NCDRC's Revisional Jusridiction Limited To Orders Involving Material Irregularity, Illegality Or Jurisdictional Error, Dismisses Revision Petition By Kalinga Eye Hospital

Brief Facts:

Kalinga Eye Hospital and Research Centre (“Hospital”), as per the National Programme for Control of Blindness, organized a 'Free Eye Camp' in Deogarh District Head Quarters Hospital in December 2009, with financial support from the government. The Hospital received Rs. 750/- per cataract surgery from the government to cover various expenses. Under this programme, Mr Bhabagrahi Sahu (“Complainant”) underwent eye surgery on 08.12.2009 but failed to attend post-operative check-ups. After more than a year, on 01.08.2011, the Complainant claimed to have lost vision in his left eye since the day after the surgery. Feeling aggrieved, the Complaint filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Deogarh, Odisha (“District Commission”).

The District Commission allowed the complaint and ordered the Hospital to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the Complainant for causing loss of vision resulting from a defective cataract operation conducted by the Hospital's Doctor. The Hospital was also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- for litigation costs. Thereafter, the Hospital filed an appeal to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha (“State Commission”), which dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Commission.

Feeling aggrieved, the Hospital filed a revision petition in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), alleging that the Complainant failed to follow the post-discharge instructions and never appeared for follow-up checkups. On the other hand, the Complainant contended that the Hospital failed to maintain any record of the surgery performed on the Complainant's eye, which, according to him, constituted a deficiency in service. He accused the Hospital and the Doctor guilty of deficient service and fabrication of records.

Observations by the Commission:

The NCDRC referred to the decision in Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India and Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577], wherein it was held that the revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC is extremely limited and can only be exercised in case of jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission.

Therefore, without going into the factual matrix of the case and merits, the NCDRC found no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission. Within its limited jurisdiction, it found that the decisions, given by the District Commission and the State Commission, were free of any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. As a result, the revision petition filed by the Complainant was dismissed.

Case Title: Kalinga Eye Hospital vs Bhabagrahi Sahu and Anr.

Case No.: Revision Petition No. 596 of 2012

Advocate for the Complainant: Mr Merusagar Samantray, Mr K.R. Sotopotty and Mr L. Shiny K

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Abhishek Kumar, Mr Vikash Kumar and Mr Atul Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order