The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai, has partly allowed a consumer complaint filed by Smt. Rajani Prakash Malik against ophthalmic surgeon Dr. (Shri) Ashok T. Bhole. The Commission held Dr. Bhole liable for a deficiency in service due to his failure to obtain proper and informed consent before performing cataract surgery on the complainant’s right eye, which ultimately resulted in the permanent loss of her eye. However, the Commission ruled that the complainant failed to establish medical negligence in the actual performance of the surgery or the subsequent post-operative care, owing to the absence of independent medical expert evidence. Consequently, the Commission directed the surgeon to pay ₹7,00,000 in compensation and ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Smt. Rajani Prakash Malik, approached Dr. Ashok T. Bhole at his clinic, Heramb Eye Hospital in Dombivali (East), Thane, seeking treatment for a vision-related ailment in her right eye. According to the complainant, Dr. Bhole examined her and advised her to undergo cataract surgery, assuring her that the procedure was routine and carried a high success rate. Reposing faith in his professional standing, she agreed to the surgery and paid the required charges.
Prior to the surgery, which was performed on July 4, 2011, the complainant’s signature was obtained on a pre-printed consent form. Smt. Malik alleged that there was no meaningful discussion or disclosure by the surgeon regarding the nature of the procedure, its attendant risks, complications, or alternative treatment options. She maintained that she was at no point informed that the surgery carried a risk of permanent loss of vision or of the eye itself.
In the immediate post-operative period, the complainant developed severe pain, redness, watering, and progressively deteriorating vision in the operated eye, along with repeated episodes of loose motions and general weakness. Smt. Malik alleged that despite raising these issues, Dr. Bhole dismissed them as ordinary post-operative reactions and continued a conservative line of treatment without further investigations or timely referral.
As her condition worsened, the complainant was eventually referred to another specialist, Dr. P. Suresh, and subsequently underwent further surgery and treatment at Fortis Hospital in Mulund. Despite these interventions, her vision could not be salvaged, resulting in the permanent loss of vision and the loss of the eye itself. On January 21, 2013, she approached the State Consumer Commission seeking compensation for the physical, mental, and financial hardships caused by the loss of her eye.
Arguments of the Parties
Complainant’s Submissions
Represented by Advocate S. Bhimani i/b The Law Suits, the complainant argued that:
- The opposite party failed to obtain proper and informed consent, as her signature was obtained on a pre-printed proforma as a routine formality, keeping her in the dark about critical risks.
- The subsequent complications, including the loss of her eye, were a direct result of the negligent and sub-standard surgical and post-operative care provided by the opposite party.
- Affidavits submitted by fellow medical practitioners on behalf of the opposite party should be disregarded as they were identical, cyclostyled documents notarized on the same day by interested parties.
Opposite Party’s Submissions
Defended by Advocates Mishra, Vishwakarma, and Chaudhary, Dr. Bhole contended that:
- The complaint was false, frivolous, vexatious, and filed with unclean hands to extort money.
- He is a qualified and experienced surgeon who performed the procedure with due care, caution, and diligence under standard aseptic precautions.
- The procedure and its implications were explained to Smt. Malik in a language she understood before she signed the consent form, which was a valid consent in the eyes of the law.
- The post-operative complaints of pain and deteriorating vision were attended to promptly, while the episodes of loose motions and weakness were entirely unrelated to the ophthalmic surgery.
- The loss of the eye was due to a known, recognized medical complication and did not denote negligence.
- The burden of proving medical negligence lay on the complainant, who failed to produce any independent expert medical opinion or demonstrate a deviation from accepted standard practices.
The Commission’s Analysis and Observations
The Bench, comprising Presiding Member Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma and Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, framed and evaluated the key issues as follows:
1. Consumer Status and Limitation
The Commission observed that the relationship between the parties was that of a service provider and a recipient of service for consideration. Relying on the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, the Commission affirmed that medical services rendered for consideration fall under “service” defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the patient is a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d).
Furthermore, the Commission observed that since the surgery took place on July 4, 2011, and the complaint was filed on January 21, 2013, the action was brought well within the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 24-A of the Act.
2. Deficiency in Service (Informed Consent)
The Commission thoroughly evaluated the issue of informed consent, noting that a medical practitioner has a legal and ethical obligation to disclose the nature of the procedure, its risks, complications, and alternatives to enable real and valid consent.
Examining the consent form in this case, the Commission noted:
“The consent form placed on record by the opposite party is a pre-printed proforma carrying only the signature of the complainant. There is no mention anywhere in the said form of the specific nature of the surgery proposed to be performed on the complainant, the attendant risks, the possible complications, or, most importantly, of the fact that the complainant may, as a consequence of the procedure, lose vision in, or even lose, the operated eye.”
The Commission remarked that there was no recital indicating that these matters were explained to Smt. Malik. Applying the standards established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Dr. Dilip C. Shah v. Subhashchandra Tulsiramji Sevak Kokapur and Dr. Gagandeep Tathgur v. Veerpal Kaur, the Bench concluded:
“The form, in substance, is no more than a bare signature obtained on a printed sheet and, in the eye of law, that is not the consent which the law requires.”
By failing to inform the patient that the surgery carried the risk of permanent loss of vision or the eye itself, the opposite party failed to discharge his duty of disclosure, constituting a clear deficiency in service.
3. Allegations of Medical Negligence in Surgery and Post-Operative Care
Regarding the actual surgical performance and post-operative management, the Commission reiterated the established legal standard for medical negligence. Referring to Supreme Court precedents such as Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital, Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, C. P. Sreekumar (Dr.) v. S. Ramanujam, and Vinod Jain v. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, the Bench observed:
“To hold a doctor liable for negligence, the complainant must prove, by reliable evidence and ordinarily by independent expert medical opinion, that the doctor either did not possess the skill he claimed to have, or that he failed to use, with reasonable competence, the skill he did possess, and that this act or omission fell below the standard of a reasonably competent doctor of the same class.”
The Commission pointed out that the complainant had not placed on record any independent medical expert opinion or a report from a competent medical board. The treatment records from Fortis Hospital established only that Smt. Malik developed a post-operative complication and received subsequent treatment, but did not prove that the complication was caused by a negligent act or omission by Dr. Bhole. Similarly, no medical evidence linked her symptoms of loose motions and weakness to the eye surgery.
Although the Commission agreed with the complainant’s objection that the identical, hand-filled, and concurrently notarized affidavits of fellow practitioners submitted by Dr. Bhole could not be treated as conclusive proof of the absence of negligence, it held that this did not relieve the complainant of her primary burden of proof.
The Bench noted:
“The complainant having failed to place on record any independent expert opinion or any other material from which any specific act or omission falling below the accepted standard of medical practice can be inferred against the opposite party, we are constrained to hold that the second limb of her case, namely, of medical negligence in the surgery and the post-operative care, is not made out on the evidence on record.”
The Commission also distinguished several rulings cited by the complainant—including JIPMER v. S. Varrery Srinivas, Comtrust Eye Hospital v. V. Sirajudeen, and Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal v. Madhusudan N. Kumbhare—noting that those cases involved adverse independent expert opinions, medical board reports, or contemporaneous medical records demonstrating deviation from protocol, none of which were present in the current proceedings. It also stated that pending criminal or consumer proceedings in other matters against the surgeon could not serve as substantive evidence of negligence in the current complaint:
“Pendency of other proceedings against the opposite party, whatever their nature or stage, cannot operate as substantive evidence of negligence in the present complaint.”
The Commission’s Decision
In balancing the quantum of compensation, the Commission recognized that the loss of an eye is not fully measurable in monetary terms and that the complainant incurred substantial expenses for subsequent surgeries and suffered deep physical pain and mental agony. However, it balanced this against the finding that the opposite party was held liable solely on the ground of failing to obtain proper and informed consent, rather than proved surgical or post-operative negligence.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Dr. Ashok T. Bhole to:
- Pay Smt. Rajani Prakash Malik a sum of ₹7,0,000 as compensation for deficiency in service regarding the failure to obtain a proper and valid informed consent.
- Pay ₹50,000 to the complainant towards the cost of litigation.
- Comply with the order within two months from receiving the copy, failing which the amounts will attract simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order until actual realization.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sau. Rajani Prakash Malik v. Dr. (Shri) Ashok T. Bhole
- Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. SC/27/CC/13/2013 (CC/13/2013)
- Bench: Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma (Presiding Member) and Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi (Member)
- Date: 13/03/2026
