Medical negligence must be supported by conclusive evidence; sympathetic views do not replace the requirement for such evidence.

1. This order shall decide both the Revision Petitions arising from the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the ˜State Commission') in Appeal No. A / 559/2015. One Revision Petition No. 2230/2017 is filed by Dr. Samar Sen Gupta (OP - 2) & Dr. Prosenjit Mondal (OP - 3), whereas the Complainant - Sh. Rama Shankar Jaiswal filed the R.P. No. 2095/2017.

2. The issue involved is post - cataract alleged negligence caused loss of vision in the right eye of the Complainant.

3. The District Forum allowed the Complaint with following observations:
Due to gross negligence committed by the OPs, the complainant lost vision of his right eye and for which the OP No - 1 is to compensate the complainant by way of compensation. The third operation was at all not necessary and for that reason complainant lost the vision of his right eye. So, we are of the view that it is due to negligency of the OP No. - 1. Complainant has suffered mental and pecuniary loss. Complainant is a 70 years old person and OP No. - 1 is humanitarian ground should pay Rs.50,000 as compensation for loss of his eye. The finding of Ld. Forum concerned as it appears from the body of the judgment was that the OPs / Respondents No. 2 & 3 being the agent of the OP No. 1 perform the operational work and for that reason the OP No.1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the loss of his eye.

4. The Complainant appealed before the State Commission for enhancement of the compensation by filing the First Appeal No.559/2015. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum and directed the OPs to pay Rs. 1 lakh each (Rs. 50,000 as refund of expenditure and Rs. 50,000 towards compensation) by the OP - 1 and Rs. 1 lakh each by the OPs - 2 & 3 for their medical negligence in treating the patient to be paid within one month from the date of the order, failing which the said amount would carry damages to the tune of Rs. 300 per day payable to the appellant till its realisation.

5. Being aggrieved, the Complainant and the OPs - 2 & 3 have filed the instant two Revision Petitions.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the medical record on file and inter - alia the Orders of both the For a below.

7. The learned Counsel on both the sides reiterated the facts and their evidence filed before the trial Commission.

8. The learned Counsel for Complainant vehemently argued that the Complainant lost his vision permanently, therefore, he deserves enhanced compensation as prayed in the Complaint.

9. The learned counsel for OPs - 2 & 3 (Petitioners doctors) brought our attention to the medical prescriptions issued by them. The Counsel further submitted the details of the treatment.

10. Let us go through chronology of events. The patient came to Vasan Eye Hospital and detected cataract, accordingly suggested the cataract surgery. The vision in right eye was 6/36 N18(P). The patient was explained in detail about the visual outcome and prognosis after the surgery because the patient also had corneal ailment. The right eye cataract extraction was done on 22.11.2012 by Manual phaco / SICS with Acrysof IQ Lens under Viscoat to protect the cornea. The surgery was uneventful. During follow up checkup it was noted right eye +3.25 N10 and left eye +3.00 N6.

11. On 17.12.2012, the patient was referred to Dr. Prosenjit Mondal, OP - 3 for the complaints of floaters in the right eye and examination of retina. On examination by OP - 3 noted that the Anterior Segment of