Govind Ram Aggarwal vs V.P.GUPTA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2003 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby, the complaint of Govind Ram Aggarwal was dismissed for alleged deficiency in medical service.

THE appellant filed the complaint on 12.5.1995 with the allegations that he was suffering from eye disease and he was getting his treatment from Dr. Naveen Aggarwal of Modern Eye Hospital. On 15.2.1995, Dr. Naveen Aggarwal inspected the eye of the appellant and had advised that Tonometer shall not be used in the eyes of the appellant because it may affect his eye-sight. On 23.2.1995, the appellant went into the hospital of Dr. V.P. Gupta for treatment who examine the eyes of the complainant and saw the old prescriptions. He was also shown the prescription dated 15.2.1995. But, still Dr. V.P. Gupta administered tonometer in the eyes of the appellant. He said that he will give treatment according to his own discretion. On feeling sufficient pain and agony, the appellant, again, went to the hospital of Dr. Naveen Aggarwal on 24.2.1995. He examined the eyes of the appellant and told that due to the use of tonometer in the eyes by Dr. V.P. Gupta, 90% of the eye-sight of the appellant has gone. Thus, Dr. V.P. Gupta was negligent in his services and it is for this reason that the eye-sight of the appellant has Cone to the extent of 90%. THE appellant claimed a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs besides cost of litigation and mental agony. THE appellant filed his affidavit along with his complaint. Dr. V.P. Gupta in his written statement admitted that he has examined the eyes of the appellant on 23.2.1995, but, he was not shown any old prescription or prescription dated 15.2.1995 issued by Dr. Naveen Aggarwal. The disease was that of Glucoma and according to the adopted medical procedure, it was necessary to judge the tension of the eye, which can be decided only by tonometer. He alleged that it is false that there was any pain due to tonometer. There was old corneal opacity in the eyes of the appellant and he was prescribed proper medicines. The appellant was asked to come other day, but he never came. It is incorrect to say that there was any injury due to the use of tonometer and the sight was lost up to 90%. The left eye of the complainant was totally defective, from before it has got absolute glucoma. There was no deficiency in service by the respondent. In para 10 he has alleged that he is an expert doctor and the complaint has been filed only to blackmail money. The prescription of Chandra Eye Hospital shows that the appellant was suffering from Recurrent Viral Keratitis disease which is due to viral infection and tonometer cannot be held guilty of virus infection. It is further alleged that the appellant approached the respondent only once. After taking the evidence of the parties and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the learned Forum held that the appellant could not prove that the respondent was negligent, therefore, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. It is not alleged in para 1 or in any other para of the complaint, from when the appellant was suffering injury in his right eye. But the allegation of para 1 shows that he was suffering from long before. It is also admitted fact that the appellant has visited Dr. V.P. Gupta only once and never again for treatment. It is also alleged in the written statement that the left eye of the appellant was totally defective from long before due to absolute Glucoma. This is also written in the prescriptions issued by other doctors. During the course of argument also the appellant admitted this fact and alleged that his left eye is defective since birth.

IT is not written in the Written Statement that whether the tonometer has been used or not, but, during the course of arguments, it is admitted that tonometer has been used. Impliedly, it is also admitted in para 3 of the Written Statement. With these facts, we proceed to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. In the book Principles Practice of Ophthalmology written by Dr. Gholam A. Peyman and others of Chicago University at page 396, it has been provided that : "Many patients with corneal disease have associated abnormalities in intracular pressure. Unfortunately, routine measurement using the Goldmann or Schiotz tonometer gives unreliable and usually falsely low readings on edematous corneas or corneas with irregular surfaces. The MacKay Marg electronic applanation tonometer consists of a probe with a central plunger 1.5 mm. in diameter that activates a linear transducer when it moves. When the probe is placed against the cornea, the movement of the plunger induces an electrical signal that is amplified and recorded on graph paper. The height of the initial trough is a function of intraocular pressure exclusive of corneal regidity. This notch or trough occurs when the corneal bending force is displaced onto the outer immobile sleeve of the probe. As the machine is usually calibrated, each small square between the baseline and the initial trough represents 2 mm. Hg. of intraocular pressure. The MacKay Marg tonometer has been demonstrated to give the most reliable representation of actual intraocular pressure in scarred, irregular and edematous corneas when compared with the Goldmann, Schiotz and Perkins tonometers. Attention to Corneal disease without concern for assessment of intracular pressure can lead to unfortunate complications. In corneal transplantation, assessment and treatment of intraocular pressure elevation, both pre-operatively and post-operatively, can be essential for graft survival and successful visual outcome."

THERE is nothing in this citation that tonometer is any dangerous thing and it may damage the eye-sight. It rather written that certain cases of abnormal corneas can be decided only by the use of tonometer. As the prescription of Dr. Naveen Aggarwal dated 15.2.1995, it has been written that tonometer should not be used. We do not want to go into the controversy whether this prescription was shown to Dr. V.P. Gupta or not, but we have to find out whether tonometer can damage the eye-sight and if it is necessary for testing such a disease. The authority shows that it is necessary for testing such a disease. After 23.5.1995 the appellant did not visit the respondent and as he was having virul old Keratitis, no miracle could have been possible by Dr. V.P. Gupta to cure the patient within a day. Again, the appellant visited Dr. Naveen Aggarwal on 24th February, 1995. Dr. Naveen Aggarwal is also a doctor at the same place where Dr. V.P. Gupta is practising. We do not want to say that whether there is any business rivalry or not or whether the complaint is out of business rivalry, but, at least, it is clear that on 24.2.1995 Dr. Naveen Aggarwal did not write that there was any damage to the sight due to the use of tonometer.

TONOMETER is not a poison or acid to damage the eyes for ever. It may cause irritation or pain for one or two days. It may also cause some reaction or allergy for a day or two, but, no constituent has been shown which may permanently damage the eye-sight of any patient. However, in the prescription dated 14.2.1995 also Dr. Naveen Aggarwal gave a signal that no tonometer should be used, but, the did not write that any defect was there due to the use of tonometer.

THE prescriptions of a number of doctors have been filed and all the prescriptions show that the patient was suffering from old viral Keratitis disease. It causes Ulcer in the eyes. Tonometer cannot cause any such Ulcer. THE appellant has already alleged that he was suffering from eye disease from long before. None of the doctors namely, Dr. Hari Mohan. Dr. Rajeev Mohan of Mohan Eye Hospital, Dr. Pradeep Kumar of Chandra Eye Hospital, any doctor of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, any doctor of Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi or G.G.S.I. Eye Research and Cure Centre, ever reported that there was any loss of sight due to the use of tonometer. Rather the doctor has given a chart that even after 15.2.1995 in all the prescriptions as issued by various doctors, there was vision 70%, 58.5%, 91.4%, 83.6% etc. After three years also, the vision remained the same. It was varying from time to time. In May, 2001, the eye-sight was up to 83.6%. THErefore, it is totally false and baseless to say that the eye-sight of the appellant have gone up to extent of 90% by the use of tonometer. If the vision was affected temporarily, for one or two days, for this, doctor cannot be held to be guilty. We have gone through the judgment recorded by the learned Forum. All the doctors except Naveen Chandra have filed affidavits, who have examined the appellant at some point of time and have specifically alleged that no loss of sight is possible by the use of tonometer. It cannot be said that only due to being a co-doctor, all the doctors have filed false affidavits to help the opposite party Dr. V.P. Gupta. It has been held in the ruling reported in I (1998) CPJ 110 (NC), Sethuraman Subramaniam Iyer v. Triveni Nursing Home, that where the doctors whose services were availed by the complainant, had filed affidavit in favour of the doctor and complainant has not given any expert evidence to support his allegations, the doctor cannot be held to be guilty of negligence. We have already said above that there is absolutely no report what to say of any expert opinion that there was loss of vision, if any, due to the use of tonometer. The appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is, hereby, dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.