"To attribute medical negligence, the onus is on the Complainant" - Adv. Rohit Erande ©

 "To attribute medical negligence, the onus is on the Complainant"

The allegations that prescribing wrong eye drops  damaged the right of the Complainant, were turned down.  

Adv. Rohit Erande ©

Case Details : Before NCDRC, REVISION PETITION NO. 3307 OF 2016

 (Against the Order dated 15/09/2016 in Appeal No. 2519/2015 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)

 DR. SACHIN TYAGI V/s. SULTAN MOHD. KHAN

BEFORE:  

  HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER & HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,MEMBER

ORDER dated : 25 Jan 2022


Facts in short : 


1.     On 10.02.2014 the Complainant underwent right eye cataract operation in Dr. Sharma Prasad Mukherjee (Civil) Hospital, Lucknow and advised to take Tab. Wysolone 20 mg. Thereafter, he had pain in the operated eye and consulted Dr.Sachin Tyagi-the Petitioner on 20.03.2014. He diagnosed it as scleral melt disease and  prescribed  medicines viz. Levobact- eye drop; Soft Drop- eye drop; Panthegel- eye ointment & Saiclodase- Tablet for pain (SOS). Again on 22.03.2014, the Complainant visited the Petitioner wherein it was diagnosed as “Hypopyon” of the operated eye. He changed the medicines to  Microflox 1000 mg- Tablet; Moxicipe- eye drop; Fortified Tombramycin- eye drop; Atrocin- ointment. 

2. The Complainant again visited the hospital of the Petitioner on 31.03.2014, advised one injection Tramasure. As there was no recovery, on 03.04.2014 the Petitioner referred the Complainant to the Retina specialist.  Thereafter, the Complainant approached few eye hospitals and came to know that the Petitioner prescribed wrong eye drops which damaged his right eye. Being aggrieved by the eye damage because of the delayed reference and negligent treatment, he filed the Consumer Complaint before the District forum, Sambhal.

3.       The District Forum partly allowed the Consumer Complaint  and directed the Petitioner  to pay   Rs. 50,000/- as a compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint along with the cost of Rs. 1,000/-, against which    the Petitioner appealed before the State Commission, UP at Lucknow, but in vain and hence the Revision was filed.  

Held :


1. After perusing the record and documents and after hearing of the Parties, the Hon. Commission dismissed the Revision Application.  

2. It was observed that the  Complainant consulted different eye hospitals namely AIIMS -Delhi, Loins Eye Centre and  Sahay hospital Research Centre, Jaipur and all the hospitals diagnosed it as  scleral melt with endophthalmitis of right eye.

3. It was held that to attribute medical negligence, the onus is on the Complainant to establish whether the diagnosis and treatment advised by the Petitioner was not as per the reasonable standard of practice.

4. It was held that from the books on Ophthalmology, the Scleral Melt is Scleral inflammation and necrosis can occur at variable time intervals after different anterior and posterior segment ocular surgeries including pterygium, cataract extraction, trabeculectomy, vitrectomy, and penetrating keratoplasty. A number of systemic diseases have been associated with surgically induced necrotizing scleritis. 

5. In the instant case already there was infection of the sclera and the Petitioner treated it with higher antibiotics as a reasonable standard of practice. But the infection was not resolved, which was diagnosed   on 31.03.2014 as scleral melt along with endophthalmitis therefore he referred the patient to the specialist. We don’t find any deviation or delay in reference.  

6. We further note that the different hospitals treated him with same kind of medicines. Moreover, the scleral melt usually aggravated due to use of excessive steroidal eye drops   but in the instant case the Petitioner has not prescribed any steroids. 


An important judgment. Prescribing proper medication and follow standard practice is the backbone and best defense in any medico-legal case. However, the experts may throw light, their lordships have held that no steroidal eye drops were prescribed, but Tab.    Wysolone falls under the category of steroids. Isn't  it ?


With kind regards


Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency – Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital “Its in the interest of Patients that Doctors. should not be dragged to the Court unnecessarily”” – National Commission observed while dismissing the Compliant for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost. A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016. Factual Matrix in nutshell : 1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI).did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor ...
Read more

A "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.-Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

 The "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.© a. Non availability of Operation Theatre is not a valid ground to hold Hospital Negligent : b. Non functioning of Machines and Equipments cannot be said to be Negligence. c. It is an incorrect assumption to say that, "since surgery was performed by a doctor, he alone would be responsible for different aspects of the treatment required and given to the patient". d. It is too much to expect from a doctor to remain on the bed side of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital. e. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence. f.  In spite of the treatment, if the patient had not survived, the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable g. The doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of  res ips...
Read more

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section " The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (MSCDRC) in its recent judgment dated 31/03/2017, gave the verdict against the Doctor, but absolved the Hospital.. Case details - Mr.Prashant Tamhane V/s. P.D. hinduja Hospital and anr. CC No.221 of 2003. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do… Facts in short : 1. This is the case of 2002. The wife (since deceased) of the Complainant was admitted in the Hospital after the blood reports revealed symptoms of hepatitis. There she was examined by Dr.Ashit Hegde, the Opponent no.2 Doctor in the present case. At that time he after examining the patient he thought it fit for not admitting the patient. By taking medication she was improving. 2.However after about one month, she had Chest pain and difficulty in breathing. Initial X-ray was normal, but in later X-ray, she was diagno...
Read more