Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

 This is an appeal filed by the complainant whose complaint no.461/2004 was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban by its judgement dated 18/5/2007.  Hence this appeal is filed by the complainant himself.  Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-

         Complainant has filed this consumer complaint against Dr.V.Sitaraman of Mulund.  He alleged in his complaint that O.P. doctor had operated him on eye cataract on 03/5/2004.  On next day when he was inspecting the operated eye, O.P. found that the lens affixed in the operated portion was not properly fixed and, therefore, he operated second time on 06/5/2004 and adjusted the lens.  However, according to complainant, even after second operation, the lens was not found to be properly affixed.  It was slipping from its sloth. Therefore, O.P. doctor referred him to Dr.Dudhani of Khar by giving reference letter.  He then approached Dr.Dudhani of Khar where on 18/5/2004 Dr.Dudhani conducted third operation and he removed the earlier lens and affixed new lens.  The complainant alleged that within three days he was required to undergo three operations on the same eye, therefore, he alleged that because of negligence of O.P.-doctor his eye sight became very weak and the ratina got detached of the said eye.  When he told O.P., O.P. told him that his eye sight would regain but he would not get back eye sight and, therefore, he sent registered notice to the O.P. on 28/09/2004 and asked for compensation of `5 lakhs.  No reply was given by the O.P. and, therefore, he filed consumer complaint claiming compensation of `5 lakhs and cost of the proceedings.  Complainant filed his own affidavit, copy of notice, discharge card of Dr.Dudhani. 

           O.P. filed his written statement and contested the matter.  According to O.P. on 30/4/2004 he had examined left eye of the complainant. He had advised him to undergo cataract operation and for installation of Intra Ocular Lens (IOL).  Accordingly, on 03/05/2004 complainant’s left eye was operated but on following day it was found that the lens had dislocated and, therefore, O.P. informed the complainant that there are complications and, therefore, second operation would have to be done.  Hence, second operation was performed on the said eye on 06/05/2004.  But even thereafter lens had dislocated posteriorly.  This was informed to the complainant and he then referered to Dr.Ajay Dudhani-Eye Surgeon of Khar on 11/5/2004.  When complainant was referred to Dr.Dudhani, his eye sight was proper and ratina was intact. Dr.Dudhani performed third surgery on the complainant on 18/5/2004 and installed the lens properly.  Again on 05/7/2004, complainant had come to O.P.  O.P. found that ratina of the said eye was detached and, therefore, again he was referred to Dr.Dudhani. Dr.Dudhani further conducted surgery on the said eye on 07/07/2004.  It was the surgery meant for ratinal detachment.  Ratina was fixed properly, but because of ratinal edema and ratinal hole, due to complications of surgery, eye sight of the complainant had been impaired. O.P. pleaded that even after expert Ophthalmologist conducts cataract surgery, sometimes there can occur eye dislocation or ratinal detachments.   These are the known complications of any cataract surgery.  Complainant was given information about the same and about complications arising out of performance of such cataract surgery.  O.P. pleaded that after second surgery was performed by him he was having eye sight of 6/12.  O.P. pleaded that in conducting surgery on the complainant’s eye he has not been guilty of deficiency in service or medical negligence.  He had filed in support of his written statement affidavit of Dr.Motwani of Somaiya Hospital, Mumbai and Dr.Neeta Shanbhag, Head of Department of D.Y.Patil Medical College, Nerul and of Dr.Ajay Dudhani, Associate Professor, Somaiya Medical College and that of Smt.Dolly Joseph who had assisted in the operation of complainant of.

          On considering affidavits and documents placed on record, forum below was pleased to hold that the grievance of the complainant was nothing but a sort of complications, he was required to suffer because of the performance of cataract operation by the O.P.  Complainant was aware of the complications of the cataract operation. O.P. Doctor had successfully performed cataract operation and then he had referred the patient to Dr.Dudhani who conducted two operations.  Forum below was of the view that the complainant’s eye sight was diminished because of known complications of cataract operation.  Forum below also noted that complainant had not adduced any expert affidavit of Ophthalmologist in support of his case that O.P.-doctor was guilty of deficiency in service of medical negligence.  On the other hand, O.P.-doctor had filed additional written statement. On last page he has incorporated affidavit of Dr.Ajay Dudhani, who had performed subsequent two operations on the complainant. Dr.Dudhanii in the said affidavit clearly stated that Vinod Kumar Varma/appellant herein was not his direct patient.  He was referred to him by Dr.V.Seetharaman on 11/5/2004 for further management.  At the time of referral, he had (a) Posteriorly dislocated ioL (b) Attached (undamaged) ratina (c) good vision of 6/12 with spectacle correction.  In para 4, Dr.Dudhani specifically averred in the affidavit that he did not see any professional negligence on part of Dr.V.Seetharaman in management of this case.  When this is the opinion given by Dr.Dudhani to whom complainant had gone and at whose hands he had undergone two surgeries on the same eye, we are of the view that there was no medical negligence of any kind on the part of  Dr.V.Seetharaman, who had conducted two operations on the complainant.

          Complainant had not adduced any evidence of expert Ophthalmologist.  This is another lacuna found in the complainant’s case. 

          We have thoroughly gone through the documents and affidavits placed on record by the complainant as well as by appellant/respondent.  Though there is no one to argue the case on behalf of respondent, we are finding that case of the appellant is very weak and even in absence of respondent we can hold that there is no merit in the appeal and appeal is appearing to be devoid of any substance.

          There is no medical negligence in the case as alleged by the complainant.  It is the duty of the appellant/complainant to adduce expert evidence from the field.  In the additional written statement, affidavit of Dr.Dudhani, who had conducted two operations had clearly given clean chit to respondent doctor herein and admittedly, said surgeon was expert from the field.  He categorically stated that when appellant was referred to him by Dr.V.Seetharaman he did not find any medical negligence on his part.  In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no case made out by the appellant of medical negligence against respondent herein. Appeal is therefore required to be dismissed. Hence the following order:-

                                                          ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Inform the parties accordingly.