Chandigarh:
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Punjab, has exonerated an eye surgeon and a private hospital from allegations of medical negligence related to a LASIK eye surgery, observing that liability arises only when a doctor’s conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in the field.
Case Background and Allegations
The case dates back to 2017, when the complainant underwent LASIK eye surgery for myopia at the respondent hospital. The patient alleged that instead of a blade-free custom LASIK procedure, a blade was used, the surgery took unusually long, and his vision problems worsened after the operation. He also claimed that he was overcharged and that the hospital bill mentioned standard LASIK despite assurances of a custom procedure.
Doctor, Hospital Defend Treatment
The treating doctor and hospital denied the allegations, stating that the complainant was clearly informed that a microkeratome blade would be used to create the corneal flap. They argued that post-LASIK symptoms can persist for several months and that vision typically stabilises after six months. The hospital also contended that complications or dissatisfaction alone do not amount to medical negligence if standard medical protocols are followed.
Commission’s Observations on Evidence
The State Commission noted that the complainant failed to produce cogent evidence to prove that a standard LASIK procedure was performed instead of custom LASIK or that extra charges were wrongly levied. It also observed that the consumer complaint was filed barely two-and-a-half months after the surgery, whereas medical literature suggests that post-LASIK symptoms often resolve within six months with regular follow-up.
Appeal Dismissed, Order Upheld
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab, the SCDRC held that there was no proof of deviation from accepted medical practice or gross negligence. Concluding that the doctor and hospital had acted with reasonable skill and care, the Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Commission’s order, ruling that no medical negligence was made out in the case.
