Master Irshad v. Dr. Anindya Gupta: Negligence in Eye Surgery Case

The case of Master Irshad v. Dr. Anindya Gupta involves alleged medical negligence leading to the loss of vision in the right eye of a 13-year-old boy during cataract surgery. The Appellant, Master Irshad, approached Dr. Anindya Gupta for an expert opinion, who provided uncontroverted evidence of negligence in pre-operative and post-operative care by Dr. Anindya Gupta. Despite clear lapses in post-operative care leading to retinal detachment and loss of vision, the SCDRC and NCDRC set aside the DCDRC’s compensation award. The Medical Council report cited contributory negligence by the Appellant, overlooking crucial evidence of negligence. This case raises important questions about accountability and justice in medical care.

Facts

The Appellant approached Dr. Anindya Gupta from Burdwan Medical College for expert opinion.
Dr. Anindya Gupta provided uncontroverted evidence of negligence by the doctor in the pre-operative and post-operative care leading to loss of vision.
Master Irshad, a 13-year-old boy, lost complete vision in his right eye due to alleged negligence during cataract surgery.
The DCDRC found deficiency in medical services provided by the doctor and awarded compensation of INR 9,00,000 to the Appellant.
The SCDRC and NCDRC set aside the DCDRC’s order, leading to the impugned appeal before the Court.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) on 11.09.2015 found no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of Respondent No 1.
The SCDRC based its decision on the report of the West Bengal Medical Council dated 18.05.2015, which cleared Respondent No 1 of misconduct/negligence charges.
The Medical Council instead highlighted contributory negligence on the part of the Appellant for visiting the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology (RIO) after a delay of one month against Respondent No 1’s advice.

Also Read: Appellants Impleaded as Accused in Case Crime No. 7243 of 2018

Arguments

Learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that the NCDRC did not consider the expert evidence provided by Dr. Gupta regarding the lapses in pre-operative and post-operative care by the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents contends that both the NCDRC and the SCDRC relied on the decision of the Medical Council to determine the absence of negligence by the Respondents.

Also Read: Surendra Maternity and Trauma Hospital vs. Respondent No. 2 Legal Case

Analysis

The DCDRC made specific findings of lapses in pre-operative and post-operative care by the doctor.
Despite knowing the seriousness of the treatment for traumatic cataract, the doctor did not opt for the modern method of surgery.
Expert opinion highlighted contributory factors like non-adherence to medical prescriptions and post-operative trauma.
The DCDRC’s findings were unchallenged, emphasizing negligence in post-operative care leading to retinal detachment.
The expert doctor’s testimony pointed out various shortcomings in the treatment and care provided.
The lack of cross-examination or contradictory evidence made Dr. Gupta’s statements unquestioned.
The appellate forum was urged to delve deeper into the evidence, particularly the lapses in duty of care pre and post-operation.
A clear connection was established between the post-operative care lapses and the subsequent loss of vision.
The SCDRC and NCDRC were criticized for overlooking evidence of negligence and relying solely on the Medical Council report.
The Medical Council report did not thoroughly analyze the pre and post-operative care standards, indicating a lapse in the examination.
Violation of medical ethics and regulations was highlighted as professional misconduct by the expert doctor.