IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Admission: 08.05.2012 Date of hearing: 27.02.2026 Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 COMPLAINT CASE NO. 164/12 IN THE MATTER OF RAMESH KUMAR SIHAN HANS, (ALIAS RAMESH KUMAR) (SINCE DECEASED)

S/O LATE KHUBI RAM, R/O 108. DASGHARA VILLAGE, NEAR MAIN PARK, PO. PUSA, I.A.R.I., PUSA, NEW DELHI-110012.

THROUGH ITS LEGAL HEIRS –

(I) MS. KITAB RANI SIHAN HANS ( Wife of deceased Complainant)

(II) SANATAN KUMAR SIHAN HANS (Son of deceased Complainant)

(III) HANS KITAB SIHAN HANS (Son of deceased complainant)

All resident of –

108, Dasghara Village, Near Main Park, P.O. Pusa, I.A.R.I. Pusa, New Delhi – 110012 (Through: Mr. Suneet Bhardwaj & Shaheen Parveen, Advocates)

…Complainant VERSUS

1. GOYAL EYE INSTITUTE, PATEL NAGAR

2. DR. PAWAN GOYAL, 3. DR. LALIT, ALL AT:

1/10, GOYAL EYE INSTITUTE, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110008. (Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Anuroop P.S., Advocates)

… Opposite Parties CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Manoj Pandey, counsel for complainant (Mob. 8287410691)

along with complainant in person Mr. Humayun Khan, counsel for the opposite party (Mob.

9811177317, Email: adv.humuyunk@gmail.com)

PER: HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging medical negligence and deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties and has prayed for the following:

i) Issue direction to the Respondents to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs) only alongwith simple interest @12% per annum thereon from

12/03/2010 till the date of actual payment.

ii) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. During the course of proceedings, Complainant Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans expired on 27.11.20121. Subsequently, IA-543/2022 seeking impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased was moved by the wife of the deceased-Complainant. Vide order dated 25.05.2022, IA-543/2022 was disposed off as allowed and accordingly, the Legal Heirs of the deceased-Complainant were taken on record.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that on 11.03.2010, the Complainant went to Goyal Eye Institute-Opposite Party no.1-Goyal Eye Institute for the treatment of cataract where the Opposite Party no.2-Dr. Pawan Goyal, after thorough examination of the ailing eye and perusal of the complainant's case history, assured the Complainant that, being professionally qualified, experienced and competent, he will remove the cataract by minor stitch-less operation of five to ten (5-10) minutes or laser operation without any cut or incision in the eye. The Opposite Party no.1-Dr. Pawan Goyal also assured the Complainant that he will implant lenses of very good quality in the right eye of the Complainant for which the Complainant has to pay Rs. 15,000/-over and above the cost of the cataract operation for best vision after treatment. The operation was assured to be performed by a non-invasive technique. The cost/charges for the whole treatment as stated by Dr. Pawan Goyal were Rs. 22,000/- which were duly paid by the Complainant on 12.3.2010 (Rs. 500/-

cash on 11.3.2010 and Rs. 21,500/- by cheque).

4. Thereafter, Dr. Pawan Goyal asked the Complainant to come back the very next day i.e. 12.3.2010 for the proposed minor stitch-less operation of the Cataract. Accordingly, on 12.3.2010, the Complainant underwent a cataract surgery from 8 am to 12 noon which was conducted by Dr. Pawan Goyal at Goyal Eye Institute. However, converse to the promise and assurance, the surgery was unreasonably invasive and incisive. Dr. Pawan Goyal single-handedly carried out the operation and did not call any specialist Eye doctor for assistance or help. It is further submitted that Dr. Pawan Goyal himself is an old person and wear spectacles of thick glasses for better vision. D