Vision loss due to negligence in surgery: Eye Hospital, ophthalmologists slapped Rs 15 lakh Compensation

Visakhapatnam: Holding a private eye institute, its director and two ophthalmologists guilty of medical negligence, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam directed them to pay Rs 15 lakh to the patient who lost vision in one eye.

The history of the case goes back to February 2019 when the patient was chatting with his friend while another friend was playing with an air rifle. One of the pellets from the air rifle touched the complainant's left eye and due to this, he sustained bleeding injury.

Although he was shifted to Visakha Eye Hospital, Visakhapatnam at first, the doctors expressed their inability to treat the patient and advised him to shift to the treating hospital i.e. L.V. Prasad Eye Institute.

Accordingly, the patient was admitted to the treating hospital, where Dr. Ballala, the on-duty ophthalmologist, checked the patient and instructed the optometrist to check the injury. Later, after observation, the complainant was sent to Dr Annapoorna, who diagnosed that the complainant's left eye was having 'Open Globe Injury-Zone 1'. Therefore, Slit Lamp Photography was conducted for the injury and it was found that the complainant had defective vision following the injury with a gun pellet (Aluminimum Pellet) and found subconjunctival hemorrhage + full thickness corneal tear from 12 o'clock limbus towards inferiority in Y shape- indo dialysis and iris prolapse through the wound - vitreous prolapsed along with lens prolapsed noted through the wound-vitreous hemorrhage.

Following this, the doctor shielded the complainant's eye and medicines were also prescribed. The complainant was advised of surgery- primary globe integrity and was explained the risk of Endophthalmitis, Sympathetic Ophthalmitis and Retinal detachment. After explaining his condition, the doctor advised for a management operation for a corneal tear.

Accordingly, the surgery was conducted on 20.02.2019. It was alleged that the B Scan was conducted only on the next day of operation and was not conducted before the operation or on the date of operation. However, there was no improvement in the injured eye and thereafter the complainant visited Aravind Eye Hospital in Coimbatore. A CT scan was conducted and it revealed that the pellet was still there in the left eye.

Consequently, the complainant moved to several eye hospitals and underwent another surgery for removal of the remaining pellet part and the patient also underwent Oculoplasty but his vision was not restored.

Thereafter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Visakhapatnam and asked the eye hospital, its director and two doctors to pay compensation for their medical negligence leading to the loss of the complainant's vision.

On the other hand, the hospital and its doctors denied any medical negligence on their part and submitted that the surgery was performed as per internationally accepted practice with due care and concern and the bleeding from the complainant's eye was successfully stopped on the day of surgery.

They further submitted that the treatment post-procedure was duly prescribed and explained to the complainant. According to the hospital and its doctors, the complainant did not follow up as advised and therefore the complainant having not followed the advice cannot now attribute negligence on the part of the hospital and its doctors.

While considering the matter, the District Consumer Court noted,

"Irrespective of the recovery of vision, the Exhibits placed on the file of this Commission and the treatment report filed by the opposite parties prima facie speak that the present case is `res ipsa loquitur.' The first instance of decision making to proceed for the surgery without proper investigations and tests proves negligence on part of the opposite parties-1 to 4 which falls within the guidelines of the above quoted precedents, rather the opposite parties-1 to 4 failed to abide by their duties as per the guidelines set by the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore the opposite parties-1 to 4 (the hospital's directors and doctors) are at liability for medical negligence, thereby deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony, and sufferance."

"...such a part of the body/ an eye should be attended with utmost care. The Complainant had to roam around pillar to post searching for a specialist/expert who was not referred by the Opposite Parties-1 to 4 which was their duty to do so and spend a lot of money with a hope of recovery of vision and ultimately had to go for oculoplasty and incur lots of financial loss and sufferance which could have been avoided if the treatment at 2nd opposite party hospital was done in an right manner at the right time," observed the Commission.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/visakhapatnam-dcdrc-254067.pdf

Also Read: Doctors Need to be Protected from Frivolous Prosecution for Unjust Compensation: Bombay HC