Chandigarh: Medical Negligence Case Dismissed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Background of the Case
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Punjab recently ruled in favor of an eye surgeon and hospital, dismissing allegations of medical negligence related to a Lasik Eye Surgery performed in 2017. The Commission established that a medical practitioner or facility is only liable if their actions fall below the standards of a competent practitioner in their field.
Patient’s Initial Consultation
In 2017, the complainant visited the treating eye hospital, where an examination revealed that his right eye had a distance vision of -2.00 and the left eye -1.75. The hospital recommended a standard LASIK operation. Seeking a second opinion, the patient was diagnosed with Myopia in both eyes and advised to undergo the same procedure.
Surgery Details and Allegations
After deciding to proceed with the initial hospital, the patient paid in advance for the surgery and related tests. The treating doctor then proposed a Custom Vue Lasik operation, which was more expensive but promised benefits such as reduced light scattering and the absence of a blade. The patient consented to this modification. The surgery, costing Rs 59,000, was completed on the same day.
Post-surgery, the complainant alleged that the procedure took 2.5 hours and involved the use of a blade. He experienced vision issues, prompting him to consult the doctor, who assured him of improvement within 5-6 days. However, the patient continued to experience difficulties even after a week, including light scattering. The doctor attributed these problems to a pre-existing condition of weak back light in the eyes, which the patient later found to be incorrect.
Complaint and Response from the Hospital
The complainant filed a consumer complaint, seeking damages of Rs 5,00,000 for alleged negligence and an additional Rs 3,00,000 for mental anguish. In their defense, the doctor and hospital provided medical records, stating that the surgery was performed using a Micro Keratome Moria Machine, which employs a fine blade. They argued that complications can arise in surgeries and that a doctor should not be deemed negligent if they adhere to the standards of a competent practitioner.
They referred to medical literature indicating that vision typically stabilizes and improves within six months post-surgery, asserting that the complainant’s impatience contributed to his dissatisfaction. They emphasized that no surgeon can predict the exact postoperative refractive status.
Consumer Court’s Observations
The District Commission initially dismissed the complaint, leading the complainant to appeal to the State Consumer Court. The court noted that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding the surgery type and charges. It also highlighted that the consumer complaint was filed only 2.5 months post-surgery, well before the common period for stabilization of vision.
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Jacob Mathew case, noting that negligence must be gross or culpable, not simply a matter of judgment. The Commission concluded that the medical protocol was followed correctly and that the main dispute revolved around the charges for the surgery.
Final Ruling
The State Consumer Court upheld the District Commission’s decision, stating that no medical negligence was present in the treatment provided. They reiterated that a medical practitioner or hospital is liable only when their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the complainant’s appeal, affirming that the doctors acted with the necessary skill and knowledge.
To view the full order, click on the link below:
View Order
Related Reading
Also Read: Newborn death, hysterectomy after vacuum delivery: Gynaecologist, hospital get relief from medical negligence charges.