1. The present Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 14.12.2012, whereby the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (herein, tate Commission at Puducherry allowed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry (herein, istrict Forum dated 27.09.2011 holding the Petitioner hospital guilty of medical negligence without appreciating the law of medical negligence as declared by the Honle Supreme Court of India. 2. The Complainant/Respondent took his 1 year old daughter to the Opposite Parties (OP) /Petitioner hospital on 29.03.2005 with the complaints of since two days unable to open her left eye. The Doctor at Petitioner hospital examined the child as an out-patient and found the left eye had lid swelling with conjuctival congestion. There were multiple caterpillar hairs and it was inferior corneal epithelial defect. Under topical local anesthesia caterpillar hairs in upper tarsal conjunctiva in left eye were removed and antibiotic eye ointment applied and the eye was bandaged. Patient father was asked to bring the child for review the next day. But, the child brought to OPD on 31/03/2005 , and admitted as in patient on 1/4/2005 and discharged on 4/4/2005. The child was again brought for review on 26/4/2005 but the OP informed the complainant that child lost her vision in left eye. 3. Therefore, the father of child (complainant) filed a complaint No 37/2007 before the District Forum, Pondicherry alleging negligence in treatment his child who lost her vision of left eye and prayed for the compensation of Rs.490000/- from OP hospital. 4. OP denied the negligence on their part. OP contended that the complainant did not attend as per the doctor instructions for follow up. At the first instant the child was examined and treated on 29/3/2005 and called on very next day, but it was brought on 31/3/2005. Thereafter again, the child was advised for review on 12/4/2005 but child was brought on 26/4/2005 which on examination by the cornea specialist noted severe deterioration of left eye, there was corneal edema and anterior chamber, vitreous cavity showed severe fibrinous exudates suggestive of endophthalmitis due to migration of caterpillar hair posteriorly. The retina could not visualized, the ultrasound showed total retinal detachment. Such condition of child was informed to the complainant and advised to continue treatment by steroid eye drops and atropine ointment for 20 days. Child attended the OP for 4 times till 3/1/2006, thereafter stopped attending the OP hospital. Hence, OPs were confined to their stand as the treatment was in accordance with accepted medical practice and there was no negligence. 5. The District forum after considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint partly holding the OP hospital guilty of negligence. The compensation was computed on the basis of age of child and financial status of complainant, hardship to be faced by him for her education, marriage etc. and accordingly awarded payment of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10, 000/- towards costs. 6. Against the order of District Forum the OP filed First Appeal No.1/2012 before the State Commission, Pondicherry. 7. State Commission heard the counsel for the both parties. The OP contention was that they took all care and caution and the treatment given was in accordance with accepted standard of care. 8. On perusal of evidence and hospital records the State Commission dismissed the FA 1/2012. 9. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission the OP preferred this revision. 10. We have heard the arguments at length advanced by counsel of both the parties. We have carefully examined the evidence, the hospital record sheets. As per the written version filed by OP (RW 1) Dr. R. D. Ravindran, Chief Medical Officer of the OP hospital that when the child attended the hospital on 29/3/2005 which was referred to Pediatric Ophthalmology Department, under local anesthesia caterpillar hairs in left upper tarsal conjunctiva were removed and antibiotic ointment applied and bandaged and called for review on next day ; but child was brought on 31.03.2005 on which the left eye developed corneal oedema; diagnosed that the anterior chamber showed fibrinous reaction to be due to the intraocular migration of the caterpillar hairs into the anterior segment; and hence admitted for treatment from 1/4/2005 to 4/4/2005. From the above admitted statement corroborated by the evidence of RW 1. it is clear that there was no defect in the posterior segment of the eye. There was no movement of the caterpillar hair to the posterior segment till then. Hence, it was not a cause for vitritis or endophthalmitis by any migration of the caterpillar hairs posteriorly. The RW 1 admitted that if caterpillar hair enters an eye it is a complicated one; that if evidence hair enters the intraocular cavity, definitely it would cause loss of vision. We find lot of contradiction between evidence of RW1 and the opinion of two expert evidence. 11. The expert evidences of two highly qualified experts play imminent role in deciding this petition. One Dr. Vasudev Anand Rao, as CW.2; the Head of the Department, Director and Professor of Ophthalmology, JIPMER, Puducherry and another Dr. A. Dhanashree Ratra CW 3, the Senior Consultant of Vitrep Retinal Department of Sankar Nethralaya, were examined as expert witnesses. 12. According to the expert CW 2 that falling of caterpillar hairs in the eye is a serious condition as the caterpillar hairs have fine spines and they have tendency to migrate to the cornea or sclera that produce inflammation in the eye and in rare cases might lead to the detachment of retina. 13. Expert CW 3 evidence has deposed to the effect that entering of caterpillar hair in to eye is scientifically termed as pthalmia Nodosa Normally pthalmia Nodosaincludes range of signs, range of symptoms including redness of the eye and watering to decreased vision and infection in the eye. It is true that the Complainant baby as per records of Ex. R2 the course of treatment given to the patient up to 26.04.2005 is in order. It is also admitted by Dr. A. Dhanashree Ratra Sankara Netralaya, stated that on 29.03.2005 if ultrasound scan is performed in the Complainant baby the caterpillar hair that are present in interior portion of the eye, may be detected, and such treatment could be conducted by admitting the patient as in-patient, further it is a long course of treatment. The Opposite Party hospital if they have taken up the Complainant baby case seriously they could have saved her vision. It is admitted that pthalmia Nodosais a curable surgically by means of ntro retinal surgeryof which OP hospital failed to do so and not taken steps for further treatment. It is known that it is difficult to remove the caterpillar hair from the inner portion of the eye and which could be removed by Vitreo Retinal Surgery; that the petitioner doctor did not advise such kind of surgery. which amounts to deficiency in service and the medical negligence. 14. On perusal of affidavit of opposite parties, it is contented that every detail about the treatment is explained to the Complainant father, but there is no documentary evidence to that extent, it is also admitted by RW1 Dr. R.D. Ravindran, Chief Medical Officer, Aravind Eye Hospital in his Chief. OPs have not recorded the reason for retinal canal detachment in their hospital records as per Ex. R2. 15. We are aware that petitioner hospital is one of the renowned hospital in India , possess Research and a Post Graduate Ophthalmology Department, run by charitable trust. The OP doctors diagnosed the case but, despite knowing the seriousness and complication of the ailment, the petitioner has treated the child in a very casual manner. It was the duty of OP when the child presented herself first time for treatment on 29-03-2005 and diagnosed as existence of caterpillar hair in the eye, which would cause impairment of vision. OP merely removed the hairs in the anterior portion of the eye, applying eye ointment, bandaging the eye and called for review on next day. Such patient needs hospitalization for sustained and constant care and proper investigations as per expert evidence of CW 2 & 3. 16. Hence, considering the evidence of RW1 and both the experts we are of considered opinion that being the seriousness of the ailment it was necessary to keep the child under constant care in the hospital till the ailment is completely cured off. But OP neglected it and treated he child in casual manner. The child on the first day of her presentation and discharging the child by clearing the exudates without confirming that the ailment was completely cured and the vision was normal that would certainly tantamount to negligence on the part of the OP. The discharge summary and hospital records lack many details of history and treatment given. It appears a careless approach by OP. 17. The principles of what constitutes medical negligence is now well established by number of judgments of this commission as also the Honle Supreme Court of India, including Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab[(2005) 6 SSC 1] and in Indian Medical Association Vs V.P.Shantha [(1995) 6SSC 651]. One of the principles is that a medical practioner is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must also exercise a reasonable degree of care and caution in treating a patient. In the instant case, it is very clear from the facts stated in forgoing paragraphs that a reasonable degree of care was not taken by OP in treatment of the child left eye. 18. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service by OPs and negligence in proper treatment which resulted in loss of vision in left eye of complainant. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the orders pass by for below. While quantifying the compensation it is necessary to consider the age of the child, her father economic conditions. It is being a female child of 11 years as of now, lost her eye at the age of 1-1/2 years. Considering a tender age of child and her future, we are of considered opinion that she should be compensated adequately. Therefore, we confirm the orders of fora below and impose additional punitive compensation of Rs.2, 00,000/- to be paid to the complainant. 19. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. OPs are directed to comply entire order within 60 days otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. It is further directed that the amount to be deposited in any convenient nationalized bank in the name of minor Complainant Kanmani daughter of Ramamurthy till she attains majority. The accrued interest shall be utilized for her education and medical expenses by her father.