The duty of hospital authorities and doctors to take all possible protective measures before undertaking any operation for the safety of the patients, and the inference of negligence from the lack of specific evidence of pre-operative tests or examinations and the failure to elaborate on the care and measures taken by the hospital authorities and the doctor.

A. LODH, J.

1. By means of filing this intra court appeal, the appellant Smt. Laxmi Bala Paul has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.255 of 2009 and WP(C) No.36 of 2010 wherein while deciding both the writ petitions together, the learned single judge has set aside the order of payment of compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat in favour of the appellant herein.

2. The facts in brief:

2.1 The appellant herein, Smt. Laxmi Bala Paul, has approached the Permanent Lok Adalat by filing Lok Adalat (PUS) Case No.4 of 2007 against the respondents complaining gross negligence and deficiency in providing services relating to her eye operation and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only. The Permanent Lok Adalat took cognizance. Thereafter, after considering the materials on record and the evidences adduced by the parties has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) as compensation with interest in favour of the appellant vide its judgment dated 08.06.2009. In the complaint filed before the permanent Lok Adalat, it is stated that on 10.05.2006, the appellant herein along with her son visited the chamber of the respondent No.1 i.e., Dr. Batakrishna Paul at Melarmath, Agartala on payment of consultation fees who advised the complainant-appellant to take admission in the IGM Hospital, Agartala for Cataract operation in her eye. On 03.06.2006 she was admitted and the respondent No.1, Dr. Batakrishna Paul, conducted cataract operation and in the afternoon she was discharged from the hospital. Initially, she thought that it was normal post operation discomfort, but on 07.06.2006 unbearable pain developed in her operated eye and she was forced to take admission on the same day at the IGM Hospital and in the afternoon she was referred to the Sri Sankardeva Nethralaya, Guwahati for better treatment. On arrival at Sri Sankardeva Nethralaya on 08.06.2006, the physician of the said hospital after careful examination clearly opined that due to infection at the time of cataract operation in the IGM Hospital conducted by Dr. Bata Krishna Paul, i.e., respondent No.1, the complication had arisen and it would be very difficult to protect the damaged eye because of infection.

2.2 On 12.06.2006, an operation was again conducted in the Sankardeva Nethralaya Guwahati in the same eye to remove the infected eye and consequently the complainant-appellant herein, Smt. Laxmi Bala Paul, became blind of one eye. She was discharged on 13.06.2006 and stayed in Guwahati for a few days for post-operation checkup and thereafter returned back to Agartala, but the Doctor of Sankaradeva Nethralaya advised the complainant to go to the said hospital again after three weeks. As per advice of the Doctor, she went along with her escort again to the said hospital and after examining her eye, the expert physicians therein opined that for checkup and implanting of artificial eye the complainant-appellant was required to go to Guwahati again in the short time. Accordingly, on 15.09.2006 the complainant went to Sankardeva Netralaya for checkup and treatment. She was further advised to go to the said hospital at the regular interval.

2.3 The complainant has stated that she incurred financial expense of about Rs. 50,000/- and she was further required to spend an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for her future treatment. The petitioner has further stated that apart from continuous suffering from pain and discomfort due to loss of one of her valuable eye, the complainant now cannot live as a normal person and it was only due to negligence on the part of the respondent No.1. She also cannot perform even her normal duties as a house wife and due to loss of mental peace and happiness permanently and on account of pain, suffering and discomforts the complainant-appellant claimed that she was entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- in addition to the pecuniary loss of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The