16-01-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

          Nobody appears for the appellant-Doctor. Heard Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant/ Respondent.

2.       The Complainant filed this complaint case alleging medical negligence on the part of the Doctor. It was alleged that the Complainant got operated for cataract by the Doctor on 6.12.2009 but he developed blood clott in the eye due to which his vision became poor and at last when the Doctor was not able to improve the eye sight, he referred the Complainant to the specialized centre for further treatment on 24.12.2009 i.e. Disa eye Hospital, Kolkata, where he was operated by other Doctor and clotted blood was removed. The Complainant further alleged that he incurred cost of Rs. 65,000/-, and the treatment was going on and therefore there was deficiency in service / negligence on the part of the Doctor.

3.       The Case of the Doctor interalia was that the operation was successful and IOL was rightly placed but the vision was found to be poor due to clott of blood in front of ‘macula’. The Doctor prescribed medicine by which usually such clott is dissolved but when it did not dissolve he referred the Complainant to specialized centre. His further case was that such complication requiring ‘ Vitrectomy operation’ was quite normal in such cases.

4.       The learned Lower Forum directed the Doctor to pay Rs. 35,000/- plus Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost within 30 days from the date of the order. The learned Lower Forum passed the impugned order only on the ground that the Doctor referred the Complainant to the eye hospital at Kolkatta which showed that treatment given by him was not right, otherwise there was no need to refer the Complainant to Kolkatta, where he was operated for removing the blood clott.

5.       Neither the Complainant nor the Doctor prayed for calling for expert opinion. Even the learned Lower Forum also did not call for an expert opinion which was necessary in this case. Only because the Doctor referred the Complainant  for specialized  treatment at Kolkatta , it cannot be presumed that the operation done by him or the treatment given by him to the Complainant  was negligence on his part or there was deficiency in service on his part .

6.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned judgement and allow the appeal.

          Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

           Ranchi,

           Dated:-16-01-2015