STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/422/2015 Dr.K S Kullayappa PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Late K.Sanjeevappa, Aged about 66 years R/a 12/164, Asha Hospital R.S.road, Dharmavaram, Anathapuram District 515671 .,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus B.W.Lions Super Speciality Eye Hospital PRESENT ADDRESS - Eye Hospital, No.5, J.C.Road, Bengaluru-560002 .,KARNATAKA.

Dr.Jyothi.S.Shetty PRESENT ADDRESS - Ophthalmologist, No.5, B.W.Lions Super Speciality Eye Hospital, J.C.Road, Bengaluru-560002 ,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO DATED: 29/09/2025

ORDER

THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

th

DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

APPEAL NO.422/2015

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER Dr.K.S.Kullayappa, S/o Late K.Sanjeevappa, Aged about 66 years, R/o No.12/164, Asha Hospital, R.S.Road, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District.

… Appellant (By Ms.Hemavathy.A.V, Advocate)

V/s

1. B.W. Lions Super Speciality Eye Hospital, No.5, J.C.Road, Bengaluru.

2. Dr.Jyothi.S.Shetty, Ophthalmologist, No.5, B.W.Lions Super Speciality Eye Hospital, J.C.Road, Bengaluru.

… Respondent/s (R-1 & 2 are Rep. by, Mr.N.S.Satyanarayana Gupta, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by the Order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.948/2008 and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission and allow the complaint by allowing appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as under;

On 13.02.2005 the complainant was admitted to Opposite Party Hospital for his left eye problem and Opposite Party No.2 doctor has examined and advised him to undergo cataract surgery. Accordingly, the complainant had undergone a cataract surgery on 14.12.2005 and discharged on 15.12.2005. On 16.12.2005 the complainant suffered blurring of vision in his left eye and thereby immediately contacted Opposite Party No.2 over phone and Opposite Party No.2 advised him to admit in Opposite Party No.1 hospital. Hence, the complainant admitted on 17.12.2005 in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital. After examination, doctor removed IOL and vitrectomy for residual membrane was done on 31.12.2005 for the left eye, but there was absolutely no vision in the left eye and suffered irritation. The complainant treated on various dates till 21.03.2006. Later on, the complainant developed blur in the right eye. Hence, he went to L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad on 24.03.2006 and got examined by the doctor. After investigation, it was found that the left eye developed glaucoma due to neo vacuolization as retinal vessels have got damaged during the course of vitrectomy operation and thereby doctors of Hyderabad advised him to undergo anti glaucoma therapy. Subsequently, on 28.03.2006, the complainant consulted Opposite Party No.2 and on conducting investigations, the complainant advised to undergo secondary sclera fixation of IOL with pupilloplast after two months. Opposite Party No.2 suppressed the wrong diagnosis and damages of retinal vessel during the course of vitrectomy surgery on 14.12.2005 and due to the negligence of Opposite Party No.2, complainant has lost his vision in the left eye and suffered unbearable pain in his left eye. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice on 01.12.2007 calling upon the opposite parties to pay for compensation for their negligence. Hence, the complaint.

3. After service of notice of the District Commission, the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed written version. The Opposite Party admitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has examined on 13.12.2005 at Opposite Party No.1 hospital as an outpatient and contended that opposi