STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/00/198 null Dr Nalini Joel PRESENT ADDRESS - Opthalmic wing.PRS hospital Killipalam,Thiruvananthapuram. ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Jose PRESENT ADDRESS - Valiyathoppu.Thiruvananthapuram ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 198/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 27.03.2025 (Against the Order in O.P. 608/1996 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1. Dr. Nalini Joel, Ophthalmic Wing, P.R.S. Hospital, Killipalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Managing Partner (In Charge), P.R.S. Hospital, Killipalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Jose, S/o George, Swapna House, Valiyathoppu, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. K. Vinod Shankar)

2. Managing Director, P.R.S Hospital, Killipalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS:

3. Isabel Joseph, Swapna House, Valiyathoppu, Vattiyoorkavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

4. Joseph Dominic Xavier, Swapna House, Valiyathoppu, Vattiyoorkavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

5. Tarsis Joseph, Swapna House, Valiyathoppu, Vattiyoorkavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT st rd The appellants are the 1 and the 3 opposite parties in O.P. No. 608/1996 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘the District Commission’). The first respondent is the original complainant before the District Commission.

2. The complainant approached the first opposite party for the treatment of his left eye which was having pain. On 13.05.1996, an operation was conducted by the first opposite party at the second opposite party hospital. On 14.05.1996, when the dressing was removed, it was found that the complainant had no eye sight. He continued his treatment in the hospital till 29.05.1996. On 23.05.1996, the complainant was taken to the Cosmopolitan hospital by the first opposite party for treatment. After the discharge from the second opposite party hospital on 29.05.1996, the complainant was taken to the Government Ophthalmology hospital by the first opposite party on 13.06.1996 and the doctors there opined that the left eye of the complainant had lost sight and hence it had to be replaced through keratoplasty. The eye sight was lost due to the careless treatment and total absence of post operative care on the part of the opposite parties. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint praying for granting a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) with costs.

3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version denying the allegations in the complaint. The complainant consulted the first opposite party in the ophthalmology department of the hospital on 30.04.1996. He was complaining sensation of foreign body in the left eye. He stated that he had no eye sight for the last two months. He had a fleshy growth on the cornea extending to the conjunctiva and covering the pupillary aperture in his left eye. The complainant was informed that opacity would be left on the cornea even after the operation. The complainant was a known diabetic on insulin for the last eight and half years. He was also under regular treatment of another doctor at the time of operation. The complainant was also a cigarette smoker and chronic alcoholic. He was advised to consult the physician of the hospital, Dr. Jose Mon Thomas. However, he continued his treatment with another doctor.

4. On 11.05.1996, the complainant approached the first opposite party with a complaint on his left eye. Diabetic test was conducted. Thereafter, the operation was done unde