L4.OL.2026. AlLO42l2O2s ORDER ON ADMISSION BY HON'BLE SRI RAVI SHANKAR. JUDICIAL MEMBER The Appellant/Complainant filed this appeal against the dismissal order made by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya, ln complaint No.33/2025 which dismissed the claim of the complainant against which the Appellant before this Commission and prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allow the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that he underwent Cataract Surgery on 13.02.2023 prior to the Surgery the Opposite party/Respondent suggested for implantation of the Imported Pre-loaded (EMV) Foldable IOL with the Premium Aspheric Imported Pre-loaded (EMV) foldable IOL implantation and suggested for payment of Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant paid the said amount and Surgery was took place. After Surgery, in the discharge summary it was noticed that he had implanted SPIRANT MILIOPTICS AUTO FOCUS PRO POWER 19.0 D

I

scl29l Al to42l2o2s instead of MICS with premium Aspheric Imported Pre- loaded (EMV) foldable IOL. Hence, alleged Medical negligence and filed a complaint before District Commission alleging deliciency in seryice.

3. The District Commission after trail dismissed the complaint without considering the submissions made by complainant along with the document produced. In fact the Respondent had not implanted the lenses as suggested prior to the surgery inspite of payment made towards the said lenses. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and direction be given to the Respondent to pay the compensation as prayed in the complaint.

4. Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal and documents produced before District Commission. Prior to the Surgery, the complainant and the Respondent Doctor have discussed with respect to the implantation of the lenses. As per the consent given by the complainant himself cataract MICS w'ith Premium Aspheric Imported Pre-loaded (EMV) Foldable IOL was intended to be implanted. However, during pre-operative counseling and after thorough discussion on 13.02.2023 the scl29 I Al ro42 / 2026 complainant choose to proceed with SICS/PHACO with Hydrophobic Autofocus foldable IOL implantation. Basing on the said suggestion by the complainant himself the said IOL was implanted. Hence, submits Respondent has no any medical negligence. The surgery was successful no complication arose subsequent to the surgery of cataracts. The package for said implantation is Rs.40,000/- and the complainant had paid the said amount. We don't find any irregularities in the said surgery or complication made out by the complainant. Considering these aspects the District Commission has dismissed the complaint holding there is no any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Doctor. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. Hence, no interference is required and at the same time no valid grounds urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. As such the appeal is hereby dismissed and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.

sc I 29 I Al tO42 I 2025 The impugned order dated 08. 1O.2O25 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya in CC.No.33 is confirmed.

12025 The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

#"*

\4 I (sufirrA.c.BAGEWADr)

LADY MEMBER MEMBER

1lt