Delhi Ophthalmologist to pay Rs 19 lakh to gynecologist for Botched Eye Surgery

New Delhi: A private hospital and its doctor have been held guilty of medical negligence by the Delhi state consumer commission, which has asked them to pay Rs 19 lakh to a gynaecologist who suffered vision loss after a surgery.

The commission also asked the hospital to deposit Rs 20 lakh with the Consumer Welfare Fund maintained by the Commission.

Taking a stern view of the connivance of the eye hospital in the posh Greater Kailash area in New Delhi, with the accused doctor to escape legal action, it asked the Medical Council of India (MCI) to initiate inquiry against him and the hospital for deficient service.

“Hospital is hand-in-glove with the doctor and concealed the surgery notes from the complainant as well from this court. Hospital again has been deficient in its services,” the commission headed by judicial member N P Kaushik said.

It observed, “The doctor and the hospital are not only guilty of deficiency in service but also guilty of fabricating records to wriggle out of the clutches of law.”

The commission asked Sharad Lakhotia, the guilty doctor, to compensate victim Prakash Sharma, who underwent a cataract surgery in 1998 after which she gradually lost vision in her left eye, noting it affected her medical career.

According to the complaint filed by Sharma, who served with the Army Medical Corps, she had undergone Intra Ocular Lens (IOL) implantation surgery performed by doctor Lakhotia at the hospital in 1998 and lost her eyesight.

Sharma also alleged that doctor Lakhotia’s negligence led to the injury, which he tried to cover up by hiding the true outcome of the surgery and gave her misleading assurances that her vision would return soon.

It further alleged that when her vision did not return, she sought additional medical opinion and got to know the true condition of her eye.

Dr Lakhotia, however, denied any wrongdoing on his part and claimed that the patient had suffered the injury in her eye due to a fall at her house.

Attached is the judgement below