NIRMALENDU PAUL vs P.K.BAKSHI

THE petitioner, Shri Nirmalendu Paul, aged 73 years approached the opposite parties for the first time on 18.3.1993 for the treatment of his eye. Opposite party-1, is a Surgeon and a Specialist in Intra-oculur Lens implant and Micro-surgery and is attached to opposite party-2, an Eye Foundation Centre. After examination of the complainant, opposite party-1 observed that the poor vision in his left eye would be cured after operation. On his advice, the petitioner went through some pre-operative tests. He was also examined by one Dr. D.K. Saha an associate of opposite party-1 and a Specialist in the subject.

ON 29.6.1993, the complainant got himself admitted in the Clinic of opposite party-2 and Surgery was done in the left eye of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant visited several times to the chamber of opposite party-1 for post-operative care and treatment. The petitioner claimed that the opposite party has taken a total sum of Rs. 30,000/- on several occasions towards operation charges and other fees. It has been alleged that the opposite parties did not grant receipt for all the money they have received. According to the complainant because of gross negligence the vision of his left eye has been impaired. Gradually, the condition of his left eye deteriorated. The complainant consulted several other renowned Eye Surgeons of the Town and was under their treatment for some time. But no improvement was noticed. ON 1.8.1995, the complainant again met opposite party-1 who examined him and referred the complainant to Dr. Siddhartha Bose. The said doctor suggested re-operation of the left eye. ON 8.8.1995, the complainant attended the Chamber of opposite party-1 when he was taken to the Operation Theatre. The petitioner felt that a Cord has been removed from his eye. According to the complainant the non-removal of the Cord at the time of the first operation was an act of gross negligence. His left eye had become smaller compared to the right eye. He suffered permanent disability in his left eye due to wrong operation. The complainant consulted Dr. V. Pahwa on 27.11.1995 and understood that he lost vision of the left eye because of wrong operation. The complainant wrote a letter to opposite party-1 making allegation about the damage done to his left eye by the operation. Subsequently, he served Lawyer''s notice upon opposite party-1 claiming compensation. Initially, the complainant filed a case before the District Forum at Chinsurah, Hooghly but subsequently it was withdrawn with liberty to sue fresh. Thereafter, he approached this Commission claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- together with refund of all expenses incurred by him towards charges received by the opposite parties. He has also claimed damages and compensation against the opposite parties.

The opposite parties have filed a written objection denying the allegations contained in the complaint petition. It is, however, admitted that opposite party-1 performed operation on the left eye of the complainant on 29.6.1993 and thereafter he has examined the patient post-operatively last on 28.9.1993. According to the opposite parties, opposite party-1 is a doctor by profession since 1969. It has been claimed that he is attached to various medical institutions and hospitals both in and outside the country. He has specialisation in Opthalmology.

ACCORDING to the opposite parties the complainant was first examined by opposite party-1 on 18.3.1993 when he noticed Cataracts in both eyes and suspected Glaucoma changes in both eyes. The patient was referred to Dr. D. Saha for further investigation on Glaucoma who is a Specialist on that subject. Dr. Saha made Glaucoma Test, i.e. Tonometry, Gonioscopy and Perimetery Test on both the eyes. When the complainant called on opposite party-1 alongwith the report of Glaucoma Test on 24.4.1993 it was noticed that the complainant has both Glaucoma and Cataract in both the eyes with early filed changes in the left eye. ACCORDINGly, the doctor advised the complainant for Cataract extraction and trab left eye first followed by right eye. Since the complainant agreed, tentative date for operation was fixed on 29.6.1993, and the patient was advised to undergo certain pre-operative routine examinations and to call again on 15.6.1993 with such reports. On that date, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,600/- towards the cost of the IOL (Intra Ocular Lens). Ultimately, the left eye was operated upon on 29.6.1993 and the patient was given discharge certificate on that date. The other allegations contained in the complaint petition have been denied and disputed. It has been specifically denied that there is negligence on their part in the matter of treatment of the patient. ACCORDINGly, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition. At the time of hearing, the complainant appears in person and argues the case. The opposite parties are represented by their Counsels. Be that as it may, the undisputed fact is that the complainant having trouble in his left eye approached opposite party-1 for treatment. Opposite party-1 referred him to Dr. Saha for further investigation because he found Cataracts in both eyes and suspected Glaucoma changes in both eyes. Dr. D. Saha is a Specialist on Glaucoma. Dr. Saha examined the patient and made of Glaucoma Test on both eyes. After the report of Dr. Saha was available the same was produced before opposite party-1 who advised the patient for Cataract extraction and trab left eye first follow by right eye. The doctor suggested some pre-operative routine examinations which were done and the date of operation was fixed on 29.6.1993. On that date, the operation was done and he was discharged on the same date. Thereafter, the complainant consulted opposite party-1 on various occasions and was also under his treatment. Being dissatisfied with the result of operation, the complainant consulted some renowned Surgeons of the Town for regaining vision of his left eye. But there was no improvement, and he lost vision of his left eye. The complainant makes opposite party-1 responsible for losing the vision of his left eye. He states that one thread Cord was not removed after the initial operation. But it was removed after a lapse of 2 years when he complained of losing regular shape of left eye. According to the complainant this non-removal of the Cord was an act of negligence on the part of opposite party-1 and this resulted in the loss of vision. As noticed earlier, the complainant consulted various renowned Physicians of his town but none of them has observed that the loss of vision was attributable to the wrong surgery done by opposite party-1. The complainant does not examine any expert on the subject to establish his allegation of negligence on the part of the doctor. Unfortunate though the incident is, the complainant should establish negligence on the part of the doctor to succeed in a case like this. We may observe that there is hardly any cogent material to substantiate the allegation contained in the petition of complaint. Under the circumstances, we cannot but hold that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations against the opposite parties. So he is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

IN view of the aforesaid, we think that the case should fail. Ordered that the case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest but without cost. Complaint dismissed.