B Sri Ramakrishna Rao vs Nalla Suvarna Devi

THE opposite party is the appellant.

AGGRIEVED by the orders of the District Forum -II, Hyderabad in C.D. No. 64 of 1999 dated 10.1.2002, the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this appeal is set out as hereunder. The complainant aged 4 years along with her mother approached the opposite party hospital for broomstick injury in her right eye. They paid consultation fee of Rs. 50. She was treated on 5.8.1997 by the opposite party but he did not conduct special tests. On 22.8.1997 the opposite party found that the complainant has developed endopthalimitis in the right eye. To cover up his negligence the opposite party has asked to take the complainant to Lions Hospital, Nidadavole and gave letter for better treatment. The complainant not being satisfied consulted one Dr. V.T. Srinivas Reddy for the corrected advice who advised the complainant to join L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. Immediately on 23.8.1997 the complainant was admitted in L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital. She was examined there and her visual acuity was counting finger in the left eye and PL+ in right eye. Digital tension was normal in both the eyes. Anterior segment of right eye showed leucokerea. In the report given in L.V. Prasad Eye Institute it was stated that she was treated conservatively for 20 days. She was treated in L.V. Prasad Eye, Institute for 7 days conducting tests. They diagnosed that she had advance endopthalimitis, 20 days old in right eye. There was retinal detachment for which fluid gas exchange was done. The complainant was informed that her visual prognosis was poor due to long standing infection. It is further alleged that the opposite party has mismanaged the case without conducting special tests and better treatment. Due to his negligence, she lost her eyesight and her parents suffering mental agony. The complainant got issued notice dated 4.11.1997 to the opposite party and the opposite party got issued reply. She approached District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and damages of Rs. 50,000.

THE opposite party filed counter denying deficiency in treatment. It is contended that the opposite party has diagnosed Ulcer Cornea in right eye with Hypopyen and prescribed Auasel -A, Ampi -kid Tbs, Obacin eye drops and Neosprin eye ointment and the complainant was given Atropine 1% eye ointment after cleaning the eye. The mother of the complainant did not care to admit her as in -patient. He gave directions about usage of medicines. The complainant has seen the opposite party on 1.8.1997, 15.8.1997, 18.8.1997 and 21.8.1997 only for treatment, but not regularly. By 15.8.1997 the complainant responded well. On 18.8.1997 the complainant was prescribed Kenalog -S eye ointment. When the patient was brought again on 21.8.1997, the opposite party has examined her and diagnosed endopthalimitis right eye. As the complainant informed that she was feeling some white milky mass behind the pupil, he examined and found that she developed endopthalmitis and he gave subconjunctival, decodran 0.2 cc and the mother of the complainant was asked to bring older member on 22.8.1997 as the complainant requires surgical intervention in the hospital where there are facilities and such facilities are not available in the opposite party hospital. On 22.8.1997 when the mother of the complainant and another person came to him he examined the development of endopthalmitis and referred the case to Lions Hospital, Nidadavole which was affiliated to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute and gave letter. Thereafter, the complainant did not come to opposite party and he received notice. There is no negligence on his part.

THE District Forum based on the evidence of P.W. 1 (on commission) and the opposite party and Exs. A1 to A8 allowed the complaint holding that the opposite party negligently treated the complainant and that he did not take proper care to diagnose the disease which resulted loss of eyesight to a girl aged 4 years and awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 as damages and awarded costs of Rs. 300. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been filed.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the complainant was not treated continuously during the whole month of August and he advised the complainant to go to a better hospital. The learned Counsel further contended that the moment the opposite party diagnosed the seriousness of the problem, he recommended for expert treatment at fully equipped hospital and hence there was no negligence on his part.

WE have gone through the entire record. The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has not treated the complainant properly, he was negligent due to which she developed endopthalmitis and lost sight. For this contention it is relevant to consider the evidence of an expert Dr. Subhadra Jalali of L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital who was examined on commission. Dr. Subhadra has treated the complainant on the letter given by Dr. V.T. Srinivas Reddy. She examined the complainant on 23.8.1997 for the injury that she received on 3.8.1997. The complainant was not opening the right eye for vision check. She found conjunction of the eye having haemorrhage and the cornea was hazy. The anterior chamber was deep with puss cells. She diagnosed the patient to have traumatic endopthalmitis developed in the right eye. Surgery was conducted to the right eye on 24.8.1997 and during operation she found the complainant to have retinal detachment in the upper part of the retina at the site of injury. Because of severe infection showing poor status with her eye pressure and poor prognosis was explained to the attendants of the complainant on 26.8.1997 and she was discharged. She categorically stated that expert treatment could have saved the eye at earlier stage. If there is any injury to the eye, there is possibility of endopthalmitis happening at any time. In the cross -examination on behalf of the opposite party, P.W. 1 stated that treatment with antibiotics will depend on the part of the eye involved and in all cases attempt has to be made to get the specimen for culture before starting any antibiotics, though sometime not possible due to logistic problems. She further stated that the initial report of smear will be available within 15 minutes to 12 hours and primary culture report by 24 to 48 hours and final culture report by 7 days. From the evidence of Dr. Subhadra Jalali of L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital it is obvious that the opposite party did not conduct any culture test before prescribing medicines. Dr. A.S. Ram was examined on behalf of the opposite party as R.W. 1 and even in his evidence he has admitted that if endopthalmitis advances without treatment, patient may loose sight and there is possibility even for removal of eye. He further stated that during treatment of corneal ulcer, endopthalmitis can be noticed and detected and that if endopthalmitis is identified at an early state there is possibility of cure. Considering the medical report of L.V. Prasav Eye Hospital dated 10.9.1997 sent to Dr. Srinivas Reddy, Geeta Hospital, Tanuku, the complainant was diagnosed to have advanced endopthalmitis 20 days old in the right eye. The visual prognosis is poor and the same was explained to her parents. The aforesaid mentioned material clearly shows that the complainant was under the treatment of opposite party during August 1997 for 17 days, he was negligent in not making required tests, which resulted in advanced endopthalimits of 20 days old. The complainant has lost her eyesight and it is clearly established that there is a medical negligence on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 towards deficiency of service and costs. The order impugned in the present proceeding is a well reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties. The order in our opinion does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Forum in exercise of its appellate power. It is, therefore, devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Time for compliance 6 weeks. Appeal dismissed.