Anupam Dasgupta, Member—(i) This appeal is against the order dated 30.12.2002 of the Puducherry State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in consumer case no. 1 of 1999. By this order, the State Commission held the appellants/opposite parties (OPs) guilty of deficiency in service/medical negligence in conducting the cataract surgery of the right eye of the respondent/complainant, which led to complete loss of vision in that eye due to endophthalmitis.

(ii) The State Commission based its findings mainly on the ground that the consent letter of the respondent/complainant/patient for undergoing the surgery had not been produced by the appellant/OP and instead the consent letter of an altogether different patient was included in the case record relating to the respondent/complainant. The State Commission treated this as an instance of mala fide intention on the part of the appellants/OPs. The State Commission also observed that even after specifically directing them to do so the OPs failed to produce the consent letter signed by the complainant. Further, the State Commission found that the case record did not show the time of commen