PRAJAKTA PRADEEP MULAY Vs. VINOD GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under Sec. 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dtd. 5/6/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No.A/2015/438 in which order dtd. 19/1/2015 of Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mumbai Suburban District (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 21 of 2010 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dtd. 19/1/2015 of the District Forum.

(2.) The Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. The Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 2/12/2022

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that complainant is retired doctor and was not able to see properly. On 27/11/2008, she consulted the OP / doctor at his Surya Hospital in Mulund and after diagnosing the cataract in the right eye, the OP advised cataract surgery. The pathological test were carried out on 29/11/2008. The optometrist technician from Surya Hospital carried out the measurement of right eye lens power by performing A Scan of the complainant's right eye. He reported the power of the lens as + 24 Diopter. The cataract surgery by Small Incison Cataract Surgery ( SICS) technique of the complainant's eye was performed by the OP in Surya Hospital by using IOL ( Intra Ocular Lens) of + 24 diopter power on 9/12/2008 and on the same day she was discharged. In the postoperative period, the complainant was found to have refractive error which was measured as for the distant vision Sph-5 and for near vision Sph-2.5. The OP advised the complainant using progressive lens spectacle for the correction of refractive error.