ORDER

The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short “the Act”), against the Order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 365 of 2014, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) against the Opposite Party (Respondent herein).

2. For the sake of Convenience, the parties in the present matter being referred to as position held in Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

3. Brief relevant facts as per the Complainant that on 01.06.2011, he sought medical attention at the OP Hospital due to a gradual loss of vision in his left eye, while his right eye remained unaffected. After examination, “Avastin injection” was administered into the left eye for restoring normal vision. However, 04.06.2011, after administering the injection, the patient experienced further decline in vision, ultimately resulting in complete blindness. Subsequently, from 05.06.2011, to 14.01.2013, the OP hospital attempted various corrective measures, including administering “Vancomycin injection,” performing a Vitrectomy, and prescribing different medications, tablets, and eye drops. Despite these efforts, no improvement was observed. The damage to the eye was attributed to a severe reaction to the “Avastin injection,” as confirmed by various medical journals and experts, including the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Kolkata. Consequently, the Complainant filed CC 365 of 2014 before the State Commission, seeking compensation of Rs. 1 Crore.

4. In reply before the learned State Commission, the OP stated that the complaint was untenable due to defects in parties and was also barred by limitation. The OP vehemently denied any liability for the Complainant’s blindness, attributing it to negligence in treatment. According to the OP, the patient visited the OP/Eye Foundation on 25.04.2011, seeking an “intravitreal Avastin” injection for his left eye, despite being advised for this treatment elsewhere. The injection was administered on 04.06.2011, following which the patient developed ‘endophthalmitis’ within 24 hours. Subsequently, on 05.06.2011, the patient was injected with intravitreal vancomycin ceftazidime and advised further treatment for endophthal-mitis, with follow-up scheduled for the next day, and the prognosis was explained to the patient. The OP asserted that administering ‘Avastin’ injection on 04.06.2011 was done with the written consent of the patient. Dr. Avijit Dutta, a competent physician specializing in Retinal treatment, handled the case. The treatment provided was as per protocols outlined in standard Ophthalmology textbooks. Additionally, the OP emphasized that the Superintendent of the OP/Institution played no part in his treatment, yet was unjustly implicated, leading to unwarranted harassment of the institute and its office bearers.

5. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 14.01.2020, dismissed the Complaint with following observations:—

“If we consider the opinion of the Committee of the Experts in the field, we are unable to accept that the use of ‘Avastin’ injection to the patient was the sole cause of his blindness for which the Doctor who treated him would be blamed, rather the report of the Experts’ Committee absolved the Doctors and the hospital from their liability of holding them responsible for the blindness of the patient. Mere fact that desired result could not be achieved cannot be the ground for holding the Doctors negligent in doing their duties and in the given situation , upon consideration of the literatures regarding process of treatment produced before us and in the light of the observation of the Experts’ Committee, as quoted above, we are of considered view that the Complainant would not be entitled to any relief, he claimed and consequently we dismiss the Complaint case. We do not pass any