GURPREET KAUR vs R.K.BHUTANI

THE unsuccessful complainant in Case No. C-135 of 1990 on the file of the State Commission, Delhi is the appellant in this appeal. The complaint had been filed by the appellant Mrs. Maninder Kaur on behalf of her minor child Miss Gurpreet Kaur seeking to recover a sum ofRs.51akhs from the Opp. Party " Dr. R.K.Bhutani " by way of compensation for the loss of the Wt eye of the minor appellant by reason of alleged rashness and negligence on the part of the Opp. Party in performing an operation on the left eye of Miss Gurpreet Kaur. The State Commission after a detailed consideration of the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the complainant has not been able to adduce any acceptable evidence which can lead to the conclusion that there was any negligence or lack of due care and caution on the part of the operating doctor (Opp. Party) and hence no deficiency in service was made out so as to entitle the complainant to claim compensation from the Opp. Party. The complaint petition was accordingly dismissed by the State Commission.

MR . Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and the respondent argued his case in person. After carefully considering the arguments submitted on both sides and going through the records, we are in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the State Commission inasmuch as it is fully supported by the evidence available on record.

THE case put forward by the complainant in the complaint petition was that she took her daughter Miss Gurpreet Kaur to clime of the respondent for treatment of some eye disease for the first time on 8.4.1989 and that on preliminary examination, the respondent advised her to admit her daughter in his clinic on the same day as the left eye of the patient required immediate operation. According to the complainant, without performing the necessary and preliminary tests and without due and proper caution the respondent operated on the left eye of her daughter. Although no relief was felt by the patient after the operation, the respondent is alleged to have negligently and without proper examination discharged the patient on that very day immediately after the operation. The further case put forward in the complaint is that it came to the notice of the complainant on further investigation and consultation with other experts that the respondent had not performed the operation properly and that he had used improper and dangerous medicines without proper investigation and these had resulted in parmanent damage of the left eye of the patient. It is alleged that after 8.4.1989 the patient was regularly taken to the clinic of the respondent for check up every morning and evening between 10.4.1989 to 13.4.1989 and that during these check-ups also the respondent has acted rashly and negligently. The complainant has proceeded to state that she again called on the respondent on 14.4.198§ and requested him to do something about the eye of her daughter and at that stage the respondent advised her to take the child to one Dr. S.R. Malik at Swasth Vihar for further expert treatment. It is said that Dr. Malik on being contacted demanded Rs. 10,000/-and advised a second operation but he also stated that he could not take responsibility for the complete cure of the eye as the same had been already handled incompetently and the case was therefore beyond complete repair. Thereafter the complainant states that she again called on the respondent whereupon she was informed by the respondent that he could do nothing further in the matter. Being disgusted by the said conduct of the respondent, the complainant states that she took the child to the St. Stephen''s

HOSPITAL where the doctors told her that in case immediate operation of the eye of the patient was not done the child could die. Accordingly, the child was admitted in St. Stephen''s Hospital for treatment and the doctors in that hospital removed the left eye of Miss Gurpreet Kaur. Keeping in view the permanent loss of the left eye of the child and the physical, mental and social repercussion it has on her future, the complainant has prayed that an order may be passed against the respondent for the payment of a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for the loss and injury caused by the respondent to the complainant''s daughter and also to herself. In the written statement filed by the respondent of the allegations made in the complaint have been categorically denied. It was stated by the respondent that Miss Gurpreet Kaur was initialy brought to him on 6.3.1989 and not on 8.4.1989 as wrongly alleged in the complaint. He examined the patient on 6.3.1989 and had explained to the mother the serious nature of the problem and the details of the complications in the left eye of the patient. The complainant was informed that the said left eye of the child was already damaged extensively due to a previous surgery and it was only then that it was disclosed to him by the complainant that the left eye of Miss Gurpreet Kaur had earlier been operated upon at the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi when the child was only ten months of age. The respondent has submitted in the written statement that the complainant has deliberately concealed the said fact of the previous operation from the State Commission with ulterior motive. It was further submitted by the respondent that when the child was first brought to him on 6.3.1989, she was examined at length and the mother was advised not to get left eye operated. Instead, she was advised laser iridotomy but the mother of the child insisted for an operation being performed on the left eye with full awareness of the fact that the chances of recovery were doubtful and remote. She expressly stated to the respondent that she was ready to bear the risk and she wanted to take a chance for getting the eyesight of the child restored. The respondent, thereupon had all the necessary tests of blood, urine etc. conducted and it was only thereafter that the child was operated upon on 8.4.1989. After the operation, the child was kept under observation for twelve hours and was discharged only after complete and thorough examination. Subsequently, follow-up treatment was also given by administering the necessary medicines etc. from 10.4.1989 onwards. The respondent has denied that there was any negligence or want of proper care and caution on his part and has submitted that the best possible treatment which could be administered in the circumstances was given by him to the patient but unfortunately it did not yield the desired results.

THE complainant has suppressed in her complaint the crucial fact that the child had already been operated upon in the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre of All India Institute of Medical Sciences when she was only ten months old. On an application made before the State Commission by the respondent, the relevant records of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences were got produced and the concerned specialist doctor"Dr. V.K. Dada who was the Unit In-charge of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre of A.I.I.M.S. was examined as a witness before the State Commission. From the evidence of Dr. Dada and Exhibits A to D produced by him, it is clearly established that Miss Gurpreet Kaur had been admitted in the A.I.I.M.S. on 28.3.1987 had undergone an eye operation there and was subsequently discharged on 4.4.1987. The problem in her eyes had been diagnosed as total cataract of left eye and the discharge slip as well as Exhibit ''B'' showed that she still had an abnormal condition known as up-drawn pupil,, which according to Dr. Dada was due to chronic congenital intrauterine infection. During his cross-examination by the complainant''s Counsel, Dr. Dada has categorically stated that in his opinion the treatment given to the patient by the respondent was perfectly correct as per the medical norms and it was also competent and complete. Except for filing her own affidavit the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence on her behalf. The allegations made in the complaint petition that the respondent had not carried out essential tests like, blood, urine and sensitivity test before performing the operation are proved to be wholly false by Annexures ''D, and ''E, which are reports dated 23.3.1989 issued by the Modem Diagnostic Centre, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi furnishing the results of the urine examination and blood examination of baby Gurpreet Kaur conducted on a reference made by the respondent herein. It is, therefore, manifest that the complainant has come before the Redressal Forum deliberately putting forward a false plea and also suppressing material facts such as those relating to the prior operation in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, A.I.I.M.S. On the materials available on record, the only conclusion possible is the one recorded in the impugned order of the State Commission, namely, that the complainant has totally failed to establish that there was any negligence or lack of due care, attention or caution on the part of the respondent herein in performing the operation and in administering the treatment to Miss Gurpreet Kaur. The appeal is thus devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs, which we fix at Rs. 7,500/-.