Blatant Result Of Medical Negligence In Post-Op Care: SC Restores Compensation For Family Of Cataract Patient Who Suffered Complete Loss Of Vision
The Supreme Court restored a compensation of Rs. 3.5 Lakh awarded by a State Consumer Commission to the family of a cataract patient who suffered complete loss of vision in his right eye due to alleged medical negligence by an eye surgeon.
The Court stated that it was blatant result of medical negligence by the Doctor (Respondent) in post-operative care wherein corrective steps could have been taken, if the most reasonable and basic skills which were expected from the Doctor, were applied. The Bench set aside the impugned Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which held that the infection was likely caused by the Patient’s (Appellant) handling of his own bandages and not due to any negligence by the Respondent.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “It becomes clear that the respondent failed to detect the infection and clear the same in time despite several complaints by the appellant. The said infection was diagnosed by the three doctors, namely Dr. Chitra Khare, Dr. Nitin Prabhudesai and doctors at the Military Hospital, but it was too late by then and the appellant had to undergo evisceration of his right eye leading to loss of vision. It was a blatant result of medical negligence by the respondent in post-operative care wherein corrective steps could have been taken, if the most reasonable and basic skills which were expected from the respondent-doctor, were applied.”
AOR Pratiksha Sharma represented the Appellant.
The Appellant underwent a cataract surgery on his right eye performed by the Respondent, an eye surgeon in 1999. Post-operation, the Appellant complained of severe pain, headache, and sticky discharge from the operated eye. Despite multiple visits to the Respondent, the Appellant was assured that the operation was successful.
Consultations with other doctors revealed a diagnosis of endophthalmitis, an infection in the operated eye. The Appellant underwent further treatment at a military hospital, resulting in the removal of the intraocular lens. Although the eyeball was retained for cosmetic purposes, the appellant suffered complete loss of vision in the right eye.
The Appellant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Pune, seeking compensation for the loss of vision and associated hardships. The forum dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the State Consumer Commission reversed the decision, stating that the Respondent had failed to provide adequate post-operative care.
The Respondent then filed a Revision Petition before the NCDRC, which dismissed the complaint, attributing the infection to the Appellant’s alleged mishandling of post-operative care.
The Supreme Court stated that the State Commission had rightly observed that the Respondent had not produced any case papers or prescription details to corroborate his written version. “Rather, it was only at the appellate stage before the State Commission that the respondent produced such case papers for the first time. Even then, a bare perusal of prescription dated 23.01.1999 makes no specific mention of any trauma that has been observed by the respondent-doctor on the said date. The said fact has not been taken note of by NCDRC in the impugned order,” it noted.
The Bench relied on medical opinion presented during the proceedings before the State Commission, which pointed out that oozing of pus and persistent pain after cataract surgery were indicative of infection requiring urgent medical attention.
“Given the medical opinion reproduced above and the fact that the appellant made five visits to the respondent-doctor in a week’s period while consistently complaining of immense pain in the operated eye, headache and lack of vision while the respondent kept reassuring him that the operation was successful and he would recover his vision eventually, whereas all the three other doctors who the appellant visited on 27.01.1999 opined that the appellant was suffering from endophthalmitis which has led to complete damage of the eye, it becomes evident that the respondent-doctor was negligent in his diagnosing the respondent’s eye,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Court held, “Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakh fifty thousand only) to the appellants within a period of 2 months.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal(D) By Lrs. v. Madhusudan N. Kumbhare (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1035)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Pratiksha Sharma; Advocates Ramjeet Sharma, M.k Tripathi, Ankit Acharya and Ritu Chaudhary
