DILIP C. SHAH PADMAVATI EYE HOSPITAL Vs. SUBHASHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petitioner has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Udaipur (for short 'the State Commission') vide which while allowing Appeal No. 99/2011, "Shri Subashchandra Tulsiramji Sevak vs. Dr. Dilip C. Shah" the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Udaipur dismissing consumer complaint no. 09/2010 filed by the present respondent no. 1 / complainant was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent no. 1 Subhashchandra filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging medical negligence against the petitioner/OP Doctor, Dr. Dilip C. Shah, who is an ophthalmic surgeon at Himmatnagar, Gujarat and is running his hospital called Padmavati Eye Hospital. It has been alleged that the complainant approached the petitioner/OP Doctor with complaint of problem in his left eye. The said Doctor advised him surgery for cataract in the said eye. The surgery was performed by the OP Doctor in his hospital on 08.08.08 and a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was charged from the complainant/respondent no. 1. The complainant has alleged that he lost vision in his left eye because of wrong procedure done by the OP Doctor due to which he suffered retinal detachment in his left eye. He got another surgery done at a hospital in Mumbai and then at Dahod, but despite these two surgeries, his vision could not be restored. The complainant filed the complaint with prayer to grant a compensation of Rs. 10 lakh for loss of vision in eye, Rs. 1 lakh for deficiency in service, Rs. 1,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/OP by filing written reply before the District Forum, in which he gave the version that the complainant first approached him on 01.08.2008 and he advised him surgery for cataract in the left eye. The complainant then got himself examined at Udaipur on 02.08.2008 from Dr. Anil Kothari, who also advised that he had developed cataract in the left eye. However, the complainant decided to get the surgery done from the OP Doctor because of less expenses involved. The surgery for cataract was performed on 03.08.2008 and not on 08.08.08. The operation was done without any complication and thereafter, the complainant visited his clinic on 08.08.2008, 20.08.2008 and 24.08.2008 when it was found that there was full vision in his eye. The complainant also got himself examined at Kandivali Hitvardhak Hospital, Mumbai on 2.09.2008 and got spectacle number for his eye for the purpose of lenses. The OP doctor has further stated in his reply that on 21.09.2008, the complainant told him on telephone that he was suffering from cold and snuffle and due to sneeze, his vision in the left eye had gone. The complainant came to his clinic on 25.09.2009 when it was found on examination that he had suffered retinal detachment due to sneeze. The patient was advised to go to Ahmedabad for treatment on account of retinal detachment. However, the complainant got himself treated at Mumbai. The Doctor has stated that there was no negligence on his part in the treatment of the patient and the retinal detachment was not due to the surgery performed by him. In fact, he was fully cured after the surgery for cataract and could see very well.