NARAYANANKUTTY MENON vs M/S. Lal Memorial Hospital

P class="paragraph">2. THE present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.09.2008 in Appeal No. 578/2000 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''State Commission ''). The State Commission partly allowed the Appeal filed against the order in Complaint No Consumer Complaint 83 of 1998 dated 11.07.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ''District Forum '').

THE Complainant, Sh. Narayanankutty Menon, the patient, underwent a cataract surgery at M/s Lal Memorial Hospital, the OP -1 performed by Dr. C. K. Ravi, the OP -2 and inserted Intra Ocular Lens (IOL) in the right eye. During the follow up on OPD basis the OP -2 while examining his right eye through microscope (slit lamp) failed down. Due to this there was an injury to the lower eye lid of the right eye. The index finger of OP -2 was thrust in the right eye. The sutures was damaged, the lens was expelled out. The patient had excruciating pain. Thereafter, OP -2 conducted 2nd operation for correction and discharged him from the hospital. The Complainant suffered severe impairment of eye sight of right eye which did not improve. The aim was opined by Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai. The Complainant further took treatment from renowned Eye Hospital, The Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly, even also the Complainant ''s eye sights did not recovered. In the meantime the Complainant also took the treatment from Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. Therefore, the Complainant suffered 45% disability.

ALLEGING negligence in the treatment the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Thrissur and prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,82,000/ - from OP -1 and 2. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/ - towards special damages for medical treatment and Rs.1,25,000/ - towards general damages and mental agony. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the OP jointly filed an Appeal before the State Commission.

THE State Commission partly allowed the Appeal and modified the order of the District Forum and directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ - to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the Revision Petition.

WE have heard the Counsel for both the parties.The Counsel for the Complainant vehemently argued that due the negligence of OP the microscope fell down and the doctor ''s fingers thrust into his eyes, therefore, he was subjected for another surgery. He lost his complete vision of right eye and suffered 45% of disability. The Counsel contended that the Aravind Eye Care Hospital and the doctors at Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly & Medical College Hospital, Thrissur told that he would not be able to regain the eye sight in the right eye rival arguments from the Counsel for the OP argued that the findings of Aravind Eye Hospital was 6/12, the patient ''s condition was normal. The senior Eye Surgeon of Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai submitted that (Ex -XI -11) that the operated eye has got anterior chamber intraocular lens implanted, no signs of iris prolapse and the vision was 6/12 which is a good result of cataract operation. The Consultant of Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly has stated that vision may improve and recorded the vision as 6/60. The evidence of Director of OP -1 Hospital revealed that after the said accident of slipped chinrest of the slit lamp, microscope from the patient was taken to operation theatre and satures were corrected. At the time of discharge after 4 days the vision of right eye was 6/24.

AS per Ex -B2 , the case sheet of the OP -1 Hospital , on 24.10.1996, noted as ''''the iris prolapsed while examining under slit lamp as the chin slipped from the chinrest. Thereafter, administered local anesthesia and during surgery, it was that iris prolapsed at 2 ''O clock position and the suture knot was undone. He tried to put iris in using repository. It was not staying in and hence removed two adjoining sutures for better vision and manoeuvrability. Viscilone was injected to anterior chamber. Lens was freed from prolapse and removed. The iris was replaced and a new IOL inserted. A small iredectomy was done as the iris was not staying in fully. Wound was closed with 10/0 microfilament with intercepted sutures, etc., the lens was also implanted. ''''It clearly goes to show that, after the accident, the OP took proper decision and treated the patient, he did not neglect the patient. No doctors of the above said Hospitals opined about the degeneration on account of the said accident and negligence of OP.

IN our opinion it was just accident or an error of judgment which is not medical negligence. We put reliance upon Jacob Mathews vs. State of Punjab AIR (2005) SC 3180, State of Punjab vs. Shiv Ram AIR (2005) SC 3280, in which Hon ''ble Supreme Court has differentiated the issue of medical negligence.In para 34 the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew ''s Case states that: ''''Accident during the course of medical or surgical treatment has a wider meaning. Ordinarily, an accident means an intended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated (See Black ''s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition). Care has to be taken to see that the result of an accident which is exculpatory may not persuade the human mind to confuse it with the consequence of negligence. ''''

THEREFORE , we are of considered view that, OP -1 and 2 were not negligent. The State Commission rightly set aside the order passed by the District Forum and awarded just and proper compensation of a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000. Therefore, we affirm the order of the State Commission and direct the OP -1 to comply with the order within 90 days otherwise it will carry interest @ 18% per annum till it ''s realisation, the Revision Petition is dismissed. There is No order as to costs.