is Law Right
of Doctors Responsibilities
Legislations Medical Ethics FAQ’s
Dr. K. Krishnankutty, Vijayasree Eye Hospital v. V.M. Vasu
2001 (1) CPR 603
(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12 and 17 – Medical negligence – Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence - Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on part of doctor if he has performed his duties to best of his ability with due care.
Held: In 1996 (2) S.C.C. 634 – Achut Rao Hari Bhau Khoduva and others v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held “the skill of medical practitioners differ from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient. But as long as the doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the Medical profession and the Courts finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the patient does not still survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence. We had adopted this principle in deciding the case reported in 1999 (3) CPR 442.
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – Medical negligence – Complainant was operated of his left eye and he lost eye sight – Claim for compensation – Defence plea that eyesight loss was due to presence of organised and present vitreous haemorrhage with tractional retina detachment due to diabetics - Expert evidence that retinal detachment could not be found out by ophthalmoscopy as media of left eye of complainant was not clear. – No negligence or deficiency could be attributed on opposite party – Order of District Forum awarding compensation was liable to be set aside.
(Paras 15, 19 & 20)
Result: Appeal allowed.
1. Achut Rao Hart Bhau Khoduva and others v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) SCC 634. (Para 16)
2. 1996(3) CPR 442. (Para 16)
3. Roe v. Minister of Health, 1954(2) Q.B. 66 (Para 17)
4. Kailash Kumar Sharma v. Dr. Haricharan Madhu, 1997 (2) CPR 126..
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant : Shri S. Reghukumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Shri M. Premchand, Advocate.
Courts would be slow in attributing negligence on part of doctor if he has performed his duties to best of ability with due care and caution.
K. Madhuri Latha, Member –
The opposite in O.P. No. 784/96 of the Thrissur District Forum has filed this appeal against the order of the Forum dated 31/12/1998.
2. The complainant’s case is that he went to the opposite party’s hospital on 28.9.1995 for the treatment of his eye. He was treated as an outpatient and medicines prescribed were regularly taken. The disease did not subside and he again approached the opposite party on 28/3/1996. The opposite party after assuring that the ailment will be cured, operated his left eye, 29/3/1996. After operation he completely lost eyesight of the left eye. He was advised by the opposite party to go to Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai for further treatment. Even the expert and costly treatment there, could not cure the damage caused by the earlier operation. Hence he filed this complaint alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party claiming Rs.1,95,500/- as compensation for loss and injury.
3. The opposite party appeared and filed version denying deficiency of service and negligence on his part. Opposite Party submitted that the operation was conducted after all necessary tests and after detailed examination and the eye sight was lost not as a result of the surgery but due to presence of organised and present vitreous haemorrhage with tractional retina detachment due to diabetics. There was no proximate connection between cataract operation and diabetic retinopathy. Opposite party also contended that the treatment to the complainant was free of cost and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. But the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 25000 as compenstion for mental harassment, physical suffering and inconvenience caused to the complainant and also Rs.20000/- for medical expenses and Rs.1000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
4. Aggrieved by the above order, the opposite party has come in appeal.
5. The main points highlighted in the appeal memorandum are that the reasoning of the Forum is erroneous resulting from non-consideration and misappreciation of material documents. The oral evidence has also not been properly considered.
6. We called for the records from the District Forum. The complainant’s evidence consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exhibits A1 to A20. The opposite party was examined as RW1 and Exhibits B1 to B14 marked on his side.
7. PW1 is the complainant. He states that his left eye was operated by the opposite party. For about 2 years, his eyesight was bad. He understood that he was suffering from diabetics when the opposite party examined him six months earlier than the operation. In the evening of the date of operation the bandage was removed and medicine was applied by the nurse. He could not see anything then. After two days the opposite party examined him.
8. Opposite party gave an injection as according to him the loss of eyesight was due to want of sufficient blood pressure. After six days he was discharged from the hospital. There was no eyesight for the operated eye. The opposite party informed that it may be due to excessive smoking and nothing could be done by him to give him relief. Complainant wanted to go to the eye hospital at Madurai and the opposite party gave him a reference letter. The letter and prescription given by the opposite party hospital are marked as Exts. A1 to A7 and those from the Madurai hospital are marked as Exts.A8 to A12. The bills for purchase of medicine from outside are marked as A13 to A20. The complainant deposes that he was employed in a Snack Bar at Madras and was getting a salary of Rs.3500/- per month. He further says that his eyesight was lost due to operation and and he had spent Rs.20000/- for the operation. In cross examination he admits that the sight of the left eye was worse than that of the right eye. When he met the opposite party on or about 28th of February, the opposite party had opined that the complainant was suffering from cataract and it should be operated. When he met the opposite party for the second time his blood and urine were tested and E.C.G. taken. The complainant admits that all the tests prescribed by the doctor including scaning were done. He was wearing spectacles for twenty years and he was a smoker for about fifteen years. His eyesight was diminishing slowly. For a direct question” (Sic Matter in other language).
9. PW 2 is Dr. Mary Kurtan, Professor of Ophthalmology of the Trichur Med ical College Hospital. She deposes that Vitreous haemorrhage can be caused due to many reasons. Retinal detachment can also be caused by many reasons including Vitreous haemorrhage. Retinal detachment can be found out by oph thalmoscopy examination if the media is clear. Lens implantation can be done even in a diabetic patient. In cases where retinal detachment is found out earlier, lens implantation is not done. According to PW2 even without slit lamp microscopy test cataract operation is done. Lens can be tested with even miscroscope of ophthalmoscope. She was confronted with a statement in the text book “Parson’s diseases of the eye” that lens cannot be thoroughly examined without the assistance of the slit lamp or ophthalmoscope. Her answer is that the said statement is not wrong. The tests to be conducted before a patient is operated for cataract is also stated by her in detail. She admits that in cases of retinal function disorders cataract operation need not be useful. The witness also says that 100% success could not be achieved even if all the tests are conducted. She does not rule out the possibility of vitreous haemorrhage due to retinal detachment. According to her it is not necessary to cause vitreous haemorrhage in all cases of antiglaucoma surgery. In cross examination she was asked whether diabetic retinopathy can be detected if the lens is opaque. She answers only if the media is clear this could be found out. If haemorrhage is present media will not be clear. To avoid complictions like hyper mature cataract, cataract extraction may become necessary even in cases of patients suffering from diabetic retinopathy. If diabetic retinopathy is present further treatment will become necessary. Organised and fresh vitreous haemorrhage can be caused due to diabetic retinopathy which may result in loss of vision.
10. RW1 is the opposite party Dr.K. Krishnankutty. He admits having treated the complainant. He proves Exts. B1 to B14. Ext.B1 is the outpatient record and Ext.B2 is the inpatient record relating to the complainant. The complainant came to him on 28.8.1995 initially. His eyesight was tested. The right eye had 6/12 vision. The left eye could make out the fingers held only a distance oftwo meters. He could not read. His blood sugar was tested. He was a smoker and he was warned that diabetics and smoking will impair his eye sight. Test was conducted to find out the presence of sinusitis and gums were checked up. The eye pressure was also examined. Again tests were conducted a day before the opeation. Then the left eye sight was very meagre. He could identify only the red light. Cataract operation had to be urgently conducted to avoid bursting and unbearable pain. The patient was told about all this and he was informed that the operation is complicated. The patient was told about all this and he was informed that the operation is complicated. The patient expressed his willingness for operation in writing. He was admitted in the hospital on the 28th and operated on the 29th. Next day when the bandage was removed there was only slight bulging of the eye which was usual. Again bangage was applied and on the third day eyesight was examined. He could not see any light. Direct and indirect, opthalmoscopic tests were conducted. It was directed that he was having both new and old vitreous haemorrhage. For confirmation slight lamp microscope examination was done. It was confirmed that he was having organised and fresh heamorrhage and the patient was advised to take a second expert opinion and referred him to the Madurai Hospital. The report from the said hospital was brought by the patient and shown to the opposite party. The loss of vision is due to diabetic retinopathy and smoking. RW1 says that he had conducted all the tests, there was no negligence or want of deligence on his part in treating the patient and there was no nexus between the operation and the loss of eye sight.
11. Ext. B3 is the record to show that sonography test conducted before the operation. Only if the heamorrhage is very heavy, it could be find out by this method. RW1 says that he did not find any presence of vitreous heamorrhage before the operation.The patient was referred to Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai for specialised surgery. The witness denied negligence and want of care on his part.
12. Exts. A1 to A20 proved by the complainant as PW1. It is evident that the surgery was conducted by the opposite party in the left eye of the complainant, had to pay for the same both in the hospital run by the opposite party and also in the Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai. The complainant was referred by the opposite party for expert opinion and treatment to Dr. Namperumal Swamy of Aravind Hospital. It is also beyond controversy that the complainant did not get any relief by the surgery or treatment and the condition of his left eye became worse. But the question to be considered is as to whether there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in advising the complainant, in prescribing medicines, in conducting the surgery and in the post operational care meted out to the complainant. It is relevant to note that the complainant admists that he was a smoker for more than twenty years and was using spectacles. Even according to him his left eye sight was very poor. When he first came to the opposite party in August, 95, he was examined and on finding that he was a diabetic patient advice was tendered that surgery could be conducted only after controlling diabetics. From Ext. B1 and B2 it is established that initially he was treated as an outpatient and later as an inpatient for operation. Ext. B5 is the blood sugar report dated 27/3/1996. Ext.B3 is the ultrasonography, B4 is the blood chemistry report. Ext.B6 is the biochemistry report. Ext. B7 is the dental hygience report, Ext. B8 is again the biochemistry report and B9 the clinical chemistry report. B10 is the urine test report and B11 is the urine C and S report. B13 is the pre-operative instructions and B14 is the E.C.G. of the complainant dated 4/3/1996. Complainant frankly admits that all the tests prescribed by the opposite party were taken before the operation.
13. The District Forum went at a tangent and doubted the tests conducted for the following reasons.
(a) Ext. B1 and B2 the inpatient and outpatient cards do no show that tests have been conducted.
(b) The test reports are of different clinics and hospitals and as the tests were not conducted by the opposite party in his hospital they could not be relied on.
(c) These tests are done at the instance of the opposite party before PW1 was operated upon and hence not reliable.
Apart from the above, opposite party was not complied with the five preliminary tests which are mandatory before a patient can be operated upon and intraocular lens could be implanted. For these and for not conducting opthalmoscopic test it was held by the District Forum that opposite party has failed to discharge his duty to conduct tests and find out vitreous heamorrhage before the operation.
14. We have to observe that the five tests propounded in the text book namely “Person’s diseases of the Eye” VIIIth Edition by Stephen - J.H. Miller, only says that the tests are only valuable. It is nowhere stated that these tests are mandatory.
15. One has to go by the expert evidence available in the case. We have summarised earlier the evidence of PW2. It is an admitted fact that the media of the left eye of the complainant was not clear. His vision was lazy and eyelens was opaque. The retinal detachment could be found out, according to PW2 by Opthalmoscopy examination only if the media is clear. She says that lens implanation can be done even in a diabetic patient. The view expressed in Parson’s Diseases of the Eye” has been erroded by the advancement of medical science. It is true lens implantation is not to be attempted in a patient having retinal detachment. In this case retinal detachment could not be found out because of the condition of the eye of the complainant. We anxiously analysed the evidence of PW2 to assess that the treatment and surgery on the patient evidences any deficiency in service or negligence. We could not find any one of the deficiencies alleged by the complainant is post operative namely that the bandage was removed by the nurse on the same evening and not by the doctor. But the opposite party in his deposition says that the bandage was removed in his presence after three days. It does not stand to conviction that a nurse will remove the bandage on the same evening of the operation. It seems that the complainant is anxious to allege some deficiency on the opposite party. It is alleged in the notice of the complainant dated 3/6/1996 that sufficient precautions were not taken by the opposite party in treating him. In his evidence as PW1 he admits that all the necessary tests as prescribed by the opposite party were taken. There seems to be no consistant case for the complainant that the opposite party assured him complete cure by a minor operation. The fact that the operation was not minor is evident from the letter of consent given by the complainant before operation. In a case of minor surgery no such consent letter is required. On appreciation of the totality of evidence we are of the view that no negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed on the opposite party.
16. In Achut Rao Hari Bhau Khoduva and others v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held the skill of medical Practitioners differ from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient. But as long as the doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the Medical profession and the Court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the patient does not still survive or suffers a permanent ailment it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence. We had adopted this principle in deciding the case reported in 1999 (3) CPR 442. This case was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant.
17. Lord Denning said in Roe v. Minister of Health “we would be doing a disservice to the community at large if we were to impose a liability on hospitals and doctors for everything that happens to go wrong. Doctors would be lead to think of their own safety than the good of their patients, initiative would be stiffed and confidence shaken. A proper sense of proportion requires us to have regard to the condition in which hospitals and doctors have to work. We must insist a due care for the patient at every point but we must not condemn as negligence which is only a misadventure”.
18. The same law Lord in Hatcher v. Black (1954) Times 2nd July explained the law on the subject of medical negligence against doctors and hospitals in the following words. “In a hospital when a person who is ill goes for treatment, there is always some risk, no matter what cure is used. Every surgical operation involves risks. It would be wrong and indeed bad law to say that simply because of misadventure mishap occurred, the hospitals and doctors are thereby liable. It would be disastrous for the community if it were so. It would mean that if a doctor examining a patient or a surgeon operating at a table instead of getting on with his consent would be forever looking over shoulder to see if someone was coming up with a dagger. His professional reputation is as dear to him as his body. Perhaps more so and an action for negligence can wound his
2. 1999 (3) CPR 442
3. 1954 (2) Q.B. 66
reputation as severally as a dagger can his body. You must not therefore find him negligent simply because something happened to go wrong. If for instance one of the risks inherent in operation actually takes place or some complication ensues which lessens or takes away the benefits that were hoped for or if in a matter of opinion he makes an error in judgement you should only find him guilty of negligence when he falls short of the standards of a skillfull medical man”.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice a decision of the National Commission reported in Kailash Kumar Sharma v. Dr. Haricharan Madhu. In the said case the opposite party conducted surgery for cataract on the complainant and Intra Ocular Lens was fitted. The complainant alleged total loss of vision thereafter and claimed compensation for improper implantation. In the said case even though as per the opinion of another doctor loss of vision wasdue to improper implantation, the case was dismissed finding that the complainant had failed to discharge the burden of negligence on the opposite party. In the present case the contention is that there was organised and fresh vitreous haemorrhage and the opposite party failed to detech this and retinal detachment and conducted the lens implantation resulting in complete loss of vision. The independent evidence of PW2 is sufficient to rebut the contention of the complainant. The letter from Dr. Namperumal Swamy does not also give any indication that the opposite party was negligent in any manner either in examining the patient, conducting the surgery or giving post operative care. The District Forum has faulted the opposite party in so far as all the tests were not conducted by him or in his hospital.no one can expect such facilities in an opthalmic hospital. Minimum facilities and experienced doctors relating to opthalmology are available for treatment of the eye and the non-availability of other general infrastructural facilities or want of most modern sophisticated equipments cannot be termed as deficiency in service of the hospital or doctor.
20. The above discussion lead us to the conclusion tat there is no evidence for negligence or deficiency in service against the opposite party/appellant. The order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. We allow the appeal, set aside. We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs through out.
Mr. R.L. Sethi v. Dr. Somnath Chakraborti
2001(2) CPR 379
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, WEST BENGAL : CALCUTTA
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – Medical Negligence – Cataract surgery in eye of complainant carried by opposite party – Complaint alleging deficiency in service as Cornea of operated eye got partly damaged and iris was completely damaged – Complainant got these repaired in states but vision of eye was not completely restored – Claim for Compensation – Defence plea that during Phaco emulcification complications developed and before process could be carried further the incision was closed – None of the doctors who examined complainant after incident had opined that complications occurred due to wrong application of method of surgery – No evidence that surgeon adopted a new method resulting in complications – Complainant could not be said to have established want of reasonable care and skill in performance of surgery – Opposite Party could not be held guilty of negligence. (Para 5)
Result : Complaint dismissed.
S.C. Datta, President – The Complainant has filed this case praying for direction upon the opposite party to pay compensation amount of Rs. 19,10,437/- on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
2. Briefly stated the fact of the case is that the left eye of the Complainant was examined by Dr. V. Pahva who fixed 7-11-1994 as the date for Cataract Surgery. In the mean time the Complainant noticed advertisement of opposite party in newspaper regarding stitchless surgery with imported lens. He consulted his family physician who told him that Dr. Chakraborty had imported some machinery a few months back but he could not say anything about his expertise. He told him further that the said doctor was known to one H.N. Vora, former General Manager, UCO Bank. Mr Vora told him that Dr. Chakraborty is one of the best in the country and he should fix up the surgery without any fear. Accordingly he contacted the opposite party who examined his left eye and fixed 2-11-1994 as the date for surgery at 8.00 a.m. The doctor took two and half hours for performing the surgery and he was shifted to a room with bandaged eye. On enquiry as to why so much time was taken for the surgery, the doctor replied that since he had myopia he had to perform deeper surgery and hence it has consumed so much time. The complainant felt unbearable pain and the doctor administered some pain killers and sleeping pills. But it did not improve the situation. The doctor told his friend Mr. A.K. Sarkar who had accompanied him on all the days of visit that the operation was very successful and that it will take another one week to recover. Since the condition did not improve he again consulted him. The doctor again asserted that the surgery had been very successful and he should wait for a week more. Being suspicious he consulted Dr. H.S. Vora who opined that the cornea as well as the Iris have been completely damaged. He further gave out that this sort of damage was not possible in a conventional method of surgery unless the doctor is confirmed that the cornea had been partly damaged and Iris had been completely damaged. He advised to go to Hyderabad but instead he went to Delhi and consulted Dr. Kishanlal, famous eye surgeon who treated him for glaucoma. He advised him to give little more time before he opts for grafting of cornea. He told him further that nothing can be done as far as Iris is concerned. He remained in physical agony for approximately six months as the blisters on the cornea were formed frequently. He consulted Dr. Irving H. Raber, a visiting surgeon from the States. He wrote a letter to the OP on 2-1-1995 indicating him for his unethical role in publishing advertisement in paper when he did not have the necessary expertise in phaco emulcification method. The complainant wrote to him again on 8-2-1995 and went to Bombay where he consulted Dr. Keiki Mehta for right eye. He told him that his left eye had been damaged by an unprofessional doctor by forcing the lens thereby the Iris and cornea both have been damaged. On hearing this he became nervous and went to the States again in September 95 where he consulted Dr. Jonathan H. Tabnamo. He advised for grafting and assured him that his Iris can be eighty percent repaired. During his stay there he was treated for glaucoma by Dr. Simmons who advised him to use drops throughout his life. He came back to India and went to Hyderabad where he consulted the doctors attached to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute but they expressed their inability to take up the surgery. Again he went to the States on 13-6-1996 and got the cornea grafted and Iris repaired on 24-6-1996. According to him even thereafter the vision of the eye has not restored completely. Consequently he has approached the Commission complaining of guilty of medical negligence on the part of the doctor. According to him there was absence of reasonable skill and care by attending doctors.
3. The case is contested by opposite party by filing written version where in it has been stated that the complainants left eye was scheduled to be operated by phaco emulcification but after trying to dilate his pupil with mydriatics for more than an hour, the conventional approach was undertaken. As soon as the incision was given the petitioners IOP went up. The pupil was constricted and there was massive posterior synechia. In fact no attempt was made to do a Phaco emulcification. The Anaesthesist, Dr. Rakesh Jain was present throughout the period of surgery. I.V. Mannitol was given to lower IOP. A posterior syncheiotomy was done. As soon as capsulotomy was done the hard black nucleus was expelled involuntarily. This resulted in iridodonesis. Iris was friable and curled up like soft tissue paper. Residual cortical matter was cleaned up and a posterior chamber adatomed 15.0 dioptres IOL was inserted. The incision was closed with 10/0 interrupted sutures. There was no injury to the cornea at all. The petitioner came to him for follow up but when he advised him to undergo corrective surgery for lowering his IOP the petitioner did not see him. It has been denied that there was any lack of reasonable skill and/or care by him. It has been stated that before undertaking this operation the risk involved in it as well as the nature of complications involved in the petitioners case were clearly explained to him. The fact remains that in the course of operation the complication developed and the petitioner was advised to undergo corrective surgery.
4. It is specifically denied that through his letter date 29-8-1995 has admitted his guilt. He did his best to contain the complications as any other prudent doctor could have done at the particular time. But as a gesture of good will and out of sympathy and human consideration for the suffering of a fellow human being he had written said letter. He emphatically denies that there has been negligence, failure or laches on his part. He prays that the claim petition be dismissed.
5. The complainant alleges that the opposite party is guilty of medical negligence in as much as he (a) failed to use reasonable degree of care, (b) made error of judgement while treating him, (c) made great mistake at the time of operation. It is not disputed that the complainant approached the opposite party for Cataract surgery of his left eye inprefereal to Dr. V. Pahwa. The Complainant states that he was attracted by an advertisement in paper and with the advise of his family physician, approached the opposite party for cataract operation. The operation, however, did not prove successful. According to the Complainant the loss of vision occurred due to careless and negligent act on the part of the surgeon. It is not the case of the complainant that the surgeon was not qualified to undertake the surgery. The opposite party asserts through his letter dated 29-8-1995 (Annexure D) that he had attended Phaco Workshops organized by Pharmacia (Sweeden) in Bombay and has performed a number of surgeries using the machine. He states that the complications occurred during the operation. The Phaco Probe was not used at all. He had do revert to a larger incision to perform a Synechiotomy. According to him, the complications arose without using the Phaco Emulsifier, he states that there was a massive posterior synechia with increased Intraocular pressure and bulging of the Iris in the wound. He, However, through this letter expressed regret for the problems which the complainant had faced and asked for his forgiveness. He has of course stated that he will try to compensate him financially through his meager means by installments. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that this letter of the opposite party clearly shows that the surgeon had admitted his guilt in the matter of operation and then offered to compensate the complainant financially. The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, says that this letter cannot be treated as an admission but it was written to show a gesture of goodwill and sympathy and human sentiment for the suffering of a fellow humanbeing. It has been alleged that the complainant has blown out of proportion with a malafide motive to extract large sum of money from him. He emphatically denies, that there was negligence, failure or laches on his part. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that the complication might not have occurred had not the surgery being done by an unprofessional raw surgeon. As noticed earlier, the surgeon claims himself to be an expert in phaco surgery, but he asserts that the phaco surgery was not resorted to. But the conventional method of surgery was adopted. The complainant got his eye examined both inside the country and abroad and ultimately got the damage repaired to some extent. The grafting of Cornea was done and he has put on medicine regularly and he expects that he may get 60% to 70 % relief. Anyway, none of the doctors who had examined him after the incidenthas said that the complications occurred due to wrong application of method of surgery. At least there is no evidence to show that the surgeon adopted a new method resulting in the complications. He states that his case was that the conventional approach was made and as soon as the incision was given the petitioners IOP went up. The pupil was constricted and there was massive Posterior Synechia. He has narrated the development elaborately in paragraph 4 of the written version, but there is no cogent material to show that the surgeon was responsible for the development of complications. According to the learned counsel for the opposite party it was merely accidental and the surgeon had no hand in it. He submits that it would be too much to read in the letter dated 29-8-1995 that there was admission on the part of the doctor owning responsibility in the matter. The surgeon expressed anxiety because of the sufferings of the complainant and tried to compensate him by money. The surgeon said that he was spending sleepless night since the surgery, but there is nothing to indicate that he had admitted his guilt in the matter. As noticed earlier, none of the surgeon who attended to the complainant subsequent to the event has said that the complications developed because of negligence, carelessness on the part of the opposite party. This being the position it is difficult to conclude that the complainant has succeeded in establishing want of reasonable care and skill in the matter of performing surgery. There is also no material to show that he acted negligently. We cannot, therefore, hold that the opposite party was guilty of negligence so as to entitle the complainant to get compensation from him.
6. For the reasons aforesaid we find no merit in the case which we hereby dismiss on contest.