THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (Civil) NO. 8228 of 2010 The suo motu writ application arises out of the news item published in Times of India dated 1st May, 2010. -------------- The Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack. ……… Petitioner -Versus- State of Orissa ……… Opp. Party For Petitioner : Government Advocate For Opp. Party : Addl. Government Advocate. P R E S E N T : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE V.GOPALA GOWDA & THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. MAHANTY. Date of hearing: 08.10.2010 Date of Judgment: 20.12.2010 I.Mahanty,J. This Public Interest Litigation was registered, suo-motu on the basis of a news item published in “The Times of India” dated 1.5.2010 under the head line “Over 100 villagers lose vision after cataract operation” in an eye surgery camp held at Gunupur hospital organized by a private organization ‘Trilochan Netralaya’ from Sambalpur with the aid and assistance of the district administration. 2. A counter affidavit was filed by the Under Secretary to Government of Orissa, Health & Family Welfare Department indicating that, after receiving the complaints from some of the media personnel regarding loss of vision of some patients in Ukumba village of Ramanaguda block, Dr. M. Suresh Kumar, Senior Ophthalmic Surgeon-cum-District Programme Manager of District Blindness Control Society, Rayagada was sent to the concerned village to examine the patients and to ascertain the facts. It is stated that Dr. M.Suresh Kumar in his report informed that 3 persons out of 13 persons of the village have not been able to see properly after operation, due to pre-existing eye disease like Glucoma, Diabetic Retinopathy and Macular star. Apart from the above, it is stated that an order was passed by the State Government on 29.04.2010, for a joint examination of all operated cases and accordingly, a total number of 164 cases were jointly examined by a team of surgeons till 6.05.2010. After proper examination, the surgeons reported that only 6 cases complained of poor vision after conduct of cataract surgery due to pre-existing eye diseases and rest of the cases were found as free from any complaints. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid counter affidavit filed by the State Government, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Koraput-Jeypore was directed to record statements of some of the patients whose names have been listed in Annexure–B to the counter affidavit of the State and to find out the correctness of the report published in the news paper. Accordingly, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority submitted his report to this Court vide letters dated 25.06.2010 & 27.09.2010. On perusal of the said reports it appears that, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority recorded statements of 26 persons. From among the 26 persons, it was found that, 20 persons have stated that they have benefited from cataract operation and their vision power in the operated eye had improved and they are able to see properly at present. From out of the reset 6 persons, 2 persons namely, Sahadeva Bebarta and Smt. Kadingi Manika did not complain of any loss of vision, rather they stated of improvement in their eye sight after the cataract operation. From the balance 4 persons, only 2 i.e. Nagali Amiamma aged about 70 years of village Ukkumba and Smt. S.Gunamma complained about low vision in their eyes after the operation but none of these patients stated 2 that they had any pre-existing eye diseases except formation of cataract prior to operation. 4. Another patient, namely, Mrutyunjaya Panda, on whose allegation the news article was published in “The Times of India”, stated that his vision power in his left eye had become very low after the operation held on 1.2.2010 at S.D. Hospital, Gunupur. On 2.2.2010 though he visited the eye camp, the operating doctor was not available for consultation. Thereafter he consulted with the eye specialist at Gunupur, who informed that this blindness which had developed after the operation could not be cured during his life time. It is alleged that he also visited Ramanguda PHC after a week where he consulted with Dr. Shiba Pr. Sahu, Managing Director of Trilochan Netralaya, where the operating doctor Dr. Susant Kumar Jagadal was present and when he described his problem of low vision to them, they simply did nothing except providing some medicines. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority also interviewed the Press Reporter, namely, Mr. Satyanarayan Pattnaik of Jeypore, on whose report the article had been published by “The Times of India”. In the enquiry report it was stated that from the statement of Mr. Satyanarayan Pattnaik, Journalist of “The Times of India” it can be concluded that the said news item regarding the alleged loss of vision by the aforesaid patients as quoted and published in “The Times of India” on 1.5.2010, was purely based on verbal complaints of the patient before him and not upon any physical examination of the patient or any direct knowledge about the alleged matter. The report further indicates that ‘Trilochan Netralaya’ had carried out an eye camp for cataract patients at Gunupur Hospital in collaboration with Gunupur Hospital Authority and Dr. Susanta Kumar Jagdal of Trilochan Netralaya, Sambalpur single handedly conducted all the operations on 301 patients in seven days i.e., from 27.01.2010 to 2.2.2010 at S.D.Hospital, Gunupur. On an average, Dr. Susanta Kumar Jagdal carried out operation of 43 patients per day. From the above, the Enquiry Officer has reported that, 3 evidently the operation was carried out in a hasty manner having least regard to the vital sensitive organ of a human being like eyes. Apart from the above the report also discloses the apparent lack of pre-operative assessment. Although it was claimed by the Medical Authorities that, the patients had been selected for surgery on the basis of prior examination and evaluation, yet, the volume of patients on whom the operation was carried out, i.e. 301 patients over a span of seven days, at an average of 43 patients per day negatives the assertion made on behalf of the Medical Authorities that adequate pre-operative evaluation had been done, to exclude those patients from operation those patients who had pre-existing health condition for which no cataract surgery ought to have been carried out. The report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority also indicates that though adequate medicines as well as post operation care was afforded to the patients and free spectacles were given to the patients, yet the patients were allowed to choose their non spectacles available on a table, which clearly indicates that there was no real assessment done by the doctors of the requisite specifications needed by each individual patient. 5. In the light of the circumstances as recorded hereinabove and based on the enquiry conducted by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Koraput-Jeypore, we dispose of the sou-motu writ petition with the following directions:- (i) The Government of Orissa in Health and Family Welfare Department is directed to grant compensation a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) each in favour of Smt. Nagali Amiamma, Smt. S.Gunnamma and Sri Mrutyunjaya Panda for their pain and suffering. (ii) All the Government hospitals of the State should ensure proper pre-operative assessment of all patients prior to recommending surgery, especially when “Health Camps” are organized to ensure proper evaluation of patients. 4 (iii) Whenever a health camp is conducted, the doctors of such Government Hospital should ensure that adequate medical personnel are available to conduct such surgery, so that each individual patient is given adequate care. Attempt for achieving huge targets or records should be discouraged and the authorities must ensure that such number of surgeries take place, as is practically possible and permissible. In the present case we find that only one surgeon has carried out on an average 43 cataract operations per day over a period of seven days. Obviously, adequate care could not have been given to each patient as is required and each patient deserves. (iv) The Journalists/Press Reporters must ensure proper verification of facts, prior to sending the same for publication to their respective news papers/magazines. In the present case, it is found that Mr. Satyanarayan Pattnaik, Press Reporter of the Times of India had sent his report merely based on oral statements made by a few patients, without in any manner attempting to cross check or verify such facts. Further, resorting to headlines, as used in the present case should be avoided and the same be duly toned down keeping in view the public duty it owes to its readers and not to create panic in circumstances which are not warranted. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the suo-motu writ petition is disposed of. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Government of Orissa Health & Family Welfare Department for circulation to all concerned as well as to the Editor, the Times of India for information and necessary action. …………………… I.Mahanty, J. V.Gopala Gowda, C.J. I agree. ……………………… Chief Justice ORISSA HIGH COURT; CUTTACK 20th December,2010/AKD. 5