IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDERSSAL COMMISSION, ORISSA, CUTTACK F.A. No. 255 OF 2016 (From an Order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bolangir, in Consumer Complaint Case No. 49/2015 )

1. L.V Prasad Eye Institute, AT:347 (P) Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 represented Through its Director

2. Hyderabad Eye Institute, (Operating Trust of L.V.Prasad Eye Institute), Killam Anji Reddy Campus, L.V. Prasad Marg, Bnjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 (India)

Represented Through its Managing Director …. Appellants -Vrs-

1. Gyanaranjan Pattanaik, S/0: Late Sankar Mohan Pattnaik, Resident of Gandhinagarpada, PO/PS - Bolangir Town, Odisha, India.

2. Chief District Medical Officer, Dist. Headquartes Hospital, At/PO/PS: Dist: Bolangir.

3. Director, Capital/Zonal Hospital and Dispensary, Unit-6, Bhubaneswsar, P S: Capital, Dist. Khordha. .… Respondents ______________

For the Appellants – M/s A.K. Rath & Associates.

For the Respondent – M/s B.C. Pradhan & Associates.

______________

Present:-

Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Hon’ble Officiating President Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik, Hon’ble Member Date of Hearing: - 19.03.2025 Date of Order: - 24.02.2026

O R D E R

SHRI D.K. MOHAPATRA, OFFICIATING PRESIDENT Learned counsel for the appellant is present. Inspite of repeated call neither the respondent nor their counsels are present.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant felt sudden decreased intensity of his right eye and consulted the doctor at District Headquarter Hospital, Bolangir on 03.04 2014, vide Registration No.1121. The eye doctor advised to test visual acuity, Beva IOP and VDRL. Accordingly, the complainant had done all tests in hospital and used the prescribed medicine for ten to eleven days but felt no improvement in the right eye vision, the complainant was advised to avail better facility at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. Again at Capital hospital the doctor advised some test and after going through the report the complainant was referred to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute for better consultation and treatment.

4. The complainant admitted at the L.V.Prasad Institute on 16.4.2014. The complainant has paid Rs.650/- vide receipt No.20065 for investigation and test. The test report speaksthe investigation and test ensured relating to"Lenses echo sun, Medium reflective clump spike noted in the vitreous cavity, low reflective membrane seen in the posterior pole along with multiple medium reflective dot spike under neath. No ct/cd,Retina on”and advised to undertake right eye operation because of the problem. On 23.5.2014 the complainant deposited Rs.22,100/- vide M.R No.BBI-P-27455 The surgery was performed on “OD paras plana vitrectomy (PPY). OD endolacevas part of V2 surgery, remained in the Hospital for two days and discharged with, in advise of medicine and next appointment fixed to 9.6.2014 with the Opp.party No. 3. Further consultation date was 08.07.2014, accordingly the opp.party No. 3 examined the right eye with usual medicine prescription and spectacles with lense. As the operation was not successful the complainant compelled to take advise and consulted at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and on examination of papers it revealed that the eye has already gone to a severe deteriorated condition due to wrong operation adopted by O.P No.3 and referred to AIIMS, Delhi. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opp. Parties the complainant has filed the consumer complaint praying as follows:

"Hence prayed that in the interest of justice the O.P. 3 and 4, may be directed to refund the amount paid to them amounting to Rs. 23,802/- and further be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- towards rendering deficiency in service while operating the right eye of the complainant along with Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses. Further the O.P.2 be directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs. 2,00,000/- for sending the complainant to a wrong door for treatment