SHYAM LAL LADIA Vs. O.P. NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Commission, Bhopal (in short 'State Commission') in FA No. 2674 of 2007 whereby the State Commission had dismissed the F.A. aforesaid preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 20.9.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Narsinghpur, M.P. (in short 'District Forum') in CC No. 42 of 2005 whereby the District Forum allowed the entire claim of the respondents of Rs. 2,00,000/ -.

(2.) THE OP No. 1, Dr. O.P. Nayak, stated that he is an experienced and qualified ophthalmologist who examined complainant at the eye camp on 7.10.1996. He had cataract in both his eyes. As the cataract in his right eye had matured, he was advised surgery, but he did not get admitted in the camp. He came again later and was told that 7 lens had been donated by the Lions Club. Two were still left and one of them would be implanted in his eye free of cost. As Savitri Nursing Home had equipments like operating microscope etc., which were not available in the Civil Hospital at Gadarwara, the lens was implanted at Savitri Nursing Home. The surgery was successful and the complainant was advised to stay away from the sun and avoid smoking. Since he was a mason, he was also advised to avoid dust. However, he did not heed the instructions and started working which caused infection in the eye. He was given medication and watched for 2 days. When his condition did not improve he was referred to Dr. Gurdeep Singh at Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. He was admitted at Hamidia Hospital at Bhopal but got discharged against medical advice. The complainant consulted him again on 27.11.1996, and he prescribed some medicines. He also referred him to Dr. R.K. Mishra at Jabalpur.

(3.) THE District Forum allowed the complaint on three grounds (i) the tests required prior to cataract surgery was done one month back, (ii) It was a case of res ipsa loquitor as the OPs admitted that the complainant was suffering from endopthalmitis and (iii) referral letters did not mention the type of endopthalmitis.