S.C.VYAS, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order 22.10.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short) in complaint case No.51/2003, whereby the appellant herein has been directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/ - with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till the date of payment, on the allegation that he committed negligence while performing surgical operation on the eye of the complainant, resulting in total loss of vision. In addition to it, he has also been directed to pay Rs.10,000/ - as compensation for mental and physical agony and Rs.2,000/ - as cost of litigation.
(2.) INDISPUTABLY , the respondent / complainant reached to the Hospital of the appellant on 23.11.2000 with complaint of having cataract in the right eye. The appellant after examination advised for surgical operation for removal of cataract and for implantation of artificial lense. The complainant was admitted on 26.11.2000 in the Hospital and was operated on 27.11.2000. As per allegations in the complaint, after two days when bandage was removed, then it was found that the complainant was incapable of seeing anything through that eye. Then he was referred to Dr. V.K. Moda, Korba by the appellant and later on to Dr. B.P. Sharma of M.M.I. Hospital, Raipur, who, by performing second operation, removed the lense, implanted by the appellant, but even then the vision has not revived. The allegation of the complainant is that the appellant has committed gross negligence while performing surgical procedure on his eye, resulting in total loss of vision from that eye and on the basis of this allegation compensation of Rs.10,40,000/ - was demanded. The appellant herein refuted the allegation of medical negligence and averred that he is a competent ophthalmologist and using his full skill had performed the surgical  operation of removal of cataract and implantation of lense. It has been averred by him  that even after complete care and skillful operation, sometimes complication may arise, as per established medical procedure and as there were some complications also, in the case of the complainant, so he was referred to medical expert Dr. V.K. Moda by the appellant. Dr. Moda agreed that there was infection and started treatment for that infection. It has also been approved by Dr. Moda that medicines which were prescribed by the appellant were perfectly alright. Even Dr. B.P. Sharma, who performed the second operation, has also not found any negligence on the part of the appellant. It has been specifically averred by him that all necessary examinations were  performed before operation and then the procedure for surgical operation was conducted, but unfortunately on account of some infection in the body of the complainant, developed all of a sudden, he suffered loss of vision, which was not on account of some defect in the procedure performed by the appellant, but was on account of infection suffered by him. It has also been averred that before performing  the operation it has been clearly stated to the complainant that there may be some complication, even after operation and his consent was also obtained. It has also been averred that prior to operation also he was not having any vision from that eye and that is why the operation for removal of cataract and for implantation of lense was  prescribed. It has been averred that the appellant OP is a very experienced ophthalmologist, who had already performed around 20,000 to 25,000 operations successfully, earlier. The complainant was suffering from hyper matured cataract and in case he was not operated immediately, then there were chances of some other damages to him. It was also possible that the eye infection might have reached to brain and that is why other possibilities were also explained to the complainant. It has also been averred that on second day of operation, when the eye was examined, then it was noted by the appellant / OP that there were some sort of infection in the eye and to ascertain the cause of infection he was referred to medical expert Dr. V.K. Moda. Dr. Moda, Dr. Sharma and Doctors of Sankara Nethralaya Chennai have also approved that loss of vision of the complainant was on account of some internal infection and not because of some defect in the operation. Thus, the allegation of medical negligence has been totally denied.
(3.) LEARNED District Forum in the impugned order has observed that as there was loss of vision and as Dr. B.P. Sharma, observed that the implanted lense was adherent to the eye, so there was negligence on the part of the appellant and so he was guilty of committing negligence and is liable for payment of compensation.;