Chandigarh: The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) recently exonerated a Pathankot-based eye hospital accused of medical negligence, concluding that no evidence was presented to prove that any surgery had been performed.
The case dates back to 2020 when the complainant sustained an eye injury at work and sought treatment at the hospital. The hospital conducted an X-ray and observed a “tiny radio-opacity in the left orbit,” suggesting the presence of a foreign particle and advising surgery.
The complainant alleged that following the surgery, he received follow-up treatment, including an injection in his left eye. However, the eye’s condition deteriorated, eventually requiring further surgery at another hospital in Amritsar. Claiming the injury impaired his ability to work, he filed a complaint seeking ₹20 lakh in damages.
The hospital denied performing any surgery, asserting that the complainant arrived 48 hours after the injury, having already received prior treatment at a local clinic. They contended that the eye was severely infected and swollen, making surgery unfeasible, and that they provided only initial treatment and medication.
The District Commission dismissed the complaint, prompting the complainant to appeal to the State Consumer Court.
The State Commission, after examining the evidence, ruled that the complainant had failed to provide any proof of the alleged surgery.
“If surgery was performed as claimed, it was the complainant’s responsibility to present evidence such as records of hospitalization or treatment. However, no such evidence exists,” the Commission noted.The hospital’s assertion that no surgery was performed and only preliminary treatment was provided due to the eye’s infected state was deemed credible. The Commission stated, “From the records, there is no proof that surgery was performed, leading to the complainant’s loss of vision. Without proper evidence, the hospital cannot be penalized for an act it did not commit.”
Upholding the District Commission’s findings, the State Commission concluded that the accusations against the hospital appeared baseless and possibly motivated by ulterior purposes.
Here is order copy :