R K AKHAURY Vs. K N LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition dated 25.8.2003 was filed by Dr. R.K. Akhaury, the appellant whose first appeal was dismissed by this Commission vide its order dated 23.5.2003. The said appeal was against the order dated 3.9.1997 of the Bihar State Commission which held the opposite party, present review petitioner, guilty of medical negligence on various counts in conducting a cataract operation which resulted in partial loss of vision in the right eye of the complainant. At the appellate stage both the parties were heard and the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) In the review petition, the petitioner has not pointed out any mistake or error apparent on record. On the other hand his review petition challenges the order of this Commission on merits. The scope of the review petition is limited in correcting a mistake or error apparent on record. The petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen or reagitate the case on merits. When this was pointed out to the petitioner, he confined his arguments to certain procedural lapses. The first argument is that both the State Commission and this Commission have decided the matter without the advantage of the advice of expert witness. He argues that if his Advocate has not been able to reply to the State Commission on technical matters, the Commission should have summoned the petitioner, in person, who could have explained the technical details. We see no merit in this argument. It is true that the State Commission/National Commission can call for expert advice where they feel such an expert advice will help in clarifying the matters. There is, however, not binding on the Commission that expert evidence must be called for. It was for the opposite party/review petitioner to have presented himself to clarify in any case before the State Commission, if he so desired.

(3.) The second point raised by the petitioner is that the complainant had brought on record at a late stage certain extracts from the medical text books and these have been admitted as evidence without a proper affidavit being filed. It is also argued that he had not been given an opportunity to contradict or question such evidence. From the record it could be seen that the original complaint was filed on 16.12.1994. A written statement of reply was filed by the opposite party, the present review petitioner on 4.7.1995. A reply on affidavit by the complainant to this written statement was filed on 11.8.1995. Thereafter the complainant filed three more supplementary affidavits, dated 9.4.1996, 14.5.1997 and 25.7.1997. In all these affidavits, the complainant explained that these affidavits are being filed because he is filing extracts of certain medical text books in support of his complaint.