Vision loss post-cataract surgery: Ophthalmologist exonerated of medical negligence charges
"The mere fact that desired result could not be achieved is no ground for holding the doctor guilty of negligence."
West Bengal: Bringing major relief to a doctors, the West Bengal Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has set aside the judgment of a district consumer forum which directed an ophthalmologist to pay 2 lakh compensation to a patient who alleged that he lost the vision of his right side due to the negligence of the doctor during cataract surgery.
The Doctor had approached the court opposing the order of the district consumer forum. After examining the case, the state commission found, " the DCDRF in the impugned judgement held the Appellant guilty of negligence being swayed by the allegations given against the Doctor or the Hospital instead of giving proper weight to the observation of the Enquiry Committee."
The patient had filed an application before the District Consumer Forum, 24-Parganas (North) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of the loss of his right eyesight post the operation. He alleged that due to low vision in his right eye, he consulted the visiting physician at Baranagar State General Hospital and upon physical examination of the patient the accused doctor assured the patient that he would get normal vision after removal of a cataract from his right eye and advised him to go for such operation.
Accordingly, the patient appeared for a cataract operation of his right eye and the surgeon performed a cataract operation on his right eye with certain post-operative directions given to him. But soon after the operation the patient allegedly found that he absolutely lost his vision through his right eye though he had a low vision before such operation.
After the operation was over, the patient went to Opthalmology Division of Nilratan Sarkar Medical College and Hospital as well as before the Medical College, Kolkata where both the doctors opined that the vision of the right eye of the complainant would not be back. The patient felt that the operating Doctor carelessly operated on his right eye and caused his blindness in the said eye for which he demanded stringent action against the doctor and compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed for the loss of such vision.
The counsel for the ophthalmologist submitted that the patient underwent cataract operation under the National Programme for Control of Blindness which was absolutely free of cost and the patient was operated on on the same date thereafter he attended the OPD with a good vision and good condition. The doctor further claimed that on 01-02-2013 the complainant/patient paid a visit to the hospital with a complaint of the dimness of vision.
The patient was examined and the OP found that the lens was not in the position and referred the patient to vitreoretinal surgery with implantation of intraocular lens and sent the patient to NRS Hospital, Kolkata. The patient was admitted and stayed there for a week for his successful operation by vitreoretinal surgeon with implantation of intraocular lens. The patient was discharged on 08-02-2013 with good post-operative vision, but the complainant lost his vision subsequently for which the OP should not be blamed. Denying and disputing all other material allegations with regard to earning of a handsome amount from the complainant, the OP doctor ultimately prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.
The District consumer forum allowed the petition of complaint and directed the doctor to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) and other consequential reliefs, after which the doctor approached the state consumer commission opposing the order.
After considering the submission of both the parties, the state consumer forum observed that an Enquiry Committee was formed to review the cause of blindness of the patient as it was a case operated under the National Programme for Control of Blindness, a Government Sponsored Scheme where the Enquiry Committee concluded that ' as per medical records available the case was though unfortunate but an acceptable postoperative complication of mature/hyper mature cataract surgery (decentered IOL had happened).'
It was also observed that the case was attended promptly and correctly referred to NRSMCH by the accused doctor; the patient was treated at the facility by the Assistant Professor, Department of Opthalmology, NRSMCH and was finally discharged on 08-02-2013 with "good visual acuity".
The court also took note of the fact
" patient raised a complaint against the appellant after a lapse of five months or more but upon consideration of the facts and materials on record the committee found the appellant not negligent in performing his duties as an Ophthalmologist and such observation of the Enquiry Committee dated 10-10-2010 was produced before Ld. DCDRF during trial but the DCDRF concerned instead of expecting the opinion of the Enquiry Committee rejected the same and held the appellant guilty of negligence in treating the patient with a further allegation that the prognosis of surgery was not explained to the patient. "
The State commission stated that in the instant case the DCDRF while dealing with the complaint case disposed it of with a sympathetic attitude without addressing the findings of the Enquiry Committee properly but with blame to the human factor.
"The mere fact that desired result could not be achieved is no ground for holding the doctor guilty of negligence."
Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Ors –Vs- State of Maharashtra & Ors (1996), the commission observed, " the very nature of the profession is such that there may be one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient , courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution".
The Commision further observed the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jacob Mathew (supra) where it has been stated
"a medical practitioner faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act. In order to succeed, the complainant was under obligation to make out a case of negligence before a Medical Practitioner is charged with ………"
The commission found it absolutely lacking in the current case. The court set aside the judgment of the district court and stated
Since the complainant failed to make out a case of negligence against the attending doctor, and did not prefer to send the matter to a Body of Experts in the Field of Treatment of the patient to establish negligence on the part of the surgeon and the allegation effects adversely to the complainant. Hence , upon taking into consideration the materials on record in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, quoted hereinabove, we firmly conclude that no amount of compensation can be imposed upon the treating Doctor i.e. the Appellant herein.
To view the judgement, click on the link given below:
Next Story