ORDER

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 05.06.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.A/2015/438 in which order dated 19.01.2015 of Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mumbai Suburban District (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 21 of 2010 was challenged, inter alia praying for  setting aside the order dated 19.01.2015 of the District Forum.

2.       The Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as  Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum.  The Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent before the State Commission and OP  before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 02.12.2022

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that complainant is retired doctor and was not able to see properly.  On 27.11.2008, she consulted the  OP /  doctor  at his Surya Hospital in Mulund and after diagnosing the cataract in the right eye, the OP advised cataract surgery.   The pathological test were carried out on 29.11.2008.  The optometrist technician from Surya Hospital carried out the measurement of right eye lens power by performing A Scan of the complainant’s right eye.  He reported the power of the lens as + 24 Diopter.  The cataract surgery by Small Incison Cataract Surgery ( SICS)  technique of the complainant’s eye was performed by the OP in Surya Hospital by using IOL ( Intra Ocular Lens) of + 24 diopter power on 09^th December 2008 and on the same day she was discharged. In the postoperative period, the complainant was found to have refractive error which was measured as for the distant vision  Sph-5 and for near vision Sph-2.5.  The OP advised the complainant using progressive lens spectacle for the correction of refractive error. 

4.       After finding that her vision was still not improved, the complainant consulted other ophthalmic surgeon in Mumbai for second opinion that included Dr. Nishikant Borse, Dr. Kumar, Dr. Deepak Bhatt, Dr. Bijal Mehta and Dr. Kulin for A Scan,. As per fresh calculation of the lens power as + 19 Diopter, Dr. Nishikant Borse carried out second surgery of replacement of previous lens with the lens of + 19 diopter at Wockhardit Hospital, Mumbai on 17^th February 2009.  Later on Dr. Bose also carried out corrective laser surgery after 2 years i.e. on 25^th February, 2011.  Being aggrieved of the said act of the OP, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 19.01.2015 dismissed the CC filed by the complainant.   Aggrieved of the said order of the District, the complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 05.06.2018.  Therefore, the Complainant is before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 05.06.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1     Counsel for the Petitioner apart from repeating the points which are stated in para 6, argued that due to failed operation, the Petitioner had to undergo two more operations by  Dr. Borse and even in the appeal memo had negative the contention of full recovery.  It is argued that when a patient had to undergo three operation for the same eye, it itself indicates deficiency in service.  Further, it is argued that while ascertaining