Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission dismissing the complaint CD No. 140/2011, the appellant / complainant has filed the present appeal. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant on 29.09.1998 at about 9.00 PM met with an accident while travelling in a maruti car at Bangalore and received grevious injuries to his eyes and other parts of the body. After first aid at M.S. Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital at Bangalore he was shifted to Maxivision Eye Laser Centre, Hyderabad for further treatment, where he was admitted as an in-patient on 30.09.1998 at 12.15 p.m. and was treated there from 30.09.98 to 5.10.98 and discharged on 5.10.98. As per allegations made in the complaint, the complainant developed several infections and for treatment of the same, he approached OP Hospital on 9.10.98 and thereafter took treatment from OP till Feb. 2000. According to the appellant in spite of taking treatment, his vision did not improve and on the other hand, he completely lost his vision in his right eye and partially lost his vision in the left eye. When he complained to the OP about his loss of vision, they did not give any proper response and tried to throw the blame on the complainant and issued a medical report with all false facts. Since the complainant lost his sight in both the eyes, he approached Dr. Ranga Reddy Lions Eye Hospital, Secunderabad and on their advice approached Shankara Netralaya, Chennai for same. Dr. Ranga Reddy Lions Eye Hospital, Secunderabad treated the complainant and saved the vision of his left eye by removing the damaged right eye. According to the complainant due to the negligence and callous attitude of the OP, he lost his vision in the right eye and partially (70%) in the left eye. Respondent / OP on being served entered appearance and filed its written submissions denying the allegations made by the complainant. Respondent took the stand that the complainant aged 42 years, was initially seen at the OP Hospital in October, 1998 with a history of an accident injury to both the eyes and having been previously treated at Maxivision Eye Hospital from where he was discharged on 5.10.1998. He was diagnosed as having ruptured globe, status post repair with chorodial detachment and retinal detachment and vitreous haemorrhage in the right eye while the left eye was essentially within normal limits. He was treated with systemic steroids and antibiotics and a second opinion was also taken before surgical intervention, from Dr. Taraprasad Das dt. 21.10.1998. Vitreoretinal surgery was done by Dr. Ajit Babu in the form of belt buckling + parsplana + membrane peeling + silicone oil injection + endolaser on 28.10.1998, i.e., after 30 days of the injury. The patient gained a visual acuity of 20/200 (6/60) during the post-operative visits as recorded on dated 22.12.1998. The Opposite Party submits that the complainant was diagnosed to be having sympathetic ophthalmia on 6.4.1999, i.e., after 7 months of the injury. At that time he was having visual acuity of 20 / 25 in his left eye and counting fingers 10 cms in right eye. He was started on high dose steroids by Dr. V. Sangwan. During immunosuppressive therapy, the patient had best visual acuity of counting fingers 1meters in the right eye and 20/25 in his left eye after 5 months, i.e., on 1.9.1999 following diagnosis of sympathetic ophthalmia. As the intraocular pressure was low and changes in silicone oil, a silicone oil exchange + membrane peeling + endolaser was done on 3.11.1999. The opposite party doctor submits that the complainant was last seen by him on 7.6.2000 and at that time the right eye was enucleated elsewhere and having empty socket. At the last follow up, left eye vision was 20/80 and the inflammation was still active, so he was advised a course of I.V. Methyl Prednisolone. Opposite party further submitted that sympathetic ophthalmia is a rare bilateral glaucomatous uveitis that occurs as a complication following an injury in the eye and more rarely after intraocular surgery. The disease appears in the injured eye after variable time and with vastly improved micro surgical repair of wounds, very few patients have primary enucleation of an eye at the time of surgery. In fact no enucleation is recommended these days, if there is any visual potential in the injured eye because of the advent of potent immunosuppressive agents. He therefore, submits that the above stated facts do not support the idea of primary enucleation. As long as the complainant was on immunosuppressive therapy prescribed by OP Doctor, the visual acuity in his left eye was 20/25 which according to medical literature is considered to be a good outcome. However, relapses are common within six months of stopping immunosuppressive therapy and also no one can predict the occurrence of sympathetic ophalmia. The disease process can thus present major management problems as is evident in the report of Dr. J. Biswas. The opposite party thus states that since the disease process itself poses a management challenge and since there is no control over its occurrence there is absolutely no negligence on the part of the doctors at the opposite party institute and seeks dismissal of the complaint. Parties led their respective evidence. State Commission after taking into account the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the complaint on merits with the following observations:- rom the record and the medical reports filed, we note that virectomy was done, B. Scan was taken, topical antibiotics and steroids given, belt buckling, membrance peeling, fluid gas exchange, endolaser and silicone oil injection were all given to the right eye as a part of the treatment. We have no reason to believe that opposite party hospital or its doctors committed any breach of duty in their case in deciding what treatment to give or duty of care in the administration of the treatment to necessitate any right of action to claim negligence. As per the literature filed by both the parties, sysmpathetic opthalmia is a rare disease. We observe from the material on record that the opposite party gave prompt treatment and the complainant failed to establish that the opposite party was negligent in rendering the services. Inference of deficiency cannot be drawn simply because something goes wrong. The opposite party has exercised reasonable care and diligence and keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and the judgments referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no negligence on behalf of the opposite party hospital. The State Commission had also made the following observations:- he complainant except for a bald allegation in his complaint that because of improper treatment and negligence in treatment of the opposite party, he lost his vision in the right eye and partial vision in the left eye did not state as to what exactly the line of treatment should be and what treatment should have been done and what was done, i.e., in other words the complainant did not establish that the opposite party did not follow the normal standards and procedures which are suggested to be following according to medical parlance. The Complainant also did not choose to examine any doctor or file any expert evidence to state that the treatment given by the opposite party hospital is deficient. He was already treated for a period of 6 days by Maxivision Eye Hospital prior to his treatment in the opposite party hospital. Moreover, it is the case of an accident and the complainant is high risk patient having diabetes and as per the letter given by the Maxivision, the complainant had severe infection with uncontrolled diabetes. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the onus to prove that there was negligence on the part of the respondent hospital was on the appellant which he failed to discharge by leading any expert evidence or any Doctor to show that the treatment given to him was deficient. The bald allegation of the appellant about the negligence on the part of the respondent in giving him treatment due to which he lost vision in right eye and partial vision in his left eye, cannot be accepted. The appellant did not state as to what exactly the line of treatment should be or what treatment should have been given by the respondent. The appellant thus failed to establish that the respondent did not follow the normal standard and procedure which are advised to be followed according to established medical norms / practice. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any force in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.