RAMESHBHAI P.PRAJAPATI vs P.N.NAGPAL

THIS complaint is preferred by Rameshbhai Purshottamdas Prajapati and minor son Anil Rameshbhai Prajapati against Dr. P.N. Nagpal for alleged negligence in medical services rendered to minor Anil. Compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- is asked on above grounds.

MINOR Anil aged 6 years was taken to opponent on 12.7.94 for treatment of pain in right eye. Complainant paid Rs. 100/- as consultation charge. Diagnosis of cataract of right eye was made and urgent surgery was advised. Patient Anil was admitted on 13.7.94. The father claims that he paid Rs. 4,700/- for operation and Rs. 900/- for anaesthesia - 4 times; after operation patient was kept indoor for 3 days and then discharged saying he is alright. Patient was discharged with bandage to right eye which was to be left in till next visit on 19.7.94. After opening bandage, another follow-up after one week was advised for. Regarding cloudiness in right eye father was assured, it will go away. On 26.7.94 when patient was examined repeatedly by opponent, patient Anil had said he could not see anything with right eye; patient was repeatedly asked if he could see. Answer was consistent "No". Thereafter the father was told that Anil has become blind in his right eye and nothing can be done about it. Patient and father then went home. Complainant consulted Shivanand Mission who also said Anil was blind in right eye and nothing can be done about it. Complainant alleged that because of gross negligence of opponent Anil has become blind in right eye and he has asked for Rs. 11 lacs as damages. Complainant has made sworn affidavit for the above story. Complainant has submitted a copy of notice to opponent and other documents listed at Exhibit 3. In reply to above, with permission of commission, written statement of opponent was submitted (Exhibit 7). It is stated by opponent that patient was seen by his colleague Dr. Sharma on 12.7.94 for eye injury caused (on 10.7.94) by broom stick and child was treated for the same (Not mentioned by whom) and various treatments are enumerated. It is further stated that diagnosis was not cataract. Patient further was advised operation for removal of piece of broom stick struck in right eye of Anil and treatment of associated infection. Initially Foreign body was removed on 12.7.94 and various drug treatments given. Patient was re-examined under anaesthesia on 13.7.94 and it showed infection in posterior part of eye-ball. Sonography was done. It is admitted that cataract operation was done and also vitrectomy was done to remove pus from the eye-ball. Curiously opponent has not mentioned as to, if at all he had ever examined the patient or for that matter if he even operated the patient. The opponent also does not mention what was the condition of the vision before the operative intervention. The opponent also has not produced any case records where the detail could be available; more so when Anil was examined by his colleague. Dr. Sharma and not him. Opponent also does not say who operated the patient. Patient was taken to opponent for treatment and it is apparent, opponent delegated patient to his colleague without the consent of complainant. It seems the patient was managed by the staff of opponent and not by him; this inference is derived from the fact that patient was initially seen by Dr. Sharma as admitted and name of Dr. Sharma appears on one of the papers submitted by complainant with Annexure-3, but oddly name of Dr. Sharma does not appear in indoor/ discharge ticket Annexure 3. It is further claimed by opponent on page 5 of his statement that patient was examined in "detail and prognosis was explained". It further states, "All allegations about checking and vision are incorrect"; does it mean vision was not checked ? There is no clear answer to that.

The opponent also narrates his qualifications, credentials and achievements and alleges that complainant has complained only to extort money, but the sad fact remains that child Anil has become blind in right eye as per certificate of Saurashtra Central Hospital dated 30.11.94 (Annexure 3) (No PL in right eye).

IN present situation we are sadly handicapped by absence of material evidence either way and that law demands that complainants prove their complaint by convincing material evidence sadly lacking for more than one reason. We dismiss this complaint for lack of evidence without further comments. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.