M.V.SUBBA RAO Vs. KAVURI PRABHAVATHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party in C.D.62 of 2000 on the file of District Forum Guntur is the appellant.

(2.) The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant is that on 3.10.1999 she approached the opposite party for treatment of defective vision. The opposite party treated the complainant and suggested she should undergo operation. After conducting tests the opposite party conducted cataract RE surgery on 11.10.1999 and the complainant was discharged on 14.10.1999. On 15.10.1999 the complainant approached the opposite party and complained that there is no improvement of vision. The opposite party prescribed eye drops but there was no improvement. Again she approached the opposite party who referred the complainant to Dr.Y.Sri Rama Murthy, M.S., Renuka Netralayam, Kothapet, Guntur for better treatment on 24.11.1999 she consulted the said doctor who conducted tests and found that the complainant was suffering from Total Retinal Detachment of recent origin and again referred the case to doctor Subadra Jalali of LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. On 27.11.1999 she consulted Dr.Subadra who diagnosed the case as psudophakia with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in the right eye with horse shoe tear with lattice holes in the left eye and the complainant was advised to undergo sclera buckling vitrectomy silicone oil injection with or without intraocular lens explanation with endo laser in the right eye and cryopexy in the left eye. An operation was conducted in 10.12.1999 and the complainant was discharged from LV Prasad Eye Institute on 12.12.1999. After the operation, the complainant is undergoing regular periodical checkups. The complainants case is that the opposite party without diagnosing the cause of defective eye sight conducted cataract to the RE surgery PC IOC. In view of the negligence of the opposite party, complainant had to spend huge amounts towards her treatment. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party which was received by him and met with reply infested with untenable allegations. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,99,000/-, Rs.25,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.

(3.) The opposite party resisted the case contending that on 3.10.1999 the complainant visited the opposite party for treatment of defective vision. Necessary tests were performed and it was found that she had a matured cataract in the right eye. She was operated for removal of cataract on 11.10.1999. After operation the complainant again approached the opposite party complaining that there is no improvement in the vision. The opposite party conducted tests and found that there was a retinal detachment. Retinal detachment is a disorder of the retina which reduces vision. As the complainant was having a cataract, it was not possible for the opposite party to detect the retinal detachment. Retinal detachment is an independent disorder. Cataract has nothing to do with retinal detachment. They have to be independently dealt with. Retinal detachment is one related to the posterior chamber of the right eye whereas cataract lies anterior to it. Only the removal of cataract allows a person to look into the posterior chamber. As there was no infrastructure to treat the patient with retinal detachment, the complainant was referred to Dr.Sri C.Sri Rama Murthy, a Senior Ophthalmologist in Guntur. He in turn referred the patient to LV Prasad Institute, Hyderabad and where necessary surgery was done.