SATISH C.GUPTA Vs. RAJ KUMAR NARULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals, one filed by Dr. Satish Gupta, opposite party No.1 and the other by Shri Raj Kumar Narula, the complainant are directed against the order dated 3.4.2006 passed by the State Commission in complaint case No.C105/1998. Hence, these are being taken up together for consideration.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, we continue to refer Shri Raj Kumar Narula as the complainant and. Dr. Satish Gupta as OP No.1 and New India Assurance as OP No.2 during the course of discussion in these appeals.

(3.) VIDE the order stated above, the State Commission arrived at the finding that the complainant lost his vision due to the negligence of the opposite party in not removing the silicon oil for more than two years inspite of the fact that he had examined him on as many as 26 occasions knowing it well that retention of silicon oil in the eye for such a long time can promote cataract, cause glaucoma and damage the cornea further with the chances of corneal abnormalities in the eyes randomized to silicon oil remains high. The State Commission, therefore, allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000 for mental and physical injury and further imposed cost of Rs.10,000 on the opposite parties.