Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has affirmed a decision by a district consumer forum to award a compensation of Rs nine lakh to a man whose son completely lost vision in his right eye following a cataract surgery necessitated due to injury.
Court has said that in view of the established principle of law, that in cases of deficiency of medical services, duty of care does not end with surgery.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the findings of the West Bengal State and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ought to have examined the evidence in totality, instead of mechanically and exclusively relying upon the Medical Council's report.

"While the report of the Medical Council can be relevant for determining deficiency of service before a consumer forum, it cannot be determinative, especially when it contradicts the evidentiary findings made by a consumer forum," the bench said.

In these circumstances, the appellate forum is tasked with the duty of undertaking a more thorough examination of the evidence on record. On this failing alone, the orders of the SCDRC and NCDRC deserve to be set aside, the bench said.

The court also noted the district forum relied on the uncontroverted expert evidence provided by Dr Anindya Gupta, RMO-cum-Clinical tutor from the Burdwan Medical College to hold that boy Irshad lost his vision due to the negligent and careless attitude of Dr Sumit Banerjee manifesting through lapses in pre-operative and post-operative care and rehabilitation. 

It is evident that the district forum has made specific findings regarding lapses in duty of care by Respondent No 1 vis a vis both pre-operative and post-operative standards for conducting a traumatic cataract surgery, the bench said. 

"More pertinently, through the evidence of Dr Gupta, a nexus was established between the lapses in post-operative care (the delay in review, the abnormal vision rating on 06.12.2006 which was left unchecked by Respondent No 1, failure to undertake extra capsular method of surgery despite having the necessary equipment) and the development of loss of vision after the operation. It must be reemphasized that the expert evidence of Dr Gupta went entirely uncontroverted due to the absence of cross-examination and the failure of the Respondents to bring on record any other contradictory expert evidence," the bench said.

The court further pointed out on a perusal of the Medical Council report, it appeared that the body did not delve into the nuances of pre-operative and post-operative care. 

In fact, the holding of the district forum is strengthened not only by the report of the Medical Council which states that development of Retinal Detachment is not uncommon in cases of blunt trauma as in the case of Irshad, but also by the admission of Respondent no 1 itself that management and rehabilitation of traumatic cataract for a child is very difficult, unpredictable, and prone to complications. 

The court allowed the appeal by Najrul Sheikh, a BPL card holder, whose son suffered complete loss of vision in one eye following the negligent cataract surgery by Mukherjee on November 24, 2006. It directed the doctor to pay Rs nine lakh as compensation within one month.