5 min readNew DelhiJun 12, 2026 02:56 PM IST
First published on: Jun 12, 2026 at 02:00 PM IST
The Bihar State Consumer body has awarded Rs 75,000 to a woman who allegedly lost her vision after she was given mismatched lenses following her lens implantation surgery. However, the consumer has set aside Rs 3 lakh in compensation for alleged vision loss due to a lack of evidence.
The president, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and member Ram Prawesh Das were dealing with a plea of Dr Subhash Ballabh Bijeta challenging the district consumer commission order.
“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,” the bench noted on May 5.
All started with visit to clinic in Munger
The case arose when the complainant- woman approached the hospital in 2018 with her son Jitendra Kumar as she was suffering from some eye trouble, and after examination, the opposite party, doctor and clinic advised the complainant for implantation of a lens in her left eye and fixed the date in December, 2018 for said implantation.
The complainant and her son requested implantation of the Tecnis IOL, which is the best lens. In December, 2018, the complainant visited the clinic of the opposite party and deposited a sum of Rs 23,000 in cash, and after implantation, the complainant and her son asked for a bag of implanted lense but same was not provided.
Allegation of implantation of lower quality lens
According to complain, after 40 days, the woman approached the clinic with complain of loss of vision, then they advised the complainant to consult S N Munkunder at Kolkata for better treatment.
The son of the woman compared the serial number of lense from medical prescription, the cash payment receipt, and the bag of the lens and found that there was a mismatch.
Complainant alleged that the opposite party knowingly and deliberately implanted a lower quality lens of lesser value in the left eye after taking the price of the best quality lens. They filed a complaint in the district consumer commission and sought compensation.
The present plea has been filed by the doctor challenging the 2024 judgment passed by the district consumer commission, Munger, where he was directed to pay a sum of Rs 3 lakh as compensation for loss of vision and to further pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs 50,000 as cost of litigation to the woman.
‘Mischievous and unauthorised act by some of employees’
- Complainant has alleged that he had opted for Tecnis IOL Lens for implantation, which is of superior quality; however, the opposite party implanted ALCON IOL, which is of inferior quality.
- The doctor in its written statement has admitted that the complainant had asked for a Tecnis IOL lens; as such, it is an admitted position that the complainant had asked for implantation of a Tecnis IOL lens.
- Tecnic IOL and ALCON IOL, but it was also informed that during operation, the opposite party appellant will decide the type of lens to be implanted which was more suitable to the patient and opposite party appellant decided to implant ALCON IOL and same was recorded in the surgery bill dated 2018 receipt with serial number and as such allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service is not correct.
- Loss of vision is not established as such; the compensation of Rs 2 lakh granted is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
- The opposite party himself admitted that the wrapper and serial number of the lens, subsequently pasted in his medical prescription, was a mischievous and unauthorised act by some of his employees, which amounts to misrepresentation and deceptive/unfair trade practice; as such, the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000 and Rs 25,000 as cost of litigation.
State Consumer Commission was dealing with a plea of doctor challenging district commission compensation order. (AI-generated Image) 
Share
