HYDERABAD: Imagine losing your vision after undergoing a simple surgery for sinusitis infection. That’s exactly what happened to a 55-year-old city-based businessman. He lost vision in his left eye after undergoing nasal sinusitis surgery at a city hospital. Taking cognisance of his loss, the State consumer redressal commission ordered the doctor who performed the surgery, S Kiran Paryani, to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh and Rs 50,000 towards court charges.
The victim of the freak accident was automobile entrepreneur Maheder Singh Sethi. Having suffered sinusitis for a long period, Sethi decided to undergo a surgery to clear the nasal congestion as it was causing headaches and pain in nose, ears and teeth.In March 2013, he approached ENT specialist S Kiran Paryani who runs Kiran hospital super speciality ENT, head, and neck centre.
Just two days after the surgery, an MRI scan done to check the progress of healing revealed that there was no possibility of regaining the vision. The scan highlighted that there was ‘non-visualised left medial rectus muscle with the lateral tilting of the left lobe with medial displacement of the optic nerve.’
Despite the findings of the report, the doctor allegedly promised Sethi that his lost vision would return after a brief period of healing. The patient was even asked to undergo physiotherapy session, but they did not yield any results. Infuriated, Sethi went to consumer forum demanding a compensation of `95 lakh for the damage caused to his life.
However, while arguing the case, the doctor defended himself by stating that he has taken all necessary precautions while performing the surgery. He also claimed that the amount demanded by Sethi was “exorbitant and illusionary” and asked for the case to be dismissed.
The commission observed that the surgery was miserable as the doctor failed to be cautious and careful resulting in complications for Sethi right after the completion of the procedure. It then pronounced the compensation for the mental agony caused coupled with the financial loss and future hardship that Sethi has to undergo due to the loss.
“Nothing can replace vision and since the State commission is limited to only accept complaints whose costs do not exceed `1 crore, we demanded `95 lakh,” says counsel of the complainant G Nanda Gopal.