Supreme Court’s Judgment on Medical Negligence
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed an eye surgeon from Pune to pay ₹3.5 lakh as compensation to a patient who developed a severe infection after a cataract operation. This decision reinstated the findings of the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission, which had held the surgeon accountable for failing to diagnose and manage the infection. The apex court overturned the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) ruling that absolved the doctor of negligence.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale identified lapses in the post-operative care provided by the respondent surgeon. The court noted that despite repeated complaints of pain, oozing fluid, and deteriorating vision from the patient, the surgeon failed to take timely corrective measures. The court stated:
“It was a blatant result of medical negligence by the respondent in post-operative care wherein corrective steps could have been taken, if the most reasonable and basic skills which were expected from the respondent-doctor, were applied.”
Background of the Case
Initial Surgery and Complaints
The appellant, a patient, underwent cataract surgery at the respondent’s clinic on January 11, 1999. Shortly after, the patient experienced severe pain and sticky discharge from the operated eye, yet the surgeon assured him that the procedure had been successful.
Escalation of the Condition
Over the following days, the patient’s condition worsened. Despite five visits to the surgeon within a week, no effective treatment was provided. Finally, other doctors diagnosed the patient with endophthalmitis, a severe eye infection, which necessitated the removal of the damaged eye to prevent further complications.
Diagnosis by Other Doctors
On January 27, 1999, three independent medical professionals confirmed the infection and advised urgent intervention. The patient was later treated at a military hospital where the eyeball was retained for cosmetic purposes, but complete vision loss occurred.
Proceedings Before Consumer Forums
District Consumer Forum
The patient initially filed a complaint with the District Consumer Forum in Pune, seeking ₹10 lakh in damages. The complaint was dismissed on the grounds that no expert evidence was provided.
State Consumer Commission
Upon appeal, the State Consumer Commission ruled in favor of the patient, awarding ₹3.5 lakh as compensation. The commission highlighted the respondent’s failure to diagnose and treat the infection promptly.
NCDRC
The surgeon contested the State Commission’s order before the NCDRC, which ruled in his favor, stating that the infection was caused by the patient changing the eye dressing himself—a claim unsupported by substantial evidence.
Supreme Court’s Final Verdict
The Supreme Court rejected the NCDRC’s findings, emphasizing the respondent’s inability to address evident symptoms of infection. It also noted discrepancies in the surgeon’s written defense, including the lack of reliable case papers. The court concluded:
“Pain in the operated eye and no regaining of vision following operation were considered to be the two most important symptoms – a complaint that was consistently made by the appellant in his multiple visits to the respondent post-operation.”
Compensation Ordered
The respondent surgeon was ordered to pay ₹3.5 lakh within two months, failing which an annual interest of 12% would apply. The judgment underscores the critical importance of post-operative care and accountability in medical practice.
