SUKHDEV GILL Vs. ROTARY EYE HOSPITAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 25. 6. 2007 passed in appeals No. 112 of 2005 and 151 of 2005 by H. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the appeal No. 112 of 2005 filed by the complainant, for enhancement of compensation was dismissed and another appeal No. 151 of 2005 filed by the OPs, was allowed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, (in short, 'the District Forum') granting compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant, was set aside.

(2.) The complainant, Sukhdev Gill, (in short, 'patient') a practising advocate at Chandigarh visited Rotary Eye Hospital at Dhusara for his eye check-up on 14. 7. 1999. OP-3/Dr. Rajat Mathur , examined him and found the cataract in the left eye and also squint in the left eye. Accordingly, OP-3 advised him to undergo squint operation initially, then the cataract operation. The complainant got admitted on the same day and operation was performed by OP-3 on next day. No one/hospital staff was present to take care of the patient. It was alleged that injection was given by Chowkidar. On the next day i. e. 16. 7. 1999, he was discharged. OP-3 removed the stitches on 24. 7. 1999 and advised some medicines. The squint was not corrected and complainant had diminished vision in left eye. Therefore, the complainant visited OP/hospital on 25. 8. 1999, but OP-3 after examining the left eye asked the complainant to forget about his left eye forever. On 29. 9. 1999, the complainant visited Grover Eye and ENT Hospital at Chandigarh wherein it was diagnosed that retina of left eye of the complainant had been detached; it was incurable. Thereafter, the complainant visited number of other doctors and eye hospitals but there was no avail. Thus, due to the alleged negligence of OP-3/doctor and OP-1/hospital, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Una, H. P. claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 4,85,000/-.

(3.) The OPs resisted the complaint before the District Forum and denied any negligence on their part. It was submitted that right eye vision of the complainant was 6/60 and correction with glasses was 6/12. The vision of left eye was almost zero, i. e. as per WHO standard, it was blind. The left eye was having no vision except perception of light, but projection of rays was inaccurate. There was squint in left eye having outward deviation of 30 degree. Fundus examination revealed that there was old Retinal Detachment (in short, 'RD') in the left eye. Accordingly, patient was advised that, there was no chance of vision in left eye, but for cosmetic purpose, squint could be corrected. The operation for squint correction was conducted on 15. 7. 1999 and patient was discharged on 16. 7. 1999. There was no fault in the operation. It was denied that the operation was unsuccessful, OP did not charge for diagnosis, but only material costs was charged. The complainant was well aware about condition of left eye and RD prior to the surgery for correction of his squint.