V V SATHAYE Vs. HIMATLAL GIRDHARILAL SINGALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Dr. V.V. Sathaye (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat in Appeal No. 108 of 2004 wherein Himatlal Girdharlal Singala and another were the Respondents.

(2.) According to the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum, he underwent a cataract surgery in the right eye performed by the Petitioner/doctor on 15.6.1998 by Phako Emulsification on payment of Rs. 6,500. On the day following the surgery, Respondent developed swelling and pain in the operated eye because of complications which did not respond to treatment and eventually he lost complete vision in the right eye. According to the Respondent this occurred because of negligence on the part of the Petitioner/doctor who did not take due care during the surgery because of which the eye developed infection and Endophthalmitis. Respondent contacted the Petitioner/doctor seeking compensation to which there was a rude response. He also issued a formal notice, which was ignored. Respondent thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service caused by the Petitioner during performance of Respondent's cataract surgery and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay the Respondent Rs. 2 lakh as compensation.

(3.) Petitioner has denied the above allegations and stated that the cataract surgery conducted by him was successful and that the Respondent was examined on 16.6.1998 and discharged on that day without any complaint since his condition was satisfactory. The Respondent complained of swelling and pain in the right eye for the first time on 20.6.1998. Had the patient got pain and swelling in the operated eye soon after the surgery, he would not have agreed to his being discharged on 16.6.1998 or he would have visited the Petitioner/doctor with these complaints prior to 20.6.1998. The complications developed by the patient and his not responding to treatment depends on various factors and it cannot be attributed to Petitioners negligence in performing the surgery. In fact the Respondent did not heed the Petitioner's advice and, therefore, he is responsible for any loss and damages suffered by him.