NCDRC holds no Medical negligence in Cataract Surgery, exonerates Kolkata Eye Hospital, doctors
New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has exonerated Kolkata based Eye Care Hospital and its two doctors from charges of medical negligence in cataract surgery, which allegedly resulted in vision loss of the patient.
Although the District and State Commission had held the doctors guilty of negligence and awarded compensation, the NCDRC bench recently observed, "in our view, the retinal detachment was properly treated by the OP-3 and further by senior vitireo retinal surgeon Dr. Tamal Kanti Roy Sarkar. We do not find deficiency or negligence on the part of the OP-3. The negligence cannot be attributed to him so long as he performed his duties to the best of his ability."
The patient had approached the District Consumer Court alleging post-cataract negligence causing loss of vision in the right eye of the complainant. As per the medical record, the patient approached the Vasan Eye Hospital and after detecting cataract, the doctors suggested cataract surgery. Before the operation, the patient's vision in the right eye was 6/36 N18(P).
At that time, the patient was explained in detail about the visual outcome and prognosis after the surgery because he also had corneal ailment. Accordingly, the right eye cataract extraction was conducted on 22.11.2012 by Manual phaco/SICS with Acrysof IQ Lens under Viscoat to protect the cornea.
Although the surgery was uneventful, during the follow up checkup it was noted that the vision in the right eye was +3.25 N10 and left eye +3.00 N6. Following this, the patient had been referred to Dr. Prosenjit Mondal for the complaints of floaters in the right eye and examination of retina. After examining the patient, Dr. Mondal noted that the Anterior Segment of Right Eye showed good Pseudo-phakia with well-placed lOL in the bag/No reaction in Anterior and Posterior Segment. The Left Eye showed immature Cataract.
Fundus Examination of Right Eye revealed Retinal Detachment & Pale Optic Disc, and accordingly, surgery under Guarded Visual Prognosis was advised. After this, the patient underwent Right Eye Sclera buckle with Pars Plana-Vitrectomy with Perfluoro-cabon liquid injection with Endo-laser with silicon oil. The Retina well attached with silicon oil filled eye. In this case as well, the post-operative period was uneventful. A few months later, the patient underwent right eye silicon removal.
Consequently, the patient had been referred to the senior vitireo retinal surgeon Dr. Tamal Kanti Roy Sarkar who, on 21.03.2013, performed Right Eye IOL Explantation with Endo-laser with silicon oil injection. Examination of the patient revealed that the patient's best corrected visual acuity was 6/12 P in Right eye and 6/12 in left eye.
The record further revealed that since there was corneal pathology, the patient had been advised to use Contact Lens. However, the patient did not follow the advice and insisted for implantation of Secondary Lens which was detrimental to the patient in view of corneal ailment with history of previous retinal detachment. hereafter, on 04.07.2013, the patient underwent right eye silicon oil removal with Endo-laser.
When the patient approached the District Commission, the consumer court held that the third operation was not at all necessary and due to this, the complainant lost his vision in the right eye. Therefore, the Commission had directed the Hospital to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation for the loss of his eye.
When the matter reached the State Commission, the court enhanced the compensation amount and directed the Hospital and the hospitals to pay Rs 1 lakh each for the alleged medical negligence.
Being aggrieved, both the hospital and the doctors filed the revision petitions before the top consumer court. After reiterating the facts and presenting the evidence the counsel for complainant vehemently argued that the Complainant lost his vision permanently, therefore, he deserves enhanced compensation as prayed in the Complaint. On the other hand, the counsel for the Hospital and the doctors referred to the medical record and argued that there was no medical negligence on their part.
After taking note of the submissions by both the parties and also perusing the medical record, the NCDRC bench noted,
"Thus, in our view, the retinal detachment was properly treated by the OP-3 and further by senior vitireo retinal surgeon Dr. Tamal Kanti Roy Sarkar. We do not find deficiency or negligence on the part of the OP-3. The negligence cannot be attributed to him so long as he performed his duties to the best of his ability."
At this outset, the bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Achutrao Haribhao Khodwa & Others V State of Maharashtra & others, where the top court held that "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."
"Based on the foregoing discussion, both the fora below erred to hold the OPs liable for medical negligence. It was an error that the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on humanitarian ground, whereas the State Commission enhanced it to Rs. 1 lakh each. In our view, both the fora have taken sympathetic view and awarded the compensation, however sympathy cannot substitute for conclusive evidence of medical negligence. In the instant case, the medical negligence could not be conclusively attributed against the hospital and the treating doctors."
