V PAHWA Vs. SURINDRA MOHAN GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission where the complainant had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the appellant.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant having some problem in his eye approached the appellant Doctor who prescribed certain tests. The complainant got all the tests carried out except for B-Scan. Upon receipt of these results the petitioner carried out an eye surgery and during surgery it was found that this was case of retina detachment which was in a bad shape and in view of which an Intra Ocular Lens (IOL) was not implanted. The condition of the 'operated-upon-eye' went bad and he lost his eye. The complainant visited again and again and second surgery was carried out on 2.2.1994 but there was no improvement and finally on 16.11.1994 the complainant was told by the Doctor that the eye could not be cured. It is in these circumstances the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging medical negligence who after hearing the parties held the Doctor to be negligent and directed him to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) FIRST point raised by him relates to the fact that the complaint was barred by limitation. According to him the surgery was done by him on 10.1.1994 whereas the complaint has been filed in May, 1996, hence it is barred by limitation. We have perused the material on record and found that it is true that surgery was done on 10.1.1994 but it cannot be denied that complainant was still hopeful of getting some improvement in the eye after visiting the Doctor and the Eko Surgery was carried out on 2.2.1994 and he kept visiting the Doctor till on 16.11.1994 when the Doctor told the complainant that the eye cannot be cured. This point has been raised in Para 17 of the complaint, and, in the written version it has not been specifically denied. In view of this fact, the period of limitation starts from the time the patient felt aggrieved and was told that this eye cannot be cured which was on 16.11.1994 and since the matter was filed in May, 1996 we cannot hold the complaint to be time-barred. This plea has no merit and hence dismissed.