An eye surgery that resulted in permanent loss of vision led to allegations of negligent treatment. But the State Consumer Commission drew a careful distinction between the surgery itself and what had happened before the patient ever entered the operating room.
The patient had consulted an ophthalmic surgeon for a vision-related problem and was advised surgery after being assured that the procedure was routine and carried a high rate of success.
Before the operation, she signed a standard consent form presented as a routine formality. Following surgery, however, she developed severe pain, redness, progressive visual deterioration, and ultimately lost vision in the operated eye despite undergoing further treatment elsewhere.
The Commission examined two separate allegations.
The first concerned the surgery and post-operative care. On this issue, the patient failed to produce independent expert medical evidence demonstrating that the surgeon had acted below accepted ophthalmic standards. The Commission reiterated the settled principle that an unfortunate outcome, by itself, does not establish medical negligence.
The second issue, however, met a different fate.
The consent form relied upon by the surgeon was found to be a generic pre-printed document carrying little more than the patient's signature. It contained no disclosure of the specific surgery, its material risks, possible complications, alternative treatment options, or the possibility of permanent loss of vision.
Relying on the principles laid down in Samira Kohli, the Commission held that obtaining a signature is not the same as obtaining informed consent. A patient can make a meaningful decision only after understanding the material risks that may reasonably influence that decision.
Holding the surgeon deficient only on this limited ground, the Commission awarded compensation while expressly declining to hold the surgery itself negligent.
The ruling reinforces an increasingly important medico-legal principle: informed consent is not a document to be signed, but a conversation to be had. A successful defence begins not in the operating theatre, but in the consultation room where patients are given enough information to make an informed choice.
Source: Order pronounced by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 13th March, 2026.
