"No Cure is No Negligence, Rs. 2 Crores complaint filed against AIIMS dismissed "

"No Cure is No Negligence. The allegations of improper use of steroids were turned down.  The Complaint filed by the complainant is the outcome of  ignorance of medical knowledge. "

Case Details :

ABHISHEK MEENA V/s All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) & ors.

Consumer Case No. 305 OF 2018

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER

Judgment Link :

ms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FCC%2F305%2F2018&dtofhearing=2019-07-01

Facts in brief :

1. The Complainant alleged that he permanently lost his 'right eye vision' due to negligent treatment and hence filed a case claiming Rs. 2 Crores towards compensation.

2. On 29.06.2017 complainant approached the eye institute i.e. 'Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences' for his complaint of blurring of vision in his right eye. After examination and various tests doctors prescribed   few medicines including steroid -Wysolone and its the case of complainant that he had no major problem, but continuous use of Wysolone resulted   severe swelling of face with pimples and also significant loss of weight. His eyesight was also gradually lost. 

3. It was alleged that he was suffering from tuberculosis and doctor without doing Chest CT scan should not have started  giving him Wysolone-60, which was lately stopped after CT Scan.

4. The Hospital and  doctors from department of ophthalmology and pulmonary medicine refuted the compliant and contended that they have taken all the efforts to arrive at proper diagnosis and treated the patient as per standard practice.

Held :

1. After hearing of the parties and perusing the documents, the National Commission dismissed the complaint.

2. From record it appeared that the patient's  vision was 6/12 in left eye and 6/12 in right eye. Doctors prescribed ‘Wysolone 60 mg.’ and Pantocid 40 mg. once a day and patient was referred to Pulmonary medicine department on 05.07.2017 to rule out possibility of Tuberculosis or Sarcoidosis alongwith few blood Tests and X-ray, USG.

3. The CT Scan report  was made available on 26.07.2017.  On seeing the report, the doctors at eye institute stopped said  medicine and again advised to consult pulmonary medicine department wherein doctor told him to undergo EBUS and TBNA tests.In the meantime,  injection Posterior sub-Tenon injection (PST) 0.5 mg on 29.07.2017 was administered to the  patient’s right eye and he was advised to wait for opinion from Pulmonary Department, medicine opinion / clearance for oral steroid.  He was given another injection of Intravitreal Avastin on 19.08.2017.  From 23.08.2017, the dose of Wysolone 40 mg. once a day was given.  thus, same treatment was confirmed. 

4. Vision tested on 05.08.2017 was 6/12 in the right eye and 6/9 in the left eye and few drops were prescribed, But gradually his right eye sight became very weak, doctors injected Inj. Avastin on 14.08.2017 and was called for follow-up on 23.08.2017.  However, on 17.08.2017, the complainant lost complete vision in right eye and was declared to be a permanent damage without any further treatment.The EBUS –TBNA test and Radiological Tests done reported as mediastinal lymphnode necrosis and AFB was positive – thus  mediastinal tuberculosis (TB) 

5. The Commission observed that from the aforesaid facts  it is an admitted  case of disc-granuloma in the right eye. The Court relied upon certain medical literature to come to the conclusion that the disc granuloma was  the main cause diminution of vision  in the right eye of the patient and the main cause for disc granuloma is either tuberculosis or sarcoidosis. The  doctors from department of ophthalmology and pulmonary medicine have taken all the efforts to arrive at proper diagnosis and treated the patient as per standard practice and it is evident from the fact that they advised EBUS test  to rule out tuberculosis or sarcoidosis or other pathology in the lungs.

6. The Court further observed that the administration of steroid in the TB patient is neither contraindicated nor had any serious adverse effect on the prognosis of disease and its not a deviation of reasonable practice nor negligence of doctors.

7. Lastly,the Court observed that  Sarcoidosis and TB show epidemiological, immunological, and molecular features common to both, and often, it becomes difficult to differentiate them especially in a highly TB-endemic country like India. The case optic disc granuloma along with mediastinal TB  the choice of treatment will be anti-tuberculosis therapy and oral steroids. It should be borne in mind that, ‘no cure is no negligence’. It was held that the complaint is misconceived and filed by the complainant with the ignorance of medical knowledge. 

The Commission has reiterated important principle in Medico-Legal case that "No cure is no negligence". It underlines the fact that Medical Science is an incomplete science. We must know its limitations. There are cases where Courts have imposed Crores of rupees compensation upon Doctors. But  the case has been held to be the  outcome of  ignorance of medical knowledge, then Doctors will not be wrong if they claim compensation ?

Thanks and Regards

Adv. Rohit Erande

Pune. ©