ORDER
Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This appeal arises out of the orders passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint of the Appellant.
2. Brief facts necessary to appreciate the case are that the Appellant approached the Respondent for treatment of contract in her right eye who after investigation operated her for cataract and implanted Intra Ocular Lens (L.O.L.) ON 24.10.91 so as to enable the appellant without the sue of spectacles. The I.O.I. implantation was not successful. Second implantation of I.O.I. was carried out on 1.4.91. Even this was not to the satisfaction of the appellant. hence they approached the General Hospital who on 7.1.92 removed the I.O.I. Allegation is that on account of negligence, incompetence on the part of Respondent, the appellant has lost her vision of right eye on account of which the appellant approached the State Commission for awarding relief amounting to Rs.9.5 lakh against the Respondent Doctor. The State Commission after hearing both the parties found no negligence on the part of the Respondent Doctor and dismissed the complaint. It is against this order that the Appellant/Complainant has filed the appeal.
3. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Taneja that, even though two operations were carried out by the Respondent Doctor, it is at the time of second operation i.e. on 1.4.91 that the Doctor was negligent resulting in the loss of vision in the right eye. The very fact that the two I.O.L. implantations did not help the patient and the fact that it had to be removed by the General Hospital itself is a proof of medical negligence on the part of the Respondent. He also argued that the main ground of defence of the Respondent that the appellant did not come up for follow up treatment is not sustained by the material on record. According to him after the discharge from the Respondent’s Hospital, the appellant visited for follow up on 19.4.91 to 22.4.91, and again on 24.4.91, 1.5.91, 6.5.91,16.5.91 to 19.6.91 and 26.9.91 in support of which drew out attention to prescriptions, Bill of Respondent No. 1 and medicine bills. On the other hand it was argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 that the appellant was given proper treatment i.e. operation for cataract and implantation of Intra Ocular Lens for the first time on 24.10.91, which was successful to the extent that the appellant did not complaint till 22.3.91 wherein she was advised to have a more expensive implantation of imported lens. This was done on 1.4.91 and the appellant paid the charges on 1.5.91, thereafter the appellant neither came for follow up treatment nor did he hear from her till a legal notice served on him on 5.8.91 after about four months of second I.O.L. implantation. The Respondent has fully explained the procedure in detent adopted by the Respondent while carrying out I.O.L. implantation. This procedure has not been assailed at all by any expert. Negligence is not proved against the Respondent Doctor. If there has been any negligence, it is on the part of the Appellant who did not observe the follow up treatment. It is true that Respondent is insured with the Respondent No. 2 Company, but since there has been no negligence, insurance company can not be approached for any relief. It was argued by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 that the total insurance cover enjoyed by the Respondent is for Rs.7.5 lakh and for any one event it is Rs.3.5 lakh. They would be wiling to honour their part of the commitment but within the terms of the Policy.
4. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties and material on record. Since there is no dispute no basic facts of the case, will not like to deal withe at this stage. Main argument of the Appellant is that in view of material on record, it can not be said that the appellant did not go for follow up treatment after the second implantation of I.O.L. We see on record that there are two set of papers prescription and medical bills, on which the appellant relies and wishes us to believe that indeed the patient did present herself for follow up treatment. prescriptions on follow up relate to the period 19.4.91 to 1.5.91, after this there is no prescription on record. Then we have medical bills for the period 2.5.91, 22.4.91, 31.3.91, 15.5.91, 19.5.91 which one can understand medical bills dated 22.4.91 and 2.5.91 relating to the prescription of 22.4.91 and 1.5.91, there is no prescription for the medicine bills correlating to purchase of medicine on 16.5.91 and 19.5.91. The emerging status in no way support the contention of the appellant that she was going for follow up treatment, leaving us with the impression that the appellant did not go for follow up treatment. If the patient/appellant did indeed lose vision immediately or as a result of second I.O.L. implantation on 1.4.91 then what the appellant doing till 3.8.91 – a period of four months i.e, date of legal notice to the appellant. In these circumstances we are left with no choice but to agree with the contention of the Respondent Doctor that the appellant never showed up after 1.5.91 when she came for settlement of the bill. We also see that in the affidavit of the Respondent, he has given in great detail the procedure followed by him for I.O.L. implantation. This has not been challenged based on any ‘expert’ evidence. It is not enough to state that after eight months of the second operation, I.O.L. implantation had to be removed, thus SSS proving negligence SSS of the Respondent. This could at best be a ground but certainly not a proof of negligence. It was for the appellant to prove negligence by examining expert witness challenging the procedure adopted by him. Which a doctor claiming specialisation in this regard, would not have done. It was for him to prove by evidence wither by oral evidence or through a standard medical literature, either that the Doctor did what he ought not to have done or did not do what he ought to have done, resulting in a situation where the patient finds herself. In this case no such evidence has been led to contradict the evidence adduced by way of evidence, by the Respondent – 2, thus, in our view the appellant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of Respondent – 2.
5. In our view the Appellant has not been able to prove any point of fact or law for us to interfere in the reasoned order of the State Commission. The appeal is dismissed. No order on costs.