AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant, Mr. Tammisetti Venkata Narayana (herein referred as patient) was operated for bilateral cataract at Dr. Pinnamaneni Sidhartha Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Foundation by Dr. Rajendra Prasad- OP 1 on 10-09-2008. He was discharged on 11-09-2008 without proper care. There was watering in the eye and pain in the right eye. On 13-09-2008, the patient was referred to Dr. G. Sudheer of Pradeep Eye Hospital, Machavaram who opined that the patient lost his vision of the right eye due to wrong surgery. The OPs 1& 2 referred him to LV. Prasad Eye Hospital at Hyderabad but, the patient could not go there due to financial crisis. Therefore, he consulted Dr. Ravella Rajakumar, Vijaywada and Dr. G. Sambasiva Rao, Nandigama, both of them opined that he lost vision in the right eye due to negligent surgery performed by OP 1. Alleging negligence on the part of OP-1, the complainant filed a complaint before District Forum, Vijayawada on 24-06-2010.
The District Forum on 4-5-2012, allowed the complaint on the premise that the damage to cornea in the right eye of the first respondent was caused due to surgical trauma and it occurred at the time of cataract extraction done by the OP-1. The District Forum directed the OP-1 Dr.Rajendra Prasad and the OP-3-institute to pay jointly Rs.2 lacs with interest @ 9% per annum plus Rs.2000/- towards the cost. The complaint against OP-2 Dr. P. Ravi Kiran was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP-1 filed the First Appeal No.444/2012 before the State Commission, Hyderabad on 14-6-2012. The State Commission reduced the quantum of compensation to Rs.1 lac with 9% interest per annum plus Rs.2000/- as cost.
Against the order of State Commission, the OP-1 and OP-2 filed this revision petition on 28-2-2014.
We have heard the learned counsel for petitioners. Respondent/Complainant was absent despite service, therefore proceeded against ex-parte. The counsel for OPs/petitioners submitted that, the patient was not a consumer of OP. The cataract surgery was at free of cost in the camp under National program for blindness control. The charges paid to the OPs by the Government are for reimbursing the expenses. The OP-1 conducted cataract surgery, took due care during post-operative stage. At the time of discharge the patient did not complain any problem, eye drops were issued free of cost.
The Patient approached OP-1again on the next day i.e. 12-09-2008 complaining pain, blurred vision and watering from the operated right eye and he was again admitted in the OP-3-hospital., but the eye condition did not improve at expected level. Therefore, on 13-09-2008, the OP-1 referred him to Dr. Sudheer, the Vitreo Retinal Surgeon of Pradeena Eye Hospital. Dr. Sudheer opined that there was no post-operative inflammation or infection. He advised to investigate patient on lines of corneal haziness /edema. However, the patient did not turn up to visit OP. The patient was further advised to go L.V. Prasad Eye Institute at Hyderabad for treatment of corneal haziness, but he neither visited the said institute nor approached OP-3.
We gave our thoughtful consideration after going through the evidence on record, medical literature on post cataract corneal edema/haziness. It is pertinent to note that Exhibit A4 revealed hazy appearance was at the centre of eye. It should be due to damage to the corneal endothelium at the centre of eye. There is much possibility that injury or the damage to cornea must have occurred only due to surgical trauma and that it had happened only at the time of cataract extraction done by OP-1. In our view, it was either due to failure of OP-1 in not adopting reasonable skill or failure in the duty of care. As per version of OP-1, that the OP-2 Dr. Ravi Kiran was not involved in the entire course of treatment, hence no liability upon OP-2 could be saddled. The OP-3 being hospital is vicariously liable.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Commission has defined the elements of medical negligence. Also, putting reliance upon the Bolam''s test, we are of considered view that the OP-1 failed in his duty of care, it was not a standard of practice. In Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi Vs. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr. (1969)1 SCR 206, observed that, A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly holds forth that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the Purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient, owes certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, and a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties will -support an action for negligence by the patient."
On the basis of discussion above, we do not find any discrepancy in the well reasoned order of State Commission which held OP-1 and 3 liable for the negligence. Accordingly, we dismiss this revision petition.