IMPORTANT POINT
Mere averments in complaint not considered as evidence, and just bald statements not acceptable.

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The facts in brief are that the complainant/patient Mr. Mohd. Islam’s right eye was injured by hitting of iron rod on 27.10.2000. He took treatment from LNJP Hospital, Guru Nanak Eye Centre from 27.10.2000 to 4.11.2000. Thereafter, being not satisfied with the treatment of said government hospitals, complainant approached the OP Dr. Vivek Pal, Navjyoti Eye Centre on 12.5.2001. OP assured him that, eye sight would be restored as before, during the course of treatment. The OP performed another surgery on 16.5.2001. OP put some fluid in his operated eye, which caused further pain, but OP assured of relief soon, but no avail further. Again on 8.8.2001, the silicon oil was removed from his eye. The OP did not fix a lens in the operated eye despite patients several requests. The complainant alleged that, the OP and his associate doctors were experimenting on his right eye. Thereafter he went to Parmanand Hospital, wherein it was observed that he had developed infection because silicon oil was put in his eye. Thus, on the advice from Parmanand Hospital, he went to AIIMS, remained there form 11.08.2001 to 18.08.2001. The doctors at AIIMS Hospital observed that some silicon oil was present in his right eye. The doctors at AIIMS hospital removed the same after which the patient felt better. Thus, the complainant alleged that because of negligent treatment given by the OP, his right eye became completely blind, its 30% disability. He suffered continuous headache, watering in the left eye. Therefore, complainant filed a complaint No.64 of 2003 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Delhi on 26.10.2002 and prayed for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @20% per annum.

2. The District Forum, vide its order dated 19.7.2007 held the petitioner liable and directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards the litigation to the complainant.

3. Against, the order of District Forum, the OP preferred First Appeal No.670 of 2007 before the State Commission. The State Commission by its order dated 5.8.2008 reduced the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

4. Thus, aggrieved by the order of State Commission, two cross revision petitions were filed in this Commission. Revision Petition No.4870 of 2008 was filed by the complainant whereas Revision Petition No.4807 of 2008 was filed by the OP.

5. Heard both the parties. The complainant was present in person and narrated the facts in the complaint as his arguments. The rival arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Anu Narula and Kunal Auuroa, that there was severe injury and damage to the complainant’s right eye was of permanent nature and the complainant was rather clearly and categorically explained the limitations of the operation and the bleak chances of his recovery even after the surgery. The patient was operated so that he could be relieved of his severe and acute pain in his right eye. It was only after fully understanding the implications, consequences of surgery, the complainant consented for his surgery.

6. I have perused the medical record, which revealed that the Guru Nanak Eye Centre and at the Lady Harding Hospital, the vision of the right eye was recorded, as inaccurate projection. Same was explained by OP about the poor visual prognosis. Even the prescription card from the Parmanand Hospital, which diagnosed his case as Corneal oedema with degeneration in the right eye.

7. As per clinical record, in my opinion, the OP gave treatment to the patient after a thorough examination, diagnosed it as Vitreous Hemorrhage and retinal detachment. The Intra Ocular Lens of his right eye which was implanted at Lady Harding’s Hospital on 23.04.2001 had got displaced and was lying in the vitreous cavity. The OP removed silicon oil completely, even if tiny residual oil droplets remained in the eye will not just cause any infection or endophthalmitis. The AIIMS record also did not mention abo