ATUL MISHRA Vs. K C JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed against the order dated 29.12.2007 passed by the District Forum, Jabalpur in C.C.No.84/2005. While the Appeal No. 756/2008 seeks an order to quash the relief granted by the District Forum, the Appeal No. 848/2008 seeks enhancement of the amount. An application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum to seek damages in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation towards the treatment, mental agony and expenses incurred. It was stated before the District Forum that on account of negligence of non -applicant No. 1 Dr. Atul Mishra, the complainant lost his vision.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the complainant had consulted non -applicant No. l on 2.1.2005 for treatment of his right eye. The doctor diagnosed it to be a case of cataract and accordingly an operation was performed by phacomachine on 8.1.2005. The patient was discharged on 9.1.2005 from hospital with follow up advices. The case of the complainant is that before operation complainant was having 15% vision in the right eye but after operation he found that he had absolutely no vision in the said eye. As there was no improvement, the complainant consulted Dr. Pawan Sthapak and learnt that he had Glaucoma in the right eye for which he was treated at Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai. Many consultants were consulted and eventually the complainant had to go to Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai and spent Rs. 2,50,000.

(3.) OPPOSITE Party No. l namely Dr. Atul Mishra filed written statement, denying the allegations. He stated that the complainant was suffering from cataract of both the eyes but right eye was more affected. Due to cataract, interior of the eye could not be examined. After routine pre -operative examination, the surgery was performed with the process of phaco -imulsification. He had also demonstrated that his eye -sight has improved.