Vision loss not established, lens serial number mismatch on prescription amounts to unfair trade practice- Ophthalmologist slapped Rs 75k compensation
Compensation
Patna: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Bihar, recently held an ophthalmologist liable for unfair trade practice and directed him to pay Rs 75,000 to a patient, who alleged vision loss after being given mismatched lenses during her lens implantation surgery.
Earlier, the District Commission had ordered Rs 3 lakh compensation to the patient for the loss of vision. The State Consumer Court, however, set aside the order for a lack of evidence.
"However, opposite party himself as admitted that the wrapper and serial number of lense subsequently pasted in his medical prescription was a mischievous and unauthorised act by some of his employee which amounts to misrepresentation and deceptive/unfair trade practice as such complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation with interest@6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint case till its payment within 60 days from the date of production / receipt of order passed by this Commission," the SCDRC held.
The case goes back to 2018 when the complainant, along with her son, had approached the treating doctor as she was suffering from some eye-related trouble. After examining the patient, the doctor advised implantation of a lens in her left eye. She and her son requested the implantation of Tecnis IOL.
On 07.12.2018, she visited the clinic of the treating doctor and deposited Rs.23,000/- in cash and after the implantation, the patient and her son asked for a bag of the implanted lens, but the same was not provided. Later, when they demanded the payment slip with the serial number of the lens implanted and the payment receipt, which was not provided as well.
After 40 days, the patient approached the treating doctor with a complaint of loss of vision, and the doctor advised complainant to consult another doctor at Kolkata for better treatment.
When the complainant's son compared the serial number of the lens from the medical prescription, cash payment receipt and bag of lenses, he found that there was a mismatch.
Filing the consumer complaint, the patient alleged that the treating doctor knowingly and deliberately implanted a lower quality lens of lesser value in the left eye after taking the price of the best quality lens. The complainant demanded Rs 4 lakh compensation for loss of eyesight, Rs 30000 for loss of implantation of lense and Rs 42,000 as medicine cost, and Rs 20,000 as litigation expenses.
While considering the matter, the District Consumer Court Munger, had directed the doctor to pay Rs 3 lakh compensation for loss of vision and further Rs 1 lakh as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs 50,000 as cost of litigation.
Challenging this, the doctor approached the State Consumer Court and filed an appeal. It was submitted by the doctor that the complainant's son was advised two types of lenses i.e. TECNIS IOL lense and ALCON IOL. The doctor argued that even though the complainant's son had opted for the TECNIS IOL lens, during the implantation procedure, the doctor would decide which was more suitable for the patient.
He claimed that he had implanted the ALCON IOL lens for better vision. Thereafter, he examined the complainant postoperatively on different dates.
While considering the matter, the State Consumer Court observed, "The allegation made by complainant that she suffered loss of vision is not supported by any evidence. The allegations made in complaint petition has to be established by the complainant by producing oral and documentary evidence but in present case no such evidence has been produced by the complainant to support her allegation of loss of vision as such compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- granted by the District Consumer Commission cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside."
The State Consumer Court observed that the complainant himself admitted that the "price of ALCON IOL lense is Rs.9,500/- and price of Tecnis IOL lense is Rs.16,750/- as such only Rs.9,500/- as a price of ALCON IOL lense was charged from the complainant which is apparent from the surgery bill receipt (exhibit-1) dated 07.12.2018 which was deposited by the complainant in which serial number of ALCON IOL Lense was given as such there was no mis-representation on behalf of opposite party."
The Commission further noted that although it was an admitted fact that the complainant had opted for Tecnis IOL lens, but ALCON IOL lens was implanted, and the surgery bill receipt also showed that the price of ALCON IOL lens of Rs. 9,500/- was only charged from the complainant.
At this outset, the State Consumer Court further noted, "It is the choice of medical professional performing operation to decide which lense is more suitable for the patient as they are expert in their field and their wisdom cannot be questioned unless it is proved that option exercise by the medical professional is contrary to medical norms and practice. Nothing has been placed on record that ALCON IOL lense is inferior in quality to Tecnis IOL lense and not advised for implantation. Only because Tecnis IOL lense is costlier then ALCON IOL lense it cannot be presumed that it is of superior quality. However opposite party has also not explained or given reasons that although complainant had opted for Tecnis IOL lense what persuaded opposite party to implant ALCON IOL lense."
"Opposite party himself as admitted that the wrapper and serial number of lense subsequently pasted in his medical prescription was a mischievous, notorious and unauthorised act by some of his employee but said act cannot be overlooked, ignored and pardoned and opposite party cannot be absolved from such misdeeds of his employee and is liable to compensate complainant for such confusion being created in the mind of complainant which was deliberate and intentional, as such allegation of misrepresentation and unfair / deceptive trade practice is made out against the opposite party," it further observed.
Accordingly, the Commission directed the doctor to pay Rs 75,000 to the patient- including Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 25,000 as cost of litigation.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/15/lens-mismatch-medico-legal-353916.pdf
