting the O.P. he diagnosed infection in his operated left eye. As per submissions of learned advocate for the complainant the O.P./Dr did not carry out any test to diagnose the infection and only gave assurance. Further on the very next date there was pus formation in his left eye. It was further contended by learned advocate by complainant that the O.P./Dr. is not Ophthalmology surgeon (eye specialised), but as per his qualification he is surgeon but not eye surgeon. As per the code of medical ethics the doctor who is not specialised in that particular speciality must not treat the patient not belonging to that speciality. Further there was no renewal of licence in which O.P./Dr. operated upon the complainant. As per submissions of the learned advocate for the complainant the O.P./Dr. was careless and deficient in service that without having formal qualification he operated upon the complainant resulting into infection which lead to loss of vision of his left eye. Leaned advocate for complainant further submitted that the O.P./Dr. has not filed any document in support of his qualification as Ophthalmology surgeon  and requested to the Bench to take Judicial Note of it. Learned advocate for the complainant invited the attention to the Bench that Dr.Singare was terminated from the service for his caste certificate still started private practice with using his previous letterhead. Considering the conduct of the O.P./Dr. clearly he was negligent in giving the treatment to the complainant and hence complainant prayed for declaring the O.P./Dr. as negligent and deficient in providing the service to the patient. In support of his contention the learned advocate for the complainant referred to following rulings……

1 -    Dr.Laxman Balkrishna Joshi……..V/s……Dr.Trimbak Bapu Godbole and others, reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 128 ( V 56 C 27 ).

 2  -   Prasanna Lakshmi…….V/s…..Maxivision Laser Centre Pvt.Ltd, reported in II (2019) CPJ 417 (NC)

3    -     Shri S.K.Alagiri………V/s……Dr.Rohindra Lall, delivered by State Consumer Commission Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, dated 09/08/2017.

4    -     Rajendra Prasad (DR.)  and others……V/s…..Tammisetti Venkata Narayana and others, reported in II (2016) CPJ 683 (NC).

5    -     Ashok Pachori  (DR.)……V/s…..R.K.Tripathi, reported in I (2018) CPJ 325 (NC).

6.   -     Saint Francis Hospital, Ajmer, Dr.L.K.Nepalia…..V/s…… Kamla and others, reported in I (2016) CPJ 302 (NC).

4)      Since the complainant lost vision of his left eye at very young  age of 53 year due to cataract operation performed by O.P. learned  advocate for complainant prayed for granting compensation to the complainant.

5)      Advocate for the O.P. opposed that contentions and submissions made by the advocate for complainant. As per his submissions the patient was found tobe normal and healthy after examination and investigations. Further on the same day four operations of cataract were performed. None of the other patients got infected. The patient’s visual acuity was less since beginning. O.P.Dr. Singane is M.S. in Ophthalmology  and hence he is qualified in performing cataract operation. He invited the attention of the  Bench to certificate of degree which is filed on record that shows he is duly qualified in the speciality of Ophthalmology. Further the expert Dr.Ashok Madan who is Ophthalmologist has already stated in  his opinion that there was no medical negligence. Complainant’s advocate has already cross-examined this Doctor. No where in the medical record as well as expert committee report the medical negligence has been mentioned. He invited the attention to the report of Government Medical Collage and Hospital Nagpur the expert committee appointed by Government Medical Collage and Hospital Nagpur, report dated 26/11/2014. The committee comprised of four specialises out of which Dr.Modak was Head Of Department of Ophthalmology of Government Medical Collage and Hospital Nagpur. The expert committee reported that Dr.Singare is Ophthalmology surgeon and he is well qualified to operate upon the patient’s eye. In the present case the Dr. conducted essential tests and then cataract operation was performed on patient’s left eye. In the patient/complainant’s left eye pain on the very next date of the operation without wasting much time the O.P./Dr. referred the patient to further expert doctor Dr.Bawankule who in turn referred the same patient to Shankar Netralaya Chennai which is the  specialised institute of Ophthalmology, it proves that all the necessary precaution were taken in the operation theatre as well as after complication of infection was detected. As the remaining three patients who were operated on the same day did not get any infection, it can be concluded in the operation theatre all possible precautions were taken. The report of Government Medical Collage and Hospital Nagpur categorically says that there was no medical negligence. He further prayed for dismissal of the complaint as complainant could not prove the medical negligence in treating him.

6)      On perusal of record the O.P./Dr. has brought on record three degree certificates that he was expert in Ophthalmology and his qualification as M.S. in Ophthalmology from Nagpur University passed in November 1989. As per another certificate the O.P./Dr. has already registered him with Maharashtra Medical Counsel for additional medical qualification as M.S. in Ophthalmology in Nagpur University. Further he has already renewed his registration with Maharashtra Medical Counsel on 31/05/2012 and hence he was registered and qualified in practicing Ophthalmology. On perusal of the expert committee report appointed by Government Medical Collage and Hospital Nagpur, report dated 26/11/2014 has already confirmed that there is no medical negligence in treating the patient. In our view the O.P./Dr. who is qualified in Ophthalmology, immediately detected the infection in the post operative first post operative day and referred complainant further for treating infection to concerned specialist, hence without wasting time the complainant was immediately referred to specialist. It is not the case of complainant that there was error and negligence during performing the operation of cataract and also further no documents filed by complainant in  support of his contentions. The rulings referred by the advocate for complainant are giving the principles of medical negligence and they are not applicable to the present case since the O.P./Dr. has treated the complainant/patient with due diligence.              Once he noticed complications of infection to complainant/patient, he was immediately referred to concerned specialist. Hence we are of the opinion that there was no negligence while treating the patient and the O.P./Dr. has followed and accepted the standard practice when the complications noticed, eye infection to complainant/patient he was immediately referred to concerned specialist.  

        The O.P. has filed the ruling in his support are as under;

1)  -   Vinod Jain…….V/s……Santokbha Durlabhji Memorial Hospital and others, delivered on 25/02/2019, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2024 of 2019.

2)   -    Kusum Sharma and otheres…….V/s……Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and others, reported in 2010 Legal Eagle 115, delivered on 10/02/2010, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1385 of 2001.

3)   -   Sudipta Chakrobarty and others……V/s……Ranaghat Sd Hospital and 7 others, delivered on 20/12/2019, by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Consumer Case 671/2019.

4)    -    Abdul Rasheed Shaik…….V/s…..Dr.Vikram Mathews and others, reported in 2018(4) All MR (Journal) 19.

5)     -    Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Patil and another ……..V/s…… Dr.Vinay Tule, delivered on 17/02/2017, by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Appeal No.1291 of 2017.

6)    -      Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi……..V/s……Dr.Mukund Prasad and others, delivered on 26/04/2016, by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Consumer Case 86/2016.

7)    -     Santhosh w/o Sh.Baldev Singh……..V/s……Dr.N.D.Gupta N.D.Hospital, delivered on 20/12/2019, by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Consumer Case 671/2019.

delivered on 06/04/2016, by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No.1980 of 2015.

8)    -    Smt.Deepa Deepak Palshetkar……..V/s……Smt.Megha Anil Patil (Hazare), delivered on 04/08/2017, by State Consumer Commission Mumbai, in Appeal No.A/12/239.

9)     -     Arun Mishra S/o Late Shri Deenbandhu Mishra…….V/s……  Dr.Shreekant Giri. delivered on 02/01/2017, by ChhattisgarhState Consumer Commission Raipur, in Complaint Case No.CC/2016/17.

10)    -   S.P.Changalvaraya Naidu…….V/s…..Jagannath, delivered on 27/10/1993, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.994 of 1972.

            The complainant failed to prove that there was negligence in treating him though he was an unfortunate case of post operative loss of vision. Dr./O.P. treated him diligently and as expected by treatment from any other specialist in Ophthalmology. In view of this discussion the answer to point No.2 is negative.

As to point No.3 -  In view of the above discussions since the complainant has not proved the negligence of the treating doctor he is not entitled to get compensation as prayed for and hence the answer to point No.3 is negative.

As to point No.4 -  As per final order.

//ORDER//

i.        Consumer Complaint is hereby dismissed with cost quantified   

          to Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the complainant to O.P./Doctor

          within two month from the receipt of copy of this order.

ii.       Copy of order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.