- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order-dated 10.09.2009 (Annexure/6) passed by the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Tonk (respondent No.5) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 22 (C) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 has been rejected. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that petitioner started to have complaint of low vision and pain in his right eye, therefore, he contacted Eye Specialist at Sadat Hospital, Tonk who advised surgery for the correction of problem in his eye. The petitioner on the advise of the Eye Specialist undergone the eye surgery at the "Brahmansheel" medical surgery Unit of Eye of Government Sadat Hospital, Tonk conducted by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 on 18.01.2006. The petitioner took all the medicines and precautions prescribed by the respondents but after few days again the petitioner's vision became low and pains started in his operated eye. The petitioner contacted respondent and complained about his problem and requested them to check it again, but the respondent refused to check it again, therefore, the petitioner met Dr. Siddarth Kothari, Eye Specialist and Surgeon at Jaipur, who told him that during operation, the lense has not been placed properly because of which the problem of seeing multiple images and low vision started and for the correction of which, he was to be operated again and his lense requires to be placed at proper place, for which the petitioner has to undergo Astigmatic Surgical Correction, the expenses of which would be around Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only). On 10.09.2009, the petitioner filed complaint in Permanent Lok Adalat against the respondents for bearing the expenses of his treatment and compensation for his mental and physical agony. As the matter cannot be decided without the examination of the petitioner hence, the Lok Adalat directed the respondents to constitute a Medical Board at SMS Hospital Jaipur to examine the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Board on the given time. The Board opined " the patient underwent uneventful cataract surgery with PC IOL with good visual recovery (6/9) with acceptable refractive (glasses) correction. The respondent No.5- Permanent Lok Adalat, however, decided the matter against the petitioner vide its order-dated 10.09.2006 (Annexure/6) and rejected the application of the petitioner. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner regarding negligence of the doctor in operation is not properly considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that Permanent Lok Adalat, Tonk has decided the matter and has committed an error in not awarding compensation of Rs.3,69,000/- (Rs. Three Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand) to the petitioner. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the permanent Lok Adalat Adalat while considering the finding of the Medical Board of SMS Hospital, Jaipur came to the conclusion that in case the spectacles are used, then there is no need of complaining vision of the eye by the petitioner and he may see the things properly and in the operation of the petitioner also there was no negligence of the Doctor. Therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat has committed no error of law in dismissing the compensation of the petitioner after considering the finding of the Medical Board of SMS Hospital, Jaipur.
(3.) HENCE, no interference is called for and the writ petition is dismissed.;