A medical practitioner cannot be held liable for negligence without substantial evidence proving standard of care was not met.

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2014 passed by Ld. DCDRF, 24 - Parganas (North) at Barasat in CC / 369/2013 where the petition of complaint was allowed on contest against the OPs who was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh) to the complainant for loss of vision, mental harassment and agony and Rs.3,000 (Rupees three thousand) towards litigation cost to be paid within one month from the date of the order with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.100 per day from the date of the order till its realization as punitive damage to be deposited before the SCWF.

2. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order dated 16.9.2014 the OP / Dr. Arabinda Roy preferred this appeal.

3. The case of the complainant, the original respondent (and hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was that the complainant Biswanath Debnath filed an application before learned DCDRF, 24 - Parganas (North) seeking justice and reasonable compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakh) for the loss of his right eye sight. He, in his petition of complaint alleged that due to low vision in his right eye he consulted the visiting physician, Dr. Arabinda Roy at Baranagar State General Hospital and upon physical examination of the patient the appellant / OP (hereinafter referred to as the OP) assured the complainant that the complainant would get normal vision after removal of cataract from his right eye and advised him to go for such operation. Accordingly the complainant appeared for cataract operation of his right eye on 29.1.2013, since this date was available for operation at Baranagar State General Hospital and the consulting surgeon, Dr. Arabinda Roy performed cataract operation of his right eye with certain post operative directions given to him. But soon after the operation the complainant found that he absolutely lost his vision through his right eye though he had low vision before such operation. After the operation was over, the complainant appeared before Opthalmology Division of Nilratan Sarkar Medical College and Hospital as well as before the Medical College, Kolkata where both the doctors opined that the vision of right eye of the complainant would not be back and such opinion was given in black and white. The complainant felt that the OP / Dr. Arabinda Roy of Baranagar State General Hospital carelessly operated his right eye and caused his blindness in the said eye for which the complainant applied for stringent action against the doctor and the compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakh) was claimed for the loss of such vision, hence the complaint case.

4. The OP of CC / 369/2013, i.e. Dr. Arabinda Roy filed a written version to contest the complaint case and contended that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of S.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he prayed for dismissal of the complaint case. The OP in his written version categorically admitted that the patient / original complainant was admitted to the Hospital (i.e. Baranagar State General Hospital) on 29.1.2013 for undergoing cataract operation under National Programme for Control of Blineness which was absolutely free of cost and the patient was operated on the self same date 29.11.2013 thereafter he attended the OPD on 30.1.2013 with a good vision and good condition. In the said written version the OP further claimed that on 1.2.2013 the complainant / patient paid visit to the Hospital with complaint of dimness of vision. The patient was examined and the OP found that the lens was not in the position and referred the patient to vitreoetinal surgery wit