MAZHARUDDINBHAI S KAZI Vs. ASHOK MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 10.2.2004 rendered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara in Consumer Complaint No.51 of 2002.

(2.) It was the complainant's case that he had got himself operated for cataract in the Hospital of opponent Ophthalmologist on 9.8.2001. It was also the case of the complainant that he went for getting his eyes examined on 13.8.2001 when he experienced some difficulty in the eye. It was noticed that there was infection. Opponent doctor referred the complainant to Dr. Mrugesh Kotiya who also prescribed medicines for the said complication. As the complainant was not cured, he was once again referred to Dr. Nagpal at Ahmedabad under the special note of opponent doctor. Dr. Nagpal opined that the right eye would need operation again and regaining of vision was difficult proposition. However, the operation was performed with a view to see that there was no further deterioration. Alleging deficiency in medical services the complainant issued notice to opponent doctor on 15.10.2001. The opponent doctor did not reply the notice. Hence, the complainant approached the District Forum. Opponent doctor appears to have given a written communication by way of reply to the learned Forum setting out the facts. The learned Forum, upon considering the facts of the case and finding that there was no expert evidence with regard to any specie of medical negligence on the part of the opponent doctor dismissed the complaint. That is how the complainant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.

(3.) When this appeal came up for admission, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant, now appellant, has been extensively heard. The documents though not presented before the learned Forum have also been examined. Upon examination of all these documents, no specie of medical negligence could be spotted from any note or observation either of Dr. Nagpal or Dr. Mrugesh Kotiya. Post-operative infection insofar as eye operations are concerned is a known complication and in some cases, that does occur. Variety of causes can be attributed even upon searching investigation about such cases. In the present case there is no evidence, much less expert evidence to connect the doctor with the loss of vision of right eye of the complainant. This is not a case where the principles of res ipsa loquitur will apply. Merely because the opponent doctor did not reply to the notice, medical negligence cannot be inferred. Merely because he restrained from appearing by sending a reply setting out the facts, medical negligence cannot be inferred. It is misfortune of the complainant who is a senior citizen aged about 70 years that he lost vision of right eye. However, that misfortune cannot be passed on to the treating doctor without fault. Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had an occasion to deal with such a case in K. S. Bhatia V/s. Jeevan Hospital and Another, 2003 4 CPJ 9. That was also a case of loss of vision and the National Commission in terms reiterated the proposition of law that in such cases, expert evidence of some material in the form of excerpts from medical text books would be required to connect the loss of vision with any of the treating doctors. That is entirely absent in the present case. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we reject this appeal at the admission stage.