A medical practitioner's failure to obtain valid informed consent, by disclosing specific risks and complications to a patient, constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, notwithstanding the absence of proven negligence in the actual surgical procedure.

JUDGMENT

(Dated: 13/03/2026)

Per: Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

1. The present consumer complaint has been preferred by the complainant Smt. Rajani Prakash Malik under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party Dr. (Shri) Ashok T. Bhole, who is an ophthalmic surgeon by profession, alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence on his part in the course of the eye surgery performed by him upon the complainant, and seeking compensation for the permanent loss of her eye and the consequent physical, mental and financial hardship suffered by her.

2. The case set out by the complainant, briefly stated, is that she was suffering from a vision-related ailment in her eye, on account of which she consulted the opposite party at his clinic. The opposite party, holding himself out as a qualified and experienced eye surgeon, after examination, advised her to undergo surgery in the affected eye, with an assurance that the procedure was simple and routine, carried a high success rate, and that her vision would be restored upon its completion. Reposing complete faith in the professional standing and assurance of the opposite party, the complainant agreed to undergo the said surgery, and a sum was paid by her towards the charges thereof.

3. The complainant has further pleaded that prior to the surgery, her signature was obtained by the opposite party on a pre-printed consent form which was placed before her as a routine formality. There was no meaningful discussion or disclosure by the opposite party of the nature of the procedure, the attendant risks, the possible complications, or any reasonable alternative line of treatment available to her. In particular, the complainant was at no stage informed that the surgery carried any risk of permanent loss of vision or of the eye itself, nor is any such risk mentioned anywhere in the consent form said to have been signed by her. The complainant submitted that had she been so informed, she would have had occasion to reconsider her decision or to seek a second opinion before subjecting herself to the surgery for cataract of her right eye.

4. The complainant has stated that the surgery was thereafter performed by the opposite party. In the immediate post-operative period, however, she developed severe pain, redness, watering and progressively diminishing vision in the operated eye, accompanied by general distress including repeated episodes of loose motions and weakness. The said complaints were brought to the notice of the opposite party on more than one occasion, but, instead of taking them seriously, the opposite party is alleged to have brushed them aside as ordinary post-operative reactions and continued the same conservative line of treatment, without subjecting the eye to any further investigation, without seeking a second opinion, and without referring the complainant to a higher centre or to a specialist in time, notwithstanding the rapidly deteriorating condition of the eye.

5. As the condition of the operated eye continued to worsen, the complainant was referred another hospital/specialist Dr. P. Suresh for further opinion and treatment. Further upon examination and investigation, she was diagnosed with a serious post-operative complication, on account of which she had to undergo further surgery and treatment, at Fortis Hospital at Mulund and incurred considerable expen