 "Doctor")
Kritika developed a mild swelling in her right eye. On September 23, 2014, her father took her to Dr Harish Gupta, who referred her to Dr Tayal, a senior eye surgeon. She was prescribed Pred Forte, two drops, twice daily, for three months.
Her symptoms worsened as she gradually lost vision in the right eye. In December 2014, she again consulted Dr Tayal, who noted emerging issues in the left eye as well. He changed the medication to Pataday drops, a steroid to be administered for four days. Kritika continued using the drops for three months and consulted Dr Tayal in March 2015, as her condition had worsened.
He switched her back to Pred Forte, increasing the dosage to three times daily for three months.
Since her condition did not improve, in July 2015, she consulted Dr Nitin Dua at Aznam Sunetra Hospital. He diagnosed 60 per cent cataract in her right eye and 40 per cent in the left and attributed it to prolonged use of Pred Forte. He advised her to avoid sunlight.
Kritika went back to Dr Gupta and informed him that the referral to Dr Tayal had resulted in cataracts in both eyes due to negligence, and this had adversely affected her life and studies. Dr Gupta confirmed that prolonged use of Pred Forte could cause cataract and issued a new lens prescription. She also met Dr Tayal, who, she claimed, became aggressive and ordered his staff to remove her from his office. Consequently, Kritika filed a complaint before the Ghaziabad District Forum, alleging that Dr Gupta and Dr Tayal had been negligent.
Dr Gupta contended that he could not be considered negligent as he had not treated Kritika but had merely referred her to a specialist. Dr Tayal defended himself, stating that Kritika had developed an allergy due to prolonged use of contact lenses. He stated that he had prescribed Pataday, a steroid, to be used for four days, but Kritika had not returned for a follow-up and had instead continued using it for three months, contrary to medical advice. He claimed that he had acted according to professional standards and denied any negligence. The District Forum accepted his defence and dismissed the complaint.
Kritika appealed to the Uttar Pradesh State Commission, which set aside the order and held both doctors liable to pay ₹5 lakh along with 5 per cent interest from July 4, 2015, onwards. It directed compliance with the order within 30 days, after which interest at 12 per cent would be payable for any delay in payment. It also ordered the doctors to pay compensation for mental harassment amounting to ₹2 lakh along with 12 per cent interest from July 4, 2015, onwards. In case of delay, the interest rate would increase to 15 per cent. Additionally, ₹50,000 was awarded towards litigation costs.
Both doctors challenged the order by filing revision petitions, reiterating their defences. Dr Tayal argued that despite having developed contact lens allergy, Kritika continued wearing the lenses, due to which she developed an exogenous ocular inflammatory condition called Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis (GPC). He pointed out that the steroid treatment had been correctly prescribed but had been misused by extending its use to three months.
The National Commission, in its order dated November 2, 2024, delivered by Justice Rajendra, noted that a doctor who had followed the standard and acceptable line of treatment could not be accused of negligence merely because the treatment did not achieve the desired result. The doctors were exonerated, and the complaint was dismissed.
The writer is a consumer activist
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
