K.S. Bhatia                                      - Complainant 
          Vs. 
Jeevan Hospital                                - Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Presiding Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

PER MR. B.K.TAIMNI, MEMBER
     Complainant K.S.Bhatia has filed the complaint against the Opposite Party alleging medical negligence. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant approached one Dr. Neeraj Chaddha _ an eye surgeon, with some eye problem who advised test for Blood Sugar and Blood Pressure. This was got done on from one Shalimar Diagnostic Centre on 16^th May 1995. Tests were normal. When after being treated by him, he got no relief he went to OP-1, Jeevan Hospital where he was advised to take certain medicines and also to undergo FFA (SP) Test which was done by 2^nd OP on 24^th May 1995. On 25^th May, the complainant was advised to contact 3^rd OP, Dr. Sabharwal. When complainant reached the room of 3rd OP, he was not there but it was 2nd OP, Dr. Rohtagi who was sitting there while the name plate was of that of 3^rd Respondent. It was the 2^nd Respondent who did Argon Laser on the complainant and was discharged the same evening. At his residence he found out that he has lost his vision. When on 26^th he went to the 1^st OP Hospital, no doctor could be found, upon which he contacted Dr. Chaddha who after examination opined that Argon Laser has not been done properly due to which laser marks have come on retina and it has been damaged. Dr. Chaddha has said so in his report. This was also confirmed by one Dr. Hari Mohan, the later further opining that disease is incurable. He also advised certain medicines but to no effect. 

     Complainant is a Bank employee and his future career has been ruined by the negligence on the part of OPs. It is only on account of medical negligence of OPs that he has lost his vision, thus alleging medical negligence, the complaint was filed for award of Rs. 50/- lakh as compensation for the complainant's loss of eyesight. 

     Upon issue of Notices to the parties, written versions were filed by them. In the written version filed by the 2^nd OP Dr. Rohtagi, it was rebutted by him that complainant's case was of simple watering from the eye. It was a case of haemorrhage on the retina of eye. It was for this reason that test for Blood Sugar/Blood Pressure had been got done by Dr. Chadha. 
Complainant had a disease called macular haemorrhage or blood on the macula area of the retina of the eye. Since the 2^nd OP is a visiting consultant and the 3^rd OP is the owner of the Hospital, it was in this situation that 2^nd OP first saw the complainant on 24/5/95, who after FFA Test, advised Argon Laser next day which was successfully done on 25/5/95. It was refuted, that the complainant ever lost his vision. Since there are always Doctors on duty, it is not correct to state that when the complainant came to the Hospital on 26/5/95, no Doctor was there. Nowhere in the record produced on the file does Dr. Chadha or Dr. Hari Mohan say a word about Argon Laser not being successful. It is a figment of complainant's imagination. To the contrary Dr. Hari Mohan states that vision of right eye was 6/6 P on 6^th July 1995. There is no specific allegation of negligence attributed to the 2^nd OP. 

     In the written version filed by the 1^st and 3^rd OP all the allegations have been refuted. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, all the allegations were reiterated. In fact a new document, i.e., a report of one Dr. G.S.Sachdeva, dated 5/9/97 of Hindu Rao Hospital is added which reads as under. 

     "This is to certify that I have examined Mr. Kamal Singh Bhatia, S/o Mr. Amrit Singh Bhatia whose signature are attested below. He developed Retinal haemorrhage in the Right Eye and he was given Laser Therapy. Due to Laser Therapy Permanent Scaring developed and his vision has greatly reduced to finger counting close to face." 

     Evidence by way of affidavits was filed _ one each by the complainant. 2^nd OP and one common affidavit by 1^st and 3^rd OP. No cross examination of the witnesses was done. 

     Arguments were heard. 

     After perusal of material on record and hearing the parties, we would like to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the OPs relating to delay in filing the complaint. 

     Admitted position is that OPs dealt with and treated the patient in two days, i.e., 24^th and 25^th May 1995. As per complaint, cause of action arose on 15/5/95 when Dr. Chadha attended on the complainant; it arose on 24^th and 25^th May 1995 when he was attended to by the OPs. Last time the cause of action arose on the 14/11/96 when he exhausted all the remedies and was given to understand that the eye sight cannot be cured. Thus complaint, admittedly, was filed before this Commission on 3/9/97. Dr. Chadha is not a party before us hence cause of action on the dates mentioned by the complainant has no relevance. It cannot be rebutted that the complainant's cause of action could be said to be arising from the actions of the OPs on 24^th and 25/5/95. Complainant, who is an educated person and a Bank employee, came to know the same evening that he has lost his vision which, per complaint, was confirmed by Dr. Chadha on 26^th May 1995 and later on 5 _ 6^th July 1995 by Dr. Hari Mohan. Cause of action must stop somewhere and cannot be said to be a continuing cause of action. Complaint was filed on 3/9/97, after a delay of 58 days. This has neither been explained nor any application for condonation of delay has been made. When the point of limitation was raised by 1^st and 3^rd OPs in their written version, it was only labeled wrong in the rejoinder filed by the complainant which does not help the complainant. It is not for him to assume as to from which date cause of action will raise. Real cause of action arose on 25^th and 26^th May 1995. 

     Main plank of the case of the complaint is the alleged report of Dr. Chadha stating that Argon laser had not been done properly which was also allegedly confirmed by Dr. Hari Mohan. We have very carefully gone through the stated material and do not find a `word', even remotely mentioning what is stated in the complaint (Paras 11 & 12) and argued by the learned counsel of the complainant. This is an unsupported allegation which in our view have been made falsely to further the case of the complainant which we find totally unacceptable. We can clearly say that the complainant has not come with clean hands before us. 

     The factum of haemorrhage on the eye of the complainant has been confirmed by Hindu Rao Hospital. We also see on record brought on along with the rejoinder filed by the complainant an odd sort of document purportedly issued by Dr. Sachdeva of Hindu Rao Hospital. We have the OPD card of the same Hospital for the period 3/2/96 and 14/11/96. There is no mention of loss or reduction of vision except on the document written by Dr. Sachdeva `To whom it may concern' dated 5/9/97, reproduced earlier. We are unable to appreciate as to what was the provocation to issue this type of certificate, when no such entry is seen in the OPD card. We also fail to understand as to why the certificate dated 5/9/97 could not be filed along with complaint. This document is rebutted by OPs and there is no affidavit filed by Dr. Sachdeva in support of whatever he has stated vide his certificate dated 5/9/97. As settled by Apex Court and Privy Council judgment in cases of medical negligence specific act of negligence has to be alleged and then proved as also as to how that amounts to negligence. In the instant case only negligence stated is that he went for treatment to OPs where Argon Laser was done after which he lost vision. 

     As per settled law on the subject complaint has to allege which action of the OPs was not as per accepted medical practices. What was done which should not have been done or what was not done which should have been done. This has to be supported by expert evidence or medical literature on the subject. Nothing on these lines has been done in the case. In fact what we see is that after Argon Laser on 25/5/95 the complainant never goes to the OPs at all. He goes to all places except OPs which to say the least we find quite strange. 

     We also see that even though as per para 12 of the complaint, complainant relies upon the assessment of Dr. Hari Mohan, but the correspondences exchanged and on record states to the contrary. As late as 6^th July 1995, the complainant has vision of 6/6 in left eye and 6/9 P in right eye. Final examination showed macular stippling in the right eye means that it had joined, conveying that Argon Laser was successful. Even the report by Safdarjung Hospital brought before us at the time of filing affidavit no where says any loss of vision of the complainant. If now the complainant wanted to challenge this material on record, he could have asked for him to be summoned for his examination. This is not done leaving us to draw our own inference. A feeble attempt is made to summon Dr. Sachdeva but not pressed. 

     In the light of discussions above, we find that complainant has failed to make out any case of, much less proved, medical negligence against the OPs. On the contrary he has made false and uncorroborated statements in the complaint. 

     We see no merit in the complaint which is dismissed with cost which we fix at Rs. 5000/- which shall be paid to the OPs within four weeks of passing of the order.