In a damning verdict, the Supreme Court has ordered an eye surgeon to pay Rs. 3.5 lakh in compensation to a patient who developed a severe infection and lost vision in his right eye following a cataract operation. The court found the doctor guilty of failing to diagnose and address post-operative complications despite repeated complaints from the patient.
The patient, who underwent surgery in January 1999 at a Pune clinic, reported severe pain and discharge from his eye shortly after the operation. Despite making multiple visits to the surgeon, he was assured that recovery was on track. However, the condition worsened, leading to the loss of vision and the eventual need for emergency treatment, including evisceration of the eye to prevent further damage.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale, restored the earlier findings of the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission, which had ruled in favor of the patient. Overturning a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) decision that had absolved the doctor of negligence, the Supreme Court concluded that the surgeon’s failure to recognize and treat the infection constituted clear malpractice.
“Post-operative care demands basic skills and attentiveness. The respondent-doctor’s actions fell woefully short, resulting in preventable harm,” the bench noted.
The patient, dissatisfied with the initial responses from consumer forums, sought relief through a protracted legal battle. An expert ophthalmologist’s testimony before the State Commission highlighted that post-operative pus discharge and pain were critical red flags. Swift intervention could have prevented the escalation of the infection, the expert stated.
While the District Consumer Forum initially dismissed the complaint due to insufficient expert evidence, the State Commission recognized the negligence, awarding compensation. The Supreme Court has now affirmed this, adding that failure to pay within two months will incur a 12% annual interest until the amount is settled.
This case underscores the importance of timely diagnosis and intervention in medical care, holding practitioners accountable for lapses that jeopardize patient welfare.
