NAINISH PATHAK Vs. GAGABHAI CHIKABHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise from Order dated 26th July, 2004 rendered by the learned Ahmedabad District (Rural) Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in the Complaint No. 21/1998 directing the opponents to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,00,000/ - with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment, Rs. 10,000/ - by way of compensation on the head of mental agony and Rs. 5,000/ - for cost of the complaint.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have gone through the impugned order.

(3.) IT would appear that the complainant - watchman of a mill had difficulty of deteriorated vision of his left eye. He, therefore, went to opponent No. 2 s hospital on 5.11.1997 for his treatment. The first opponent Doctor who was present in the hospital examined him and diagnosed complainant s ailment a cataract requiring surgery. Complainant consented for cataract operation being performed. He was accordingly admitted to the opponent No. 2 s hospital on 6.11.1997 where opponent No. 1 operated him for cataract by intra -ocular implant in the complainant s left eye and he was discharged from the hospital at about 4.00 O clock in the evening on the same day. It was the complainant s case that he had gone to the opponent No. 2 s hospital after two days of the operation with a complaint that he had pain in his left eye and there was swelling therein. Opponent No. 1 Doctor examined him and found that there was infection in his left eye. According to the complainant he was told to go to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad where ultimately he was advised for removal of his left eye. For that purpose he was once again referred to the opponents. Opponent No. 1 Doctor had referred the complainant to the Specialist, Dr. Nagpal who after examination of the complainant recommended for removal of the eye. Accordingly operation for removal of the left eye was performed on 24.11.1997. Complainant, therefore, alleged medical negligence and deficiency in rendition of service on the part of the opponents on the ground that the first opponent on behalf of the second opponent has shown medical negligence in performing operation of cataract resulting into removal of complainant s left eye. He, therefore, prayed for compensation on account of loss of his left eye.