ORDER

Learned proxy counsel for the petitioners is present, and requests for an adjournment.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents is present.

3. We have perused the entire material on record, and also including inter alia the earlier proceedings/Orders.

4. The District Forum vide its Order dated 13.12.2012 had allowed the complaint:

Relying upon the above materials we are convinced to hold that retina was damaged during the operations done by the O.Ps but that was not for cussed however second operation by O.P. proves that second operation was done to treat retina disease but peculiar factor is that before first operation and or after that there was no such history of retina diseases of the complainant except cataract.

It actually there was history of retina diseases and detachment alongwith cataract in that case Dr. R. C. Paul should not operate cataract and when cataract operatin was done what was the need for second operation that has not been explained by the O.Ps in their written version or by any hospital documents and at the same time O.Ps have failed to prove and to explain why the complainant has lost his eye sight after simple routine cataract surgery and relying up