Maharashtra State Consumer Commission Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation Against Eye Surgeon for Failure to Obtain Informed Consent

March 13, 2026 : The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, has held an ophthalmic surgeon liable for deficiency in service for failing to obtain proper and informed consent before performing cataract surgery on a patient who subsequently lost vision in the operated eye. While the Commission declined to hold the doctor guilty of medical negligence in the conduct of the surgery itself, it ruled that the absence of valid informed consent constituted a serious breach of the patient’s legal rights and awarded compensation of ₹7 lakh along with litigation costs.

The complaint was filed by Rajani Prakash Malik against Dr. Ashok T. Bhole, an eye surgeon practicing in Dombivli, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service arising out of a cataract surgery performed on her right eye in July 2011. According to the complainant, she had approached the doctor with vision-related problems and was advised to undergo surgery after being assured that it was a routine procedure with a high success rate. She alleged that before the operation, her signature was obtained on a pre-printed consent form without any meaningful explanation regarding the nature of the surgery, possible complications, alternative treatments, or the risk of permanent loss of vision.

The complainant further contended that after the surgery she developed severe pain, redness, watering, and progressive deterioration of vision in the operated eye. She claimed that despite repeatedly informing the surgeon about her worsening condition, appropriate steps were not taken in time. Eventually, she sought treatment from another specialist and later underwent further medical procedures at Fortis Hospital, Mulund. Despite those efforts, the vision in the eye could not be restored, resulting in permanent loss of the eye and significant physical, emotional, and financial hardship.

The doctor denied all allegations and argued that he was a qualified and experienced ophthalmic surgeon who had performed the procedure in accordance with accepted medical standards and under proper aseptic precautions. He maintained that the complainant had been adequately informed about the surgery and had voluntarily signed the consent form. He further submitted that the adverse outcome was the result of a known and recognized post-operative complication that can occur despite the exercise of due care and caution. The doctor also emphasized that the complainant had failed to produce independent expert evidence to establish negligence.

After examining the evidence, the Commission framed three key issues: whether the complainant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, whether the complaint was filed within limitation, and whether deficiency in service or medical negligence had been established. The Commission answered the first two questions in favour of the complainant, holding that medical services rendered for consideration fall within the definition of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the complaint had been filed within the statutory limitation period.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the surgeon had obtained valid informed consent. Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and subsequent consumer law precedents, the Commission reiterated that a patient must be informed about the nature of the procedure, foreseeable risks, possible complications, alternative treatment options, and the consequences of refusing treatment. Only then can consent be considered legally valid and informed.

The Commission found that the consent form relied upon by the doctor was merely a pre-printed document containing the complainant’s signature. It did not specify the nature of the surgery, the associated risks, possible complications, or the possibility of permanent loss of vision. The Commission observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that these crucial aspects had ever been explained to the patient. It concluded that a bare signature on a standard printed form could not satisfy the legal requirement of informed consent.

In a significant observation, the Commission stated: “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.” It further observed that “By failing to inform her of this risk and merely obtaining her signature on a printed form, the opposite party has not discharged his duty of disclosure. This, in our view, clearly amounts to deficiency in service.”

However, the Commission reached a different conclusion regarding allegations of medical negligence in the performance of the surgery and post-operative treatment. It emphasized that an adverse medical outcome by itself does not establish negligence. Relying on Supreme Court decisions including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Commission noted that a doctor can be held liable only when it is proved that the treatment fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent practitioner. Such allegations generally require independent expert medical evidence.

The Commission found that the complainant had not produced any expert medical opinion, medical board report, or specialist evidence establishing that the surgeon had deviated from accepted standards of ophthalmic practice. While the complainant relied on hospital records and subsequent treatment documents, the Commission held that those records only established the occurrence of complications and not negligence on the part of the surgeon.

The Commission also declined to rely heavily on affidavits filed by fellow doctors supporting the surgeon, observing that they appeared to be standardized documents and could not be treated as independent expert opinions. Nevertheless, it clarified that weaknesses in the defence evidence did not relieve the complainant of her burden to prove negligence. In the absence of credible expert evidence, the allegation of negligent surgery and post-operative care remained unproven.

Summarising its findings, the Commission held that the doctor was liable only for failure to obtain proper and valid informed consent and not for medical negligence in the surgical procedure or subsequent treatment. The distinction is significant because it reinforces the principle that patient autonomy and informed decision-making are independent legal obligations, separate from the technical competence of medical treatment.

While determining compensation, the Commission acknowledged the grave consequences suffered by the complainant, including the permanent loss of vision and the loss of the eye itself, the expenses incurred for additional treatment, and the resulting physical pain and mental anguish. At the same time, it noted that negligence in treatment had not been established. Balancing these considerations, the Commission awarded ₹7 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service and ₹50,000 towards litigation costs. The amount must be paid within two months, failing which it will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until realization.

The ruling underscores the growing importance of informed consent in Indian medical jurisprudence. The decision serves as a reminder that obtaining a patient’s signature on a standard form is not sufficient compliance with the law. Healthcare professionals are required to ensure that patients understand the nature of the proposed treatment, its risks, alternatives, and potential consequences before consent is obtained. The judgment is likely to have wider implications for hospitals, clinics, and medical practitioners, reinforcing the need for comprehensive patient communication and documented disclosure practices to avoid liability under consumer protection laws.

Case Title: Rajani Prakash Malik v. Dr. Ashok T. Bhole
Forum: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai
Coram: Presiding Member Mukesh V. Sharma and Member Poonam V. Maharshi
Date of Decision: March 13, 2026
Advocates: Adv. S. Bhimani for the Complainant; Adv. Mishra, Adv. Vishwakarma and Adv. Chaudhary for the Opposite Party.