LAXMI BALA PAUL Vs. BATAKRISHNA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing this intra court appeal, the appellant Smt. Laxmi Bala Paul has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.255 of 2009 and WP(C) No.36 of 2010 wherein while deciding both the writ petitions together, the learned single judge has set aside the order of payment of compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat in favour of the appellant herein.

(2.) The facts in brief:

(3.) The respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e., the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura and the State of Tripura are represented by Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tripura, respectively and by filing written statement have denied and disputed the allegations levelled against the said respondents. The respondent No.1, i.e., Dr. Bata Krishna Paul had also contested the suit by filling written statement denying and disputing the statements and allegations levelled against him by the appellant herein. All the opposite-parties have stated that there is not even an iota of hint that post-operative Endophthalmitis was developed in the operated eye of the petitioner due to negligence or deficiency in service or want of due care on the part of the concerned Doctor (respondent No.1, Dr. Bata Krishna Paul) or any other Doctor or person engaged in or connected with conducting the cataract surgery and treatment of the appellant herein in the IGM Hospital. Furthermore, it has been stated, that after perusal of the documents of 'Sankardeva Nethralaya' it appeared that no adverse comment in respect of treatment of the complainant-appellant in the IGM Hospital was made by the Doctors of the said hospital at Guwahati. They have further stated that there cannot be any doubt or confusion about performance, sincerity, ability and devotion of the O.P. No. 1 in pre-operative, operative and post-operative treatment of the appellant. They have further stated that there was neither any negligence nor any deficiency in service in treating the appellant in IGM Hospital, Agartala. It is also specifically stated by the respondents that on that day, not only the eye of the appellant but also the eyes of many others having cataract were operated at the same operation theatre. They also have specifically stated that all necessary preoperative tests were conducted and having satisfied they conducted operation and discharged the appellant and other patients after conducting post-operative tests or examinations. In their written compliant they have extracted some texts from some books on the subject, wherefrom it is found that the development of postoperative Endophthalmitis in the operated eye of the appellant herein was merely an accident on which the respondents have no control and it happens in rarest of the raret cases. They referred the appellant to 'Sankardeva Nethralaya' at Guwahati only due to lack of infrastructure to treat postoperative complications like Endophthalmitis.