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.

PRESENT:

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
 2

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
 3

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,
 4

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.
 5

(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.