Rs. 5 lakhs saddled on Ophthalmologist for implanting Posterior chamber IOL in Anterior Chamber, but saved by Professional Indemnity Policy. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

 Rs. 5 lakhs saddled on Ophthalmologist for implanting Posterior chamber IOL in Anterior Chamber, but saved by Professional Indemnity Policy.

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE. ©

(Before NCDRC, REVISION PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2010)

DR. AJIT S JAIN & ANR V/s. USHA KHARE & ANR, Bhopal

Judgment Link :

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FRP%2F1218%2F2010&dtofhearing=2022-07-04  

BEFORE:  

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

  HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,MEMBER

Dated : 04 Jul 2022

Facts in short : The case goes back to  incident in the year 2004!!

1. The Petitioner has filed the instant Revision Petition filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, MP (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 621 of 2007, wherein the Appeal was dismissed and upheld the order passed by the District Forum, Bhopal.

 

2. The Complainant underwent operation of removal of left eye cataract and insertion of Intra Ocular Lens (IOL) at Bhopal Eye Hospital (OP-2) on 09.12.2004.  The Doctor promised her that after lens implantation she would not have to use spectacles, but on next day she found that blood was coming from the operated eye. She was taken to the operation theatre, wherein Doctor put stitches and asked to come for check-up after 10 days. But due to severe pain after 3-4 days she approached the hospital, wherein the stitches were removed and was again called after 10 days, however, she did not get any relief from severe pain in left eye. 

  Even after taking treatment for 5 months, she lost her vision and did not get relief from the pain.  Thereafter, the Patient  approached other Ophthalmologists and came to know that the Doctor instead of implanting IOL in posterior chamber, it was implanted outside i.e. in anterior chamber at eccentric location. However, the Doctor never accepted the fact.  Therefore, being aggrieved the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Bhopal.

  

3. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and ordered the Petitioner No.2 i.e. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs under the Doctor’s Professional indemnity policy to the Complainant and  Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation and the State commission confirmed this order and hence the Doctor approached national commission. 

4. The State commission directed the complainant  to get herself examined at Director/HOD Department of Ophthalmology, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal Inference and the Report was self explanatory, which said “Posterior chamber IOL has been planted in anterior chamber. Treatment papers show that treatment has been given for post-operative inflammation."

 HELD :

  1. After perusal of medical record and hearing of Arguments, after the Cataract operation, the patient developed the compliant of  hyphaemia (oozing of blood) and thereafter, when she consulted various doctors in Bhopal &  Indore, she came to know the negligence caused by the Doctor. 

2. The Commission perused various prescriptions of Dr. Prashant Bhartiya, Bombay Hospital, which mentioned Poor visual recovery- Also has been having chronic pain & redness. Chronic uvetitis persisting due to irritation of rigid haptics of PC & OL in AC.

3. The discharge ticket of OP-2 hospital revealed a sticker of Aurolab-REF. S3600SQ, Power +25.1. Thus, it was PCIOL.  

4. Further, the Commission referred the specific instruction No. 4 of the Aurolab (Intraocular Lens Division). The safety and effectiveness of a posterior chamber lens if placed in the anterior chamber has not been established and such implantation to be unsafe in some cases. 

5. It was held that the Doctor  did not mention in operation notes or discharge card about the cataract has been removed by ECCE instead of ICCE operation and  thus, it is evident that IOL was not implanted in correct chamber. As even after treatment and several visits to the Appellant Doctor when the vision not recovered and itching in eye did not subside.  

6. Therefore, the Complainant consulted various Ophthalmologists and all of them, in their prescriptions mentioned that the IOL should have been implanted inside the membrane but it was wrongly implanted by the OP-1 outside the membrane and the lens was fixed eccentric. They further have suggested to take treatment from higher centers Shankar Netralaya, Chennai or at Mumbai.

7. The Commission also referred to and relied on the Report of Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and observed that  it was proved that the Posterior chamber IOL has been implanted in anterior chamber, thus, it was not an accepted standard of practice.  

8. The Commission after perusing few books on Ophthalmology  observed that after cataract removal, if primary IOL implantation was not possible, in that case it was the duty of ophthalmic surgeon to re-do IOL implantation i.e. secondary IOL. But, in the instant case the Doctor could have done secondary IOL after one month if facilities are available with him or he could have referred the patient to higher centre.  

9. The Commission observed that they are of considered view that pain in the left eye and other problems were due to the wrong procedure adopted by the OP-1.  It was the failure of duty of care, thus, the medical negligence.    

10. Further the Commission held that in its Revisional jurisdiction, it will   be loath in interfering with the Concurrent findings. 

 

This Case clearly establishes the negligence on part of Doctors and thanks to Medical Record and further the other Doctors also corroborated the same. But one important aspect of this case is that of professional indemnity Policy, that saved the Doctor. So Professional indemnity Policy is a must for the Doctors, but also remember it cannot be the alternative for duty to care. 

Thanks and Regards

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE. ©

Pune.