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

1)      This complaint is filed by Vijaya Vasant Godbole, aged about 74 years from Nagpur, against the Dr.Shrikant Andhare, Ophthalmic Surgeon from Nagpur alleging medical negligence by Doctor while performing cataract operation upon the complainant. Aggrieved by the second operation that was necessary to perform upon the complainant in L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad immediately  after within period of one month after the first cataract operation done by O.P., complainant filed consumer complaint in this Commission.

2)     Brief facts about this complaint are as follows :-

          The complainant Smt.Vijay Vasant Godbole., aged about 74 years approached Dr.Shrikant Andhare reputed Ophthalmic surgeon practising in  Nagpur on 14/08/2012 for consulting him about her left eye cataract. O.P. Dr. advised cataract operation by Phaco-Emulsification with Anterior Vitrectomy. As planned the complainant got admitted in the hospital of O.P. on 29/08/2012 early in the morning. Operation for cataract was performed by the O.P. on the same day and complainant was discharged on 30/08/2012 i.e. on next day. Complainant after operation found that no lens was inserted in her left eye inspite of being planned upon in the pre-operative discussion. According to the patient it was agreed between the parties to insert in left eye IOL (Rayner Aspheris-970-C foldable 25.50 D lens.) Husband and son of the patient/complainant observed on an outside television screen that broadcasted the operation performed on complainant. The operation took long time, lasted more than one hour 20 minutes when normally such operation takes 15 to 20 minutes. The complainant also observed that there was a loss of vision of her left eye, hence the complainant and family members decided to consult a special eye hospital in Hyderabad. Before approaching Hyderabad hospital, the patient/complainant approached Dr.Bawankule at Nagpur who provided initial treatment between September 2012-2013. Further after consulting Asrakshi Netralay Advance eye and Vitrieo Retinal Centre and  L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hydrabad. The complainant underwent another operation at L.V.Prasad Eye Institute on 19^th September 2012 on her left eye- Anterior Vitrectomy  and scleral fixation of IOL was performed. She was discharged on 20/09/2012.

3)      The complainant filed consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in the State Consumer Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur bearing No.CC/14/77 alleging that there was medical negligence while performing cataract operation on left eye of the complainant. The complainant alleged that to O.P. doctor was negligent in performing the operation and hence she had to consult another special Ophthalmic doctor as well as needed another operation. The O.P./Dr.Andhare opposed the complaint by filing written statement and reply to the complaint by the complainant. Both parties filed evidence while the O.P./doctor filed list of documents given by other Ophthalmic surgeons. The complain was heard  finally on 25/02/2022.

4)   In view of the rival contentions of both the parties, submissions made before the Commission and evidence filed on record before the Commission following points arise for our determinations :-   

5)   Reasoning :- As to point No. i   -  Complainant approached to O.P. for consulting with respect to her left eye problem. Dr.Shrikant Andhare provided consultation and also performed operation upon complainant’s left eye. During this treatment the complainant paid consultation fees as well as fees towards the operation. Since the complainant paid consideration to the O.P., complainant is a consumer of O.P. and hence the complainant is a consumer as per definition 2(1)(d) under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence answer to point No.(i) is in affirmative.

6)    As to point No. ii   -   As per the submissions of learned advocate for the complainant, complainant’s left eye was operated upon by the O.P./doctor for cataract operation. In this operation instead of agreed upon that “folded IOL was to be inserted, wrong lens was implanted. The operation was observed  on television monitor by the relatives of complainant, this operation resulted into “Aphakia” / (absence of lens in eye) for which the complainant spent more than Rs.1 lakh. Further the complainant was operated second time on the same eye at L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, this was due to wrong operation performed by the doctor during the first time. Since the complainant suffered physically as well as mentally he filed this complaint. Complainant has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- alongwith reimbursement of the medical treatment expenditure. Learned advocate for the complainant invited our attention to discharge summary of Netradeep Eye Care Hospital run by Dr.Shrikant Andhare/O.P. in which the details about the first surgery are recorded. (reference pages document No.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, also learned advocate referred to discharge summary of L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, of the complainant and reference document Nos.16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Delay of 63 days in filing this complaint was condoned by this Commission on 16/01/2022. Learned advocate for the complainant further invited our attention to the expert opinion given by Dr.Karandikar who is Ophthalmic Surgeon at Nagpur in which Dr.Karandikar observed the  C.D. given by Dr.Shrikant Andhare and opined that in such operations always fordable IOL inserted through small Biometry procedure and thus though it is submitted by O.P. supported the contentions of the complainant. In view of this learned advocate for the complainant prayed for granting compensation to the complainant.

7)       Learned advocate for the O.P./Dr.Andhare has submitted that there is no medical negligence in performing the operation and thus denied that there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Further as per submissions of learned advocate for O.P. the complainant has not filed any expert opinion in support of the allegations of medical negligence. The O.P./Dr.Andhare is a senior Ophthalmic surgeon practicing more than 36 years in Nagpur. He invited our attention to the expert opinion filed on behalf of O.P. by Dr.Karandikar who is senior Ophthalmic  surgeon, has supported the contentions of the O.P./doctor and specifically reiterated that the O.P. has followed standard practice and procedure of the operation performed by the O.P. It was the contention of the learned advocate of the O.P. that “Continuous lens” which is mentioned in the complaint by the complainant does not exist. The complainant/patient has not understood the procedure of the operation performed upon the left eye of the complainant and hence wide allegations against the reputed Ophthalmic surgeon Dr.Andhare.

8)       On perusal of the operation notes of the first time cataract operation performed by Dr.Andhare in the discharge summary (reference document No.6) doctor has recorded that the patient needs secondary scleral fixation IOL and advised on operation at later date as a secondary procedure and this was due to intra operative complications which  was explained to the patient and relatives. Patient was admitted for 24 hours for observation and then discharged on next date. On perusal of discharge summary given by L.V.Prasad Eye Institute the name of operation alongwith diagnosis has been recorded, no where it is mentioned that the previous operation was wrongly performed (reference document No.16). On perusal of expert opinion, the standard practice of performing such cataract operations and categorically stated that there is no negligence in performing the operation. In support of his contention as reference to Annexure Nos.1 to 4 from medical literature/ Ophthalmic surgery books. There is another expert opinion filed by O.P. i.e. Dr.Aparna C.Munshi who is also Ophthalmic surgeon who  assisted Dr.Shrikant Andhare during the operation. According  to her they have followed the protocols that are required to be followed and conducted the operation. It is noted that the experts were not cross-examined or no cross questionnaires were exchanged by the complainant. Learned advocate for the O.P. reference to the latest ruling of Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre…V/s…Aasha Jaiswal in Civil Appeal No.1658/2010, decided on 30/11/2021, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1149,   in which according to para No.35 mentions that, it may mentioned here that the complainant had led no evidence of experts to prove the alleged medical negligence except their own affidavits. The experts could have proved if any of the doctors in the Hospital providing treatment to the patient were deficient or negligent in service. A perusal of the medical record produced does not show any omission in the manner of treatment. The experts of different specialities and super specialities of medicine were available to treat and guide the course of treatment of the patient. The doctors are expected to take reasonable care but none of the professionals can assure that the patient would overcome the surgical procedures.

9)     In view of the submissions made by both parties and documents produced before us in the record, it is clear that the O.P./doctor had performed cataract surgery on the left eye as per the standard procedure which can be made out, it was due to the complications which are mentioned in the operation notes, the operation took long time, further the O.P./doctor already advised that the patient will need secondary operation which are already explained to the patient and relatives. The technical aspects of the operation have not been challenged by the complainant nor there is any expert opinion supporting the complainant’s view. It is observed that it is the perception of the complainant/patient that there was deficiency in service/negligence in operation performed by O.P./doctor as the operation took place long time and the lens was not implanted in the eye due to the technical reason, already noted in the operation notes. In view of this, this Commission is of the opinion that there was no negligence/deficiency in service in performing operation/cataract operation on left eye of the complainant and hence we answer the point No.(iii) as negative.

10)      In view of the discussions in the above para, it is our opinion that since there is no deficiency in service provided by the O.P./doctor or negligence, the complainant is not entitled for award of any compensation. Hence, we answer the point No.(iii) as negative.

11)     In view of the discussion and the conclusion in the above para, we pas the following order.

// ORDER //

i)       Complaint is dismissed.

ii)    Parties to bear their own costs.

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