adopted any unacceptable medical practice which may have caused damage to the patient. Dr. Neeraj Sud was a duly qualified doctor possessing requisite professional skill and competence to perform the surgery. Therefore, neither Dr. Neeraj Sud nor the PGI can be held responsible for any negligence in the treatment. 510. The aforesaid findings of the State Commission have been partly reversed by the NCDRC only on the basis of the re- examination of the record of the PGI which showed that the patient before operation had proper 6/9 vision in both the eyes and was suffering from a moderate PTOSIS with no history of double vision. However, post-surgery, the condition of PTOSIS deteriorated from moderate to severe and the vision of the patient also fell down from 6/9 in both eyes to 6/18. The patient also suffered from double vision post-surgery. Thus, the NCDRC held that the doctor was apparently negligent in not giving proper treatment and was also careless in not performing the repeat