Commonly and it is more often the presumption of the patient that after any medical or surgical treatment he should get cured completely. However, the result of treatment and prognosis of disease depend upon several factors in vivo and vitro. Catena of judgments have defined the elements of medical negligence. It should be bone in mind that ‘no cure is not always medical negligence’.

The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for alleged medical negligence from the OP- Dr. Deepak Kumar while conducting left eye cataract operation on 30.09.2008 caused loss of vision his left eye. [Para 2]

The OP Doctor denied any negligence during the cataract operation. Getting loss of vision due to vitreous inflammation and retinal detachment may occur due to trauma and other causes. Therefore, retinal detachment cannot be held as medical negligence of the doctor. [Para 3]

The District Forum held the OP- doctor negligent and allowed the complaint. It directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for loss of eye sight, physical pain and financial loss with interest @ 9 % p.a. since 05.10.2008 till the date of payment. Rs. 1000/- was also awarded as litigation cost. [Para 4]

SCDRC observed that in facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the District Forum failed to consider these aspects of the case in correct perspective and passed the order holding the appellant doctor guilty for medical negligence, is not proper and justified, therefore, it is not sustainable. The impugned order is thus set aside. The appellant doctor is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. [Para 7]

NCDRC while dismissing the revision petition and affirming the judgment of SCDRC concluded that based on the foregoing discussion and in the obtaining facts, it is not feasible to attribute negligence / deficiency on the respondent doctor. It is difficult to conclusively establish medical negligence / deficiency in service on the respondent doctor. [Para 12]