A.P. Sahi, J. President

1. The appellant filed a complaint before the SCDRC, Chhattishgarh alleging medical negligence against Dr. Sandeep Kothari, the respondent No.l on the ground that he was negligent in the performance of the surgery for cataract in the right eye of the complainant as a result whereof she lost her eye sight.

2. The complaint has been dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 07.04.2015 holding that there was no negligence in the performance of the surgery and any complications that developed post-surgery did not, in any way, connect to the allegation of medical negligence made by the complainant against the opposite party. It was further held that the eye was infected due to an external reason and sustaining some injury that resulted in a fungal coroneal ulcer.

3. Aggrieved the complainant has come up before this Commission in this appeal alleging that the findings recorded by the State Commission are erroneous inasmuch as the complainant was operated upon on 20th July, 2012 and noticing the symptoms of itching and pain she immediately visited the respondent No.l on 28th July, 2012, 31st July, 2012, 7th August, 2012 and 9th August, 2012. Instead of rectifying the error it was aggravated on account of long and negligent treatment by the respondent No.l as a result whereof the complainant was referred to another senior specialist Dr. Anand Saxena who after examining the complainant immediately referred her to Shanker Netralaya, Chennai. According to the complainant the report of Shanker Netralaya clearly indicates that the performance of cataract surgery was negligent that resulted in the complications and it was not treated by the respondent No.l according to the medical protocol. Hence, negligence was established.

4. Learned counsel urged that the treatment prescriptions particularly the prescription dated 7th August, 2012 clearly establishes that the complainant was infected with a fungal bacteria that damaged the cornea as a result whereof she lost her eye sight.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.l however urged that there is no evidence of any negligence in the surgery of cataract on 20th July, 2012. The patient had recovered well and it was long thereafter on 7th August, 2012 that the patient started complaining of itching and pain which was on account of an external injury, may be due to rubbing of eyes or otherwise. Learned counsel urged that this fact was clearly pleaded in paragraph-10 of the written statement filed by the respondent No.l and this injury was noticed in the findings recorded by the opposite party No.l when the patient arrived for 3rd follow up on 7th August, 2012. Prior to this there was no such complaint and after having noticed it the complainant was immediately, without any delay referred to senior specialist Dr. Anand Saxena who in turn treated her and referred her to Shanker Netralaya, Chennai. The complainant undertook two surgeries at Shanker Netralaya and the discharge summary from Shanker Netralaya does not indicate any such negligence as alleged.

6. In addition thereto, learned counsel for the respondent No.l has also invited the attention of the Bench to the expert opinion tendered by Dr. Mohan Parakh, an eye specialist that was relied on as an evidence before the State Commission where Dr. Parakh has after examining all the documents including the summary report of Shanker Netralaya indicated that there was no deficiency in the surgery of cataract performed by the respondent No.l and its treatment later on. Learned counsel has also relied on medical literature on the cause of coroneal ulcer to urge that fungal infections are caused due to improper hygiene of contact lenses and can also result from an external injury. It is therefore urged that the respondent No.l had performed the surgery without any negligence or deficiency and that the complainant had later on suffered on account of either improper hygiene or an external injury in the eye.

7. Having considered the submissions raised we find that the State Commission has proceeded to examine all these issues in detail including the medical literature as well as the legal position as enunciated by various Courts. After quoting the case summary issued by Shanker Netralay, Chennai it was recorded that the complainant did not file any expert opinion to demonstrate that the surgery of cataract conducted by the respondent No.l suffered from any negligence. To the contrary the respondent No.l had tendered the affidavit of Dr. Mohan Parakh to support his contentions.

8. We have perused the findings recorded, and the case summary of Shanker Netralaya, Chennai, records in its opening paragraph that the cataract surgery was done on 20th July, 2012 following which the patient was doing well till 5th August, 2012. It then went on to observe that the patient was diagnosed to have fungal sclerokeratitis. The same was treated at Shanker Netralaya, Chennai twice. There is no finding in the said report that the said infection had been caused on account of any deficiency in the surgery or any negligent treatment by the respondent No.l. It is on the said basis and the documents on record that it was observed that the infection might have been caused due to an external reason or any injury having been sustained. The cause of coroneal ulcer as explained by the learned counsel for the respondent No.l therefore seems to support this contention. Over and above this, the affidavit of Dr. Mohan Parakh as relied on also supports the contention on behalf of the respondent No.l and this affidavit does not seem to have been controverted by any other expert evidence.

9. Consequently for all the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission so as to warrant any interference with the findings recorded by the State Commission. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.