THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has enhanced the compensation payout to a six-year-old girl who lost vision due to an ophthalmologist’s misdiagnosis. The doctor misdiagnosed her eye ailment as squint whereas the actual cause was brain tumour.
The first standard student who showed signs of squint on her left eye, was taken to the Kollam-based hospital on March 20, 2003. The ophthalmologist there, after conducting a fundoscopy and refraction test on the same day and on March 24, advised her to use a rubber cover over the right eye for at least four hours a day. She was asked to come for review after six months.
During the review in September, the doctor informed the parents that her left eye’s vision was lost.
The parents then took her to the Aravind Eye Hospital, Tirunelveli, where a CT scan of the brain revealed an enlarged tumour in her brain. She was then referred to the Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST) where she underwent a left pterional craniotomy and tumour decompression. After the operation, the minor girl lost her right eye’s vision as well.
The Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the hospital and the doctor to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation and Rs 5,0000 as costs to the girl.
The doctor, however, preferred an appeal with the SCDRC where a bench comprising its president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member Ajith Kumar D and member Radhakrishnan K R heard the case. Based on expert opinion, the bench observed that the girl had a late onset of squint.
The fundus examination revealed a mild temporal pallor and there was defective vision. The ophthalmologist failed to follow the standard medical protocol to conduct a detailed squint work-up, diplopia charting, hess charting, BSV tests, indirect ophthalmoscopy, ultrasound orbit and CT scan of the brain on March 20 and 24, 2003, when the girl visited the doctor.
The SCDRC pointed out that the doctor was aware of the tumour when she was examined during the review on September 23, 2003. She did not refer the girl to a neurologist and instead decided to continue her treatment.