Botched Sinus Operation damaging eye vision made ENT Doctor to pay Rs.2 lakhs. : Adv. ROHiT ERANDE. ©

 Botched Sinus Operation damaging eye vision made ENT Doctor to pay Rs.2 lakhs.

However, the Court reduced the claim amount as it was covered by Employee State Insurance.

Adv.  ROHiT ERANDE. ©

 

BALAJI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & ANR. CHHATTISGARH

V/s. ARUNA AGARWAL

 


 

BEFORE:

 

 

HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER

 

HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,MEMBER

 

Judgment Link :

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FRP%2F921%2F2019&dtofhearing=2022-06-08

 

ORDER

Pronounced on  8th June, 2022

 This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Parties”) against the Order dated 11.02.2019 passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 904/2018.

Facts in short :

1.                The complainant -Opponent was a private school Teacher & was a member of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and she was eligible for treatment in any authorized hospital. In March 2014 she took treatment at Petitioner- No.1  hospital for Nasal Block and Sinus related ailments.

2.                It was alleged that the Petitioner /OP-2 negligently performed the nasal operation and damaged the nerves of the eyes. Therefore she developed double vision, unbearable pain and left eye rotation was stopped. She was kept in hospital for long time. Thereafter, she took treatment from another doctor and cured from double vision, but her left eyeball was fixed, could not move, which made difficult for her routine works. Being aggrieved the complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum, Raipur.

3.                The OPs denied negligence and any deficiency during treatment of the patient. It was submitted that the patient had problems in her eyes prior to the operation.

4.                The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 66,351/- as a cost of treatment alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. It also awarded Rs. 2 lakh towards the compensation for the damages on account of deficiency in service during treatment of sinus and other ailments and Rs. 3,000/- allowed towards cost of litigation.

5.                Being aggrieved, the OPs filed appeal before state Commission for setting aside the Order of the District Forum and the Complainant also filed appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement and partly allowed the Appeal filed by the OPs by disallowing the order of Rs. 66,351/-was disallowed, but Rs.2 lakh order was kept as it is. Being aggrieved, the OPs filed the instant Revision Petition.

Held :

1.             The National Commission perused the Facts and documents. It refereed to the expert opinion of  The Medical Board which was headed by Dr. Nidhi Pandey, Professor/Chairman Specialist in Eyes of Samiriti Mahavidhyalaya, Raipur.  The members - Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Dr. Harshwardhan Gupta and Dr. Reshu Malhotra gave their separate opinions. It was observed that the defects in the left eye of the complainant developed due to negligence of the OP-2 while conducting operation of nasal block.  The opinion is reproduced as below:

1. The Nasal Sinus surgery was performed by the ENT Surgeon at Balaji Hospital;

2. On perusal of the documents placed before us the patient suffered complication in her left eye after the nasal sinus operation;

3. As per the medical literature this complication may be occurred in 5% cases after the Nasal Sinus Surgeries.

2. It was held that, Admittedly, as the ESIC covers the cost of treatment (Rs. 66,351/-),  we agree with the State Commission, which disallowed the treatment costs from the award of compensation. The National Commission refused to exercise its Revisional Jurisdiction as the concurrent findings were given by both the Foras.

This judgment gives one o the important procedural aspect that the National Commission will entertain the Revision Petitions only when it feels that intervention is necessary on account of  jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.

Thanks and regards,

Adv.  ROHiT ERANDE. ©

Pune.

 

 

 

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