A doctor's liability does not always arise from what happens inside the operating theatre. Sometimes, it begins with what happens at the reception desk, in the medical records, or through the actions of clinic staff. The Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently demonstrated this distinction by holding that while an ophthalmologist was not guilty of medical negligence, he was nevertheless responsible for the confusion created by his clinic's documentation.
A patient underwent cataract surgery after opting for a Tecnis intraocular lens (IOL). During the operation, however, the surgeon implanted an ALCON IOL, explaining that it was the more suitable choice based on his professional judgment. The patient later questioned the decision after discovering inconsistencies between the surgery receipt, prescription and the wrapper of the lens supplied after the operation.
The dispute soon shifted from the surgery itself to the clinic's records. Different serial numbers appeared on different documents, and the lens wrapper attached to the prescription did not match the implanted lens. The patient alleged that a cheaper lens had been substituted after charging for a premium one and sought compensation for loss of vision.
Before the Commission, the doctor admitted that the incorrect wrapper and serial number had been pasted onto the prescription by one of his employees without authorisation. He maintained that the patient had only been charged for the ALCON lens actually implanted and that there was no evidence linking the surgery or the implanted lens to the alleged loss of vision.
The Commission agreed that medical negligence had not been established. It found no evidence that the ALCON lens was medically inferior or that it had caused the patient's visual impairment. It also recognised that the choice of lens during surgery ordinarily falls within the surgeon's professional discretion.
However, the Commission drew a firm line on accountability. It held that the unauthorised actions of a clinic employee could not absolve the treating doctor of responsibility. The contradictory records and incorrect documentation had created unnecessary confusion and amounted to misrepresentation and an unfair trade practice, even if the surgery itself met the required standard of care.
Accordingly, while setting aside the compensation awarded for alleged loss of vision, the Commission directed the doctor to compensate the patient for the unfair trade practice arising from the clinic's deficient documentation.
The decision is a timely reminder that medical negligence and administrative negligence are not always the same. A doctor may perform the right procedure with appropriate clinical judgment, yet still incur legal liability if the clinic's records, documentation or staff actions undermine transparency and erode patient trust.
Source: Order pronounced by Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 4th May, 2026.
