JASWINDER SINGH vs NEERAJ SUD

THE complainant in his petition claimed compensation of a total sum of Rs. 19,55,100 under heads (a) to (e) for alleged medical negligence and carelessness on the part of the OPs regarding the treatment of the eyes of Shri Jaswinder Singh, complainant No. 1, a minor, through his natural guardian Shri Barjinder Singh, Advocate, resident of Sirki Bazar, Bathinda. There was a genetic physical deformity in the size of the eyes of the said minor Shri Jaswinder Singh inasmuch as the left eye looked a little smaller than the right one. Shri Jaswinder Singh was being shown to Dr. J.S. Saini of the Eye Department of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (for short hereinafter to be referred as PGIMER), Chandigarh who advised a minor operation in the left eye of Shri Jaswinder Singh who was admitted as an indoor patient. Earlier he was being treated as an outdoor patient and outpatient door card had been issued in respect of Shri Jaswinder Singh. A sum of Rs. 640 was paid as charges. The operation was performed on 26.6.96 by Dr. Neeraj Sud, OP No. 2 of the Eye Department. Dr. Neeraj Sud at that time was working as a Senior Resident in PGIMER. Subsequently, he left PGIMER and joined Guru Harkishan Eye Hospital, Sohana. It has been alleged that as a result of the operation of the left eye due to negligence, the Superior Rectus (SR) muscle was cut, resulting in injuries to the Cornea and eyeball of the left eye, which was operated. The instances of defects and injuries, which were resulted during the surgery, were detailed under six heads as under: (A) Eyelid of the left eye further dropped rather than being lifted. (B) Eyeball of left eye has moved down and does not move up resulting in double vision. (C) White sheath in the left eye has dropped down. (D) Wounds developed in the lower portion of the cornea resulting in deterioration of eyesight. (E) Eyelid does not close properly if closed gently. (F) Tear gland affected resulting in non -formation of tears requiring use of medicine 1/2 hourly -hourly and insertion of costly plugs in the left eye to prevent loss of tear drops put in the eye.

THE complainant No. 2, the natural father of Shri Jaswinder Singh found that there was no improvement in the operated eye at PGIMER and he took him to Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi where the treatment was still continuing though there was no hope of improvement. The complainant got the history of the case studied at St. Francis Medical Centre, Pitsburg, U.S.A. where an expense of US $ 20,000 for treatment were demanded and that too with no assurance/commitment of cure. It was in these facts and circumstances that the compensation aforesaid was claimed. Under the first two heads (A) and (B), expenses of hospital fee, medicines, visits from Bhatinda to Chandigarh were quantified at Rs. 25,000 and at Delhi from Bhatinda at Rs. 30,000. A sum of Rs. 15 lac was claimed as compensation for pain, suffering, disability, etc. as well as expenses for future treatment. Under head (D), compensation for loss of studies was claimed at Rs.1 lac and compensation for mental agony, harassment, loss in profession to the complainant No. 2 under head (E) was claimed at Rs. 3 lac. The OPs filed their replies. Dr. J.S. Saini in his reply took a preliminary objection of the complaint being barred by time as the surgery was performed in June 1996. Apart from it, it was contended that no cause of action arose and further the complainant had claimed an inflated sum of compensation. On merit, it was pleaded that the complainant demonstrated Ptosis (dropping of the left eye) at the time he was evaluated at the PGIMER. Dr. J.S. Saini categorically denied that he ever told the complainant No. 2 Shri Barjinder Singh that the physical deformity of Shri Jaswinder Singh, minor could be cured by a very minor operation. Dr. Saini further pleaded that he never examined Shri Jaswinder Singh nor did he advise surgery scheduled to be done on 25.6.1996. The name of the patient was mentioned in the records as a part of routine. Dr. Saini averred that he was to proceed on an official advance training course to U.S.A from 3.7.1996 and he did not advice the patient that he will be operated upon on 26.6.1996 by him, which was his last operation day before his departure to U.S.A.

REGARDING the competence of Dr. Neeraj Sud, OP No. 2, a Senior Resident who actually performed surgery on Shri Jaswinder Singh on 26.6.1996, it was averred that he was a qualified Post Graduate in Ophthalmology and on the day of operation, he had three years Post Graduation experience including ophthalmic surgery. The guardian of the minor Shri Jaswinder Singh had agreed to get the minor patient, complainant No. 2 operated upon from Dr. Neeraj Sud. The copy of the consent form was referred to as Annexure OP -1/2.

DR . Neeraj Sud, OP No. 2 in his reply averred that he had performed 74 operations and out of these, 21 operations are performed at the level of Senior Resident. He denied categorically that the surgery was performed without expertise. He also submitted that following the operation, the patient was evaluated and treated by him in consultation with and with the approval of the Head of the Department of Opphthalmology. The patient had also been examined and advised treatment by Dr. Kanwar Mohan in the Squint Clinic and Dr. Usha Singh in the Opphthalmoplastry Clinic of PGIMER. All care was taken to treat the patient and at no stage, any negligence was committed in the treatment of the patient. After about six months from the operation, Shri Jaswinder Singh, complainant No. 1, had been brought on 7.1.1997 and was examined by OP No. 1 who found that the patient had a vision of 6/18 aided on the operated left eye, residual Ptosis i.e. downward displacement of 4 -5 mm, poor LPS muscle action, clear cornea, parallelism of eyes in the primary position and restricted ocular movement in upgaze was noticed. The guardians were advised to get the complainant No.1 registered for Squint Clinic and seek further treatment. He was also advised for further valuation in Ophthalmic plastic service for correction of residual Ptosis. Dr. Sud alleged that thereafter, the complainant No. 2 never brought the patient complainant No. 1 to him. Regarding the surgical problems, Dr. Sud contended that the surgical problems regarding residual ptosis is a common occurrence and the other problem of the patient of difficulty of relative inability to move the eye upward is also well known. Dr. Neeraj Sud in his reply referred to the assessment made by Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi and stated that Guru Nanak Eye Centre had also given the same assessment. According to Dr. Sud, as a matter of fact, it was a case of Ptosis i.e. dropping of left eyelid and it was wrong to state that the left eye was smaller in size than the right eye. It was actually a case of deformity of the left eye, ambylopia or lazy eye. The patient was initially examined at O.P.D at PGIMER on 16.4.1996 and was admitted on 25.6.96 as per the hospital record and Ptosis surgery was recommended. He also stated that at no stage, any impression was given to the complainant that it was a minor surgery. Dr. Sud further pleaded that if the eye retains its moisture and had an adequate tear film with good protective eye movements the patient will tolerate this post -operative lagophthalmos well. If the patient had impairment of eye protective mechanisms, exposure problems and vision threatening problem may develop. The allegations made against OP No. 2 were specifically denied that surgery was performed in a negligent manner and/or on a portion of the eye where it was not required. He reiterated that due care had been taken in performing the surgery during which the muscle was dissected.

THE complaint case was initially decided by this State Commission on 18.10.99 and the complaint was allowed in view of the finding that there was negligence on the part of the operating surgeon Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGIMER, Chandigarh where the patient was admitted and remained under treatment. The PGIMER was ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lac to the father/guardian of the patient within four months and out of the amount of Rs. 2 lac, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was ordered to be recoverable from Dr. Neeraj Sud. The costs of Rs. 5,000/ - were directed to be paid by the PGIMER. An appeal was filed being First Appeal No. 438 of 1999 by the PGIMER and First Appeal No. 455 of 1999 was filed by the complainants before the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short hereinafter to be referred as National Commission). The appeals were disposed of vide order dated 24.3.2003. The certified copy of the order is placed on record. The order passed by the State Commission was set aside and the complaint was remanded for decision afresh after allowing the parties to cross -examine the witnesses.

AFTER remand, the complainants filed interrogatories for cross -examination on Dr. Neeraj Sud, OP No. 2. Dr. J. S. Saini -OP No. 1 had in the meantime died in January 2004 and his name was ordered to be deleted vide order dated 7.1.2005. The interrogatories were also served on Dr. Neeraj Sud, OP No. 2 who filed his reply by way of affidavit dated 5.3.2005. No other interrogatories for cross -examination of any other deponent was filed by either the complainant or the OPs. The complainant also moved an application for summoning the original record of the PGIMER. The learned Counsel representing the PGIMER was directed to bring the record of the hospital relating to the treatment of the complainant. The remaining OP Nos. 2 and 3, after the deletion of the name of OP No. 1, were renumbered as OP Nos. 1 and 2. We have heard Mr. B.J. Singh, Advocate for the complainant. We have also heard the learned Counsel Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate appearing on behalf of OP No. 2 - PGIMER and Mr. R. P. Sharma, Advocate for OP No. 1 - Dr. Neeraj Sud. We have also perused the material placed on record by both the sides.

SO far as the averments made in the complaint against Dr. J.S. Saini who had also filed his affidavit in his capacity as Additional Professor of Department of Ophthalmology, PGIMER, Chandigarh are concerned, the Honble National Commission directed the cross -examination of the deponents but due to the death of Dr. J.S. Saini, no cross -examination could take place by serving interrogatories on him. The averments made in the written reply by Dr. J.S. Saini have already been referred to wherein he has categorically and specifically denied about examining the complainant No.1 Shri Jaswinder Singh and about advising for a minor surgery. It has also been denied that he, at no point of time, told the guardian of the patient, Shri Barjinder Singh, Advocate that it was a minor surgery, which would correct the alleged short of eye of the left eye. Dr. J.S. Saini also denied that he was the concerned surgeon who was required to perform the surgery inasmuch as he had to go abroad i.e. U.S.A on 3.7.1996 and the surgery was scheduled to take place on 26.6.1996.

BE that as it may, the case of the complainants against Dr. J.S. Saini has become infructuous due to the death of Dr. J.S. Saini and the principle of Actio personalis moritur cum persona will apply to the case of Dr. J.S. Saini since deceased. In other words, the personal liability, if any, of Dr. J.S. Saini came to an end with the death of Dr. J.S. Saini. The case thus remains against Dr. Neeraj Sud, a Senior Resident Surgeon working at that time in the Department of Ophthamology as a Senior Resident for the last three years. Mr. B.J. Singh, Advocate appearing for the complainants at the very outset contended that the complainants have not placed on record any evidence of medical expert to prove the averments of medical negligence in the treatment of the patient Shri Jaswinder Singh and his own evidence is in the shape of affidavit of Shri Barjinder Singh, father of the minor patient. Mr. B.J. Singh, Advocate stated that he would mainly rely on the record of the PGIMER regarding the treatment of the patient and would show from the record itself that there was medical negligence on the part of Dr. Neeraj Sud in performing the surgery in the left eye of the patient.

UNDISPUTEDLY , late Dr. J.S. Saini was the Professor in the Department of Eye of the PGIMER, Chandigarh. Dr. J.S. Saini had since died in January 2004 and his name was ordered to be deleted on 7.1.2005 and any averment made against him regarding his being negligent or careless in the treatment of the minor patient Shri Jaswinder Singh is of no consequence in view of the law contained in the maxim Actio personalis moritur cum persona i.e. personal action dies with the person.

IT may be mentioned that it is seriously disputed by the OPs that late Dr. J.S. Saini had seen and examined the patient Shri Jaswinder, Singh. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the OPs that Dr. J.S. Saini in the month of July 1996 was preparing to go abroad on 3.7.1996 on official advance training course to U.S.A. vide Annexure OP -1/1 and he was busy in that connection. He denied about the patients visit earlier in the Department of Eye and his being seen and examined by Dr. J.S. Saini. It has also been contended that he did not advise the patient that he will be operated upon on 26.6.1996 by him, which was his last operation day before his departure to U.S.A. This brings the OP No. 4 - Dr. N.S. Saini into picture as he admittedly was working as a Senior Resident in the Eye Department performed surgery of the left eye of the minor patient Shri Jaswinder Singh. Before proceeding to examine the averment regarding the alleged medical negligence and carelessness on the part of Dr. Neeraj Sud, it is to be considered and adjudicated as to whether Dr. Neeraj Sud, as alleged by the complainants, was not a competent doctor to perform the surgery as he had no experience in the service of the kind, which was rendered in the case of the patient.

WE have already referred to above that this complaint case was earlier decided on 18.10.1999 and had been allowed on the finding that there was negligence on the part of operating surgeon Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGIMER, Chandigarh where the patient was admitted and remained under treatment and accordingly a sum of Rs. 2 lac was awarded to be paid by the PGIMER. It was further directed that out of this amount of Rs. 2 lac, Rs. 50,000 was to be recovered from Dr. Neeraj Sud. The PGIMER was saddled with the costs of limitation amounting to Rs. 5,000/ -. PGIMER filed First Appeal No. 438 of 1999 while Shri Jaswinder Singh and another, complainants filed First Appeal No. 455 of 1999, which came up for hearing before the Honble National Commission on 24.3.2003. The appeals were allowed and the complaint case was remanded with the direction for allowing cross -examination of the witnesses of both the sides.

AFTER the receipt of the complaint case, the complainants sought cross -examination of Dr. Neeraj Sud as Dr. J.S. Saini had in the mean time died in January 2004. The interrogatories were served on Dr. Neeraj Sud who filed his reply to the interrogatories. In Para No. 1 of his affidavit, he deposed about his serving PGIMER from July, 1990 to January, 1997 as Junior Resident and Senior Resident in the Eye Department and about his having done M.S through PGIMER and that he was a qualified Post Graduate in Opphthalmology and had almost three years Post Graduate experience in Ophthalmologic surgery in various subjects specially including Ptosis operations as on 26.6.1996, by which date, he worked as Senior Resident. He had already performed 74 Ptosis operations in the department. He further deposed that out of 74 Ptosis operations, almost 30 operations were performed at the level of Senior Resident. He specifically averred in Para No. 1 that he was competent to perform surgery like other Senior Residents in the department. He also deposed that Dr. J.S. Saini, since deceased, was a consultant in the Department of Ophthalmology. Dr. Neeraj Sud further advised that following the operation, the complainant No. 1 was evaluated in consultation with and with the approval of the Head of the Department of Ophthalmology at PGIMER and by other qualified doctors like Dr. Kanwar Mohan (Head of Squint Clinic), Dr. Usha Singh (Oculoplastic Clinic), Prof (Dr.) Amod Gupta (Head of Ophthalmology) at different times and that he had worked with Dr. Bansal, Assistant Professor and Consultant, Dr. Pandav, Senior Resident and Dr. Jagat Ram, Consultant dealing with the case of the patient who was provided appropriate treatment all through and during the followup. He further deposed that the patient was also repeatedly counselled on the nature and extent of post -surgery problems and was never neglected. The record showed that the operation was fully recorded and the patient demonstrated temporary and reversible ambylopia (lazy eye) from continued dropping of lid in the left eye. There was no permanent loss of vision, surgical damage to cornea or the eye ball or sequlae of tear deficiency. The patient continued to demonstrate imperfections in the cosmetic symmetry of 2 eyelids from birth which could be prenatal. On the basis of the record, Dr. Neeraj Sud deposed that no additional early surgery procedure was suggested to the patient at Delhi or Daljit Singh Eye Hospital, Amritsar or AIIMS, New Delhi. Thereafter Dr. Sud deposed that the patient had, of his own, been taking treatment at different hospitals and that the patient has not been examined by him after January 1997. However, the patient was seen by Dr. J.S. Saini (deceased) on 7.1.1997 and the results/advices are on record. The patient continued to demonstrate restricted movement of the eyeball in the up -gaze as heretofore.

DR . Neeraj Sud gave specific replies to the questions, which are 13 in number. About his working with the PGIMER and the dates, he gave his reply, which we have already referred to. To the second question about the name of the Unit of Eye Department where he worked as Senior Resident in PGIMER, he replied that in January 1994 to December 1994, he was in Unit III; from January, 1995 to December 1995 - Unit I and from January, 1996 to January, 1997 - Unit II. To Question No. 3, he replied that during his period of employment, there was no separate Oculoplast Unit though there were consultants in each unit. Regarding Oculoplast, he replied that the Oculoplast surgery was there in each unit and it dealt with lids, adenexal structures like lacnimal gland and sac, orbital conditions, etc. The surgeries were undertaken in all the units.

TO Question No. 5 about his ever worked in Oculoplast unit of Eye Department of PGIMER, he replied that there was no separate Oculoplast unit in PGIMER. From July 1990 to June, 1992, he was a Junior Resident. In June, 1992, he worked under Dr. Bansal, Asstt. Professor and Dr. Pandav, Senior Resident. In July, 1992 to June, 1993, he worked with Dr. Bansal, Dr. Jagat Ram, both Consultants, From January 1994 to December, 1994, he worked with Dr. Bansal throughout dealing with Ptosis cases/patients and performed operations as Senior Resident, performed surgeries independently as well as assisted Consultants in the job. Regarding the surgery in question, which was put in Question No. 7, as the second part of the question, he deposed as under: ''(b) Surgery was performed on 26.6.1996. As is evident from the In patient Record attached with the complaint, Dr. J.S. Saini was the consultant of the Eye Unit -II, and Dr. Pandav was the Bed Resident. The complainant had also been examined by Dr. J.S. Saini. Dr. Kanwar Mohan (Head of Squint Clinic), Dr. Usha Singh (Oculoplastic Clinic, Dr. Prof. Amod Gupta, Head of Ophthalmology at different times.'' Regarding his performing the first Oculoplast surgery at PGIMER, he replied that as far as he remembered he performed first independent surgery in January, 1995. In reply to Question No. 9, which was whether he had ever encountered a complication in operation for Ptosis, Dr. Neeraj Sud replied No. Regarding the surgery in question, he replied, ''(i) Ptosis was corrected on operation. Clinical photograph of 2nd post operative day is available with PGI which also confirms; (ii) there was no impairment of vision due to surgery which was (a) OPD 16.4.1996 R -6/9 L -6/9 (b) Comments Dr. K. Mohan 11.7.1996 R - 6/9 L - 6/9 (15 days after operation), (c) Dr. Daljit Singh Eye Hospital, ASR 7.7.1999 L - 6/9.''

IN answer to Question No. 10, which was about ''How many Senior Residents work in Eye Department of PGI at any given point of time'', Dr. Neeraj Sud replied that ''It is for the PGI to reply. However, as stated there were three units in Eye Deptt. of PGI during the period and two Senior Residents in each unit in my period.'' Question No. 11 was to the effect ''As per your own version certain Tests were to be carried out before undertaking the operation in question, but there is no recording of the same in PGI record. Can you explain?'' and the answer to this question is as under: ''Preoperative investigation in the Index is a matter of record. The interrogatory is misleading, mischievous and contrary to averments on record. No such averments has been made as alleged. Observations are mentioned at pages 31 and 44 of the paper book. All the routine tests were done like eye protective mechanism, corneal sensations, tear film, ocular muscle status, Bells phenomena.'' In Question No. 12, the complainants put the question as under: ''You have stated that complainant was fully informed about the complications which may arise from operation of Ptosis. When and where was it informed and what was the information given?'' The answer is as under: ''It is for the PGI to reply. The consent of the guardian is on record with them. It was the grandfather of the complainant No. 1 who had accompanied him, got him admitted and gave his consent, after proper understanding. I know the relationship between a doctor and the patient is of confidence and in the interest of the patient, respecting human values. The limitations etc. as mentioned in my reply were also personally informed to the revered grandfather of the patient.'' The last question put is numbered 13, which was as under: ''Is it possible to correct the increased deformity and complications in the case of complainant No. 1, now?'' The answer is: ''The history progress of complainant No. 1 shows that it is a case of reoccurrence of Ptosis. Page 26 of the paper book shows that there was improvement after the operation. The deformity was by birth. I refer to paras 5, 6, 7 and 9 of my written statement to the complaint. It was a case of prenatal deficiency which was attempted to be treated to the best of ability guidance and literature on the point.''

DR . Neeraj Sud further deposed in addition to the replies that the record showed that the complainant No. 1 had been simultaneously getting treatment from PGIMER and Guru Nanak Eye Hospital, Delhi. The deformity was with regard to left eye. The right eye had not been touched. The post operative photographs show the area of operation. Even the Guru Nanak Eye Hospital and Dr. Daljit Singh Hospital, Amritsar and AIIMS, New Delhi had diagnosed the patient as L Residual Ptosis with restricted ocular movement with deptopia in August 1999 and have not advised surgery. The patient had not been seen or examined by Dr. Neeraj Sud after January, 1997 so no opinion could be expressed. He also deposed that any averment about the opinion regarding the possibilities and complications, given by complainant No. 2 could not be believed. The source of his information has not been disclosed. The verification of the affidavit was also wrong. He pleaded ignorance to any discussion made by the complainants with the Amritsar Hospital. He categorically denied the allegations of negligence during the operation and deposed further that the treatment given, medicine prescribed and the method and manner adopted was correct. There was no want of reasonable degree of care and skill. Surgeon decides the best for the patient. He also deposed that if two opinions are possible and one course is adopted, the same would not be negligence. We have already referred to above that the complainants have not led any evidence of medical expert and have mainly relied on the record of the PGIMER to show that there was a case of medical negligence in the operation of the left eye of the patient, which was due to the incompetence of Dr. Neeraj Sud. We have already referred to above in detail the replies given by Dr. Neeraj Sud to the interrogatories served on him by the complainants and from the reply and the record of the case, we find that Dr. Neeraj Sud possesses the requisite competence to perform the surgical operation of Ptosis and he did so as per his own experience as a Senior Resident. There is no material on record to show that the line of treatment or the method and procedure followed in the operation in the left eye of the patient was not approved of by the standard treatment by surgery of the kind involved in this case.

CONSEQUENTLY , we find no valid reasons to hold that Dr. Neeraj Sud was in any way medically negligent and careless in performing the surgery and followup treatment of the patient.

THE Honble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel & Ors., II (1996) CPJ 1 (SC), dealt with the point of negligence as under: ''Negligence has manifestations - it may be active negligence, collateral negligence, concurrent negligence, continued negligence, criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous negligence, active negligence and passive negligence, wilful or reckless negligence or negligence per se which is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as under - Negligence per se : Conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circums -tances, either because it is in violation of a statute or valid municipal ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule, the violation of a public duty, enjoined by law for the protection of person or property, so constitutes.'' The Honble National Commission in the case of Smt. Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre & Ors., III (2000) CPJ 18 (NC), quoted Taylors Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, XII Ed., which was extracted in Paragraph 11, as under: oI myself would prefer to put it in this way -A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art. Medical science has conferred great benefit of mankind, but these benefits are attended by considerable risks. Every surgical operation is attended by risks. We cannot take the benefits without taking risks. Every advance in technique is also attended by risks.''

REGARDING the duties of a medical practitioner towards his patient was discussed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman v. Trimbak Bapu Godbole & Anr., AIR 1969 SC 128. It was held in Paragraph 15 as under: ''A medical practitioner has various duties towards his patient and he must act with a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. This is the least which a patient expects from a doctor. The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner, which is acceptable to the medical profession and the Court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill, diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffer a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence. But in cases which the doctors act carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action in torts would be maintainable.''

THE learned Counsel for the complainant failed to show that in the instant case, Dr. Neeraj Sud acted carelessly and in a manner, which is not expected by a medical practitioner and further that he followed a line of treatment, which was totally unacceptable to the medical profession and further that he has attended on the patient with carelessness so that he should be held guilty of negligence per se. We have already referred to above the competence of Dr. Neeraj Sud to perform the surgery of Ptosis and we find that the statement on interrogatories made by Dr. Neeraj Sud is clear and categorical that he had with him sufficient expertise to perform the Ptosis operation. Apart from this, it may be mentioned that Dr. Neeraj Sud was attached in the Department of Oppthalmology and in a unit, which was concerned with surgeries relating to Ptosis and he was allotted a case of complainant No. 1, the patient Shri Jaswinder Singh and he handled the surgery with a reasonable degree of care and caution and there is no material placed on record from which it may be reasonably inferred that Dr. Neeraj Sud acted with carelessness, did not exercise due care and caution, followed the line of treatment, which was totally unacceptable to the medical profession regarding the treatment of such disease and as such it cannot be said that Dr. Neeraj Sud was in any way negligent. So far as PGIMER is concerned, it cannot be said that PGIMER acted with any negligence or carelessness.

RESULTANTLY , we find that there is no merit in this complaint, which is dismissed and parties are left to bear their own costs.

COPIES of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Complaint dismissed. -