T N GHOSH Vs. V PAHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 6.8.1999 whereby the complaint was dismissed on contest. The Forum observed that the complainant has failed to establish any case of negligence on the part of the present respondent.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the decision of the Forum the complainant has preferred this appeal on the ground that there has been gross miscarriage of justice. According to the appellant the negligence of the respondent is writ large on the face of the prescriptions of the respondent given by Dr. Pahwa himself. His allegation is that Dr. Pahwa failed to diagnose the ailment of both of his eyes by all necessary examinations either by himself or by his assistants. He specifically alleges that Dr. Pahwa failed to detect the glaucoma in his eyes though it had started developing in 1987. Admittedly, the complainant was under the treatment of the opposite party for nearly 3 years from 1991 to 1994. His first visit to Dr. Pahwa was on 18.6.1991 when the doctor detected some black spots in his eyes. The doctor could not detect glaucoma at that time nor could it be detected on subsequent visits to the doctor. On the advice of the doctor he visited him after 6 to 8 months for review. Even during such visits glaucoma could not be detected. All the time the doctor told him that he was afflicted with cataract and since the cataract did not mature the doctor did not advise for operation. The grievance of the complainant is mainly that the doctor being a busy practitioner could not devote sufficient time and give due care to examine him properly resulting in wrong diagnosis. His vision having visibly deteriorated, he approached Dr. Bakshi for examination of his eyes and treatment. Dr. Bakshi examined him on 29.6.1994. At that time too Dr. Bakshi could not detect glaucoma in the eyes of the complainant. Later on the glaucoma was detected and by this time his vision was greatly impaired. The complainant states that all the required tests could have been done on the first day of his visit to Dr. Pahwa and had these been done, the glaucoma would have been detected. The complainant was losing his eye sight very fast. Ultimately, his vision of right eye vas totally impaired and he has become blind of one eye and for this unfortunate development he lays blame upon Dr. Pahwa. His grievance is that the doctor made some cryptic notes in the prescription and released him after 4 or 5 minutes of casual examination. He alleges that proper care and attention was not given to him by the opposite party. It is not disputed that the eyes of the complainant were examined at intervals of 6 to 8 months and sometimes one year also and on each occasion the doctor advised him to come for review. According to the complainant this casual and careless examination by the opposite party resulted in the loss of vision. We noticed earlier that when he was examined for the first time by Dr. Bakshi, the latter did not notice glaucoma on his eyes. Later the glaucoma was detected. In the meantime damage was done to his right eye and his vision was totally impaired. It appears that the Forum discussed the materials available with the record threadbare and came to the clear conclusion that the complainant has signally failed to prove the allegations of negligence on the part of the opposite party. We have considered every aspect of the case and materials on records and we cannot persuade ourselves to hold otherwise. In our opinion, the case has been correctly decided and no interference is required. In that view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed on contest.