Charan Singh vs KHOSLA HOSPITAL

CHARAN Singh, complainant having failed before the District Forum to establish negligence and deficiency of the ''Eye Surgeon'' in operating his right eye, is in appeal. Present is the case where the complainant has challenged the care, attention, skill and earnestness of the operating surgeon in every respect, from all angles.

THE complainant''s case is that he was suffering from cataract in his right eye, he contacted Dr. Vikram Khosla, who opined that ''cataract operation'' was the only remedy and after the operation, he will be able to see clearly. On the advice of the doctor, he agreed to get his eye operated after various tests on payment of Rs. 3,500/-. Dr. Vikram Khosla performed the operation on the right eye of the complainant on 20.10.1996. After the operation he was discharged from the hospital. It has been alleged that pursuant to the advice of Dr. Vikram Khosla, the complainant attended the eye O.P.D. but the operated eye was not cured. He could get no relief from the irritation in eye, unbearable headache though injections and medicines were prescribed. Post-operative care was not rendered as the doctor remained out of station without any prior notice which gave much trouble to the patient. On his return to the hospital, doctor advised for second operation on 5.11.1996 to which the complainant agreed but he could get no relief as he lost his eye-sight completely and permanently leaving his eye swollen abnormally. Dr. Vikram Khosla advised the patient to go to Medical College, Amritsar. THE opinion of doctor at the Medical College, Amritsar was also negative so he approached ''Thind Eye Hospital, Jalandhar'' on 18.11.1996. After examining his right eye, the doctor opined that his right eye-sight has been lost due to the negligence of the doctor. THE complainant''s allegation is that two successive operations performed by Dr. Vikram Khosla were done in a negligent way, there was prescription of wrong medicines, absence of post-operative care which further augmented his misery. He alleges to have suffered mentally and physically by the negligent eye treatment given to him by Dr. Vikram Khosla. THErefore, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,17,500/- alongwith the interest @ 18% as per the details given in the complaint. The case was contested by Dr. Vikram Khosla, denying the allegations of the complainant. The complainant was operated and was discharged on the same day i.e. 20th October, 1996. It is stated that such like surgery is minor operation in which admission of the patient is not necessary. He performed the operation in accordance with the medical precedent with due care, caution and attention and the operation was successful. The instructions were given not to do hard job and have complete bed rest. It has been denied if there was any negligence on the part of respondent in performing the surgery or afterwards at any stage. Post-operative care involved dressing and prescribing of medicines which was carried out. According to the respondent, the complainant did not follow the instructions given to him after the discharge from the hospital, as a result of which the complainant received injuries in the operated eye as he started doing manual work and heavy duties. This fact was disclosed by the complainant himself and other attendants of the complainant who approached him. The allegation that he was out of station is false as he attended to all his patients and also attended the free eye camp and had examined the patients at his residence for follow-up treatment even after the complainant had an accident at home. It has been denied if any second operation was performed on 5.11.1996, rather treatment of repairing of eye was given to the complainant after his accident at home. It has been stated that he never referred him to Medical College, Amritsar. The complainant''s visit to Thind Hospital, Jalandhar is also not known to him. Furthermore, the complainant being chronic diabetic, was having more risk factor in such surgery but utmost care was taken and best treatment was given.

The point for determination is if there is any deficiency in medical service rendered to the complainant by the opposite party causing damage to his right eye and if so, is he entitled to the damages as claimed by him.

THE allegations of the complainant and the defence of opposite party have been stated in detail. Admittedly the complainant was operated in his right eye by Dr. Vikram Khosla. After the operation, he was discharged with the requisite post-operative advice. THE effect of the operation, however, has been disputed by the complainant but this allegation has been denied by the opposite party. According to Dr. Vikram Khosla, who performed the operation, it was successful but the patient did not follow the advice given to him properly after the discharge from the hospital as a result he received injuries in the operated eye. THE irritation, headache was due to the carelessness of the complainant himself. Operation of eye is to be performed very cautiously as this is the most precious organ of the human body. A negligent operation in this organ may ruin a man''s life. At the same time, advice given by the operating surgeon has to be followed honestly and diligently. The complainant has alleged that second operation was conducted whereas it was denied by the opposite party. It was submitted that only treatment of repairing the eye was given to the complainant after his accident.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant alleged that Dr. Vikram Khosla had wrongly prescribed ''Tab Diamox'' which affected his eye. His contention is that since the complainant was chronic diabetic, tab ''Diamox'' should not have been prescribed to him. By giving this medicine, minerals and salts in the body of the complainant were dismissed excessively which caused irritation and resulted in non-healing of the operated eye. The salts and minerals are very essential for the recovery more so when the patient was diabetic. This contention of the Counsel cannot be accepted as there is no evidence on the record which could support his contention. The true effect of the medicine cannot be assessed in the absence of any material on the record. Significantly the same medicine ''Diamox'' has been prescribed by the Medical College, Amritsar also. There is no expert opinion to comment on the quality and propriety of the tab ''Diamox''. The drug ''Tab Diamox'' was prescribed as the doctor thought that the drug was required for the treatment. The contention is repelled. Every operation has its accompanying risks. The risk may manifest at the time of operation or it may involve post-operation hazard. Admittedly complications were noticed in the operated eye. The doctor''s version is that he found injury in the operated eye after two weeks of operation which was not there, when he was discharged from the hospital. If the operation was with reasonable care and any after effect is subsequently noticed due to the absence of proper care or for any other reason, the doctor cannot be held guilty. The duties of a doctor when he undertakes the treatment of a patient have been described by the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak, reported in AIR 1969 SC 128, in the following words : "The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose, such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient." In the appeal in hand, the decision of the doctor to operate the effected eye has not been challenged. The operation was successful but the patient got the injury outside the hospital, after the discharge. The doctor gave the treatment of repairing the eye but the defect could not be removed. It cannot be said that negligence of the doctor has been proved.

JUDGING from all possible aspects of the case, we come to the conclusion that the medical negligence brought against the doctor has not been proved in this case. Therefore the allegation of deficiency in medical service fails.

AS against opposite party No. 1 also no specific negligence has been alleged. It has not been proved that any injury was caused for any negligence on the part of any nursing staff or other employees of the hospital. So opposite party No. 1 is also found not liable for any deficiency in service. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed against both the opposite parties without any cost. Appeal dismissed.