SAVITRI DEVI vs Pradeep Kumar Singhania

THE facts, in brief, are that on 31.07.2001 the complainant, Savitri Devi, a 70 year old lady consulted Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singhania, the OP, for the trouble in her right eye, she was diagnosed as advanced cataract in right eye. OP advised cataract operation and (IOL) implantation of lens, and gave full assurance that her trouble of eye would completely cure after surgery. She got operated her right eye on 12.8.2001 but she did not regain her vision and her problem aggravated. She again consulted the OP on 3.9.2001, on examination of right eye; the OP found retinal detachment (RD). As the treatment of retina was not available in Bhagalpur, the O.P. advised her to consult Dr. Subhash Pd. at Patna, who confirmed the detachment of retina. due to negligence and mistake of the O.P. Alleging negligence committed by OP, the complainant filed a complaint against OP in the District Forum, Bhagalpur and prayed for compensation of Rs.1,60,000/ - including cost of legal expenses and compensation.

THE District Forum, Bhagalpur dismissed the complaint on 13.09.2007.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, Bhagalpur, the OP preferred first appeal No. 552 of 2007 before State Commission, Bihar, which was dismissed by an impugned order dated 2.12.2009. Hence, against it, OP approached this commission through this revision petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the evidence and medical documents. The counsel for OP submitted that OP had done systemic clinical tests prior to surgery. B - Scan was not required because of matured cataract, and there were no signs of ''Anterior Uvities'' in the right eye, hence no chance of R.D., therefore, he did not think of need for B -Scan. Also, there was no facility for B scan test in Bhagalpur.

THE learned counsel for the complainant strongly argued on the points of qualification, competence, skill and expertise of the OP. Counsel submitted that the OP is M.S. in ENT, does not have MS Degree in Ophthalmology. Hence, as per MCI norms, he is not entitled to perform surgery on the eye.

XXX XXX XXX

WE have perused the qualifications of OP, which revealed us that the OP, after MBBS, completed DOMS from Sitapur Eye Hospital which is also regional institute of Ophthalmology. He took training for IOL implantation from Aurobindo Eye Hospital,Madurai. He was posted as Chief Eye Surgeon in NISM, Veera -yatan, Rajgir for two years during 1994 -96. Therefore, we are of considered view that OP was a qualified eye specialist having competence, skill and expertise. Secondly, regarding B -Scan, it is not necessary in each and every case of Cataract. There was no sign of Anterior Uveities in the right eye, hence retinal detachment could not be suspected prior to cataract surgery. Moreover, there was no provision for B Scan test in Bhagalpur.

WE have perused the standard medical books in Ophthalmology on Cataract Surgery. In the instant case, the cataract was matured and opaque, there was visual perception for light, thus, the doctor took decision on his clinical assessment to perform cataract operation. The OP already stated that B -Scan facility was not available in Bhagalpur. The B -Scan will not be a conclusive proof of retinal detachment or any hemorrhage.

THE doctor can choose the method of treatment based on his clinical judgment. It is well established from the several judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In the case Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Ors. v State of Maharashtra and Ors (1996) 2 SCC 634, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, held that: "in the very nature of medical profession, skills differs from doctor to doctor and more than one alternative course of treatment are available, all admissible. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession."

In Jacob Mathew V State of Punjab & Anr, (2005) 6 SSC 1= III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC), it was observed that, " a professional may be held liable on one of two findings : either he was not possessed of requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise reasonable competence in given case, the skill which he did possess."

IN the instant case, the OP was a qualified ophthalmologist; possesses required skill to perform cataract surgery. Therefore, on the basis of forgoing discussion and relying upon the view from judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court, we find no merit in this revision, hence dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.