The Mental Hospital administration's defence argument? Unconvincing. "Goyal's blowing things out of proportion," mutters medical superintendent Kumar. "We have monthly examinations of each patient." Then how come so many vision impairments weren't reported? "Must have been errors," is all you get as reply. Spirited defence follows. "Cataract is only operated once blindness occurs unless it's in working people whose work gets stalled," he asserts astoundingly. "In any case," says he, "we can't really operate without consent from relatives." But what of people like his inmates whom no relative has visited, written to in 20 years or so? Should they be allowed to go blind for want of a consent form signature or should the hospital assume responsibility, get them operated? "We can't," Kumar replies. "What if they die?" But cataract, you tell him on Dr Goyal's authority, is not a life-threatening operation. "Yes, but we can't risk it," he replies. Response to questions of whether he as ophthalmologist is qualified to head a mental institution? A sotto voce mutter. "I had no idea how a mental hospital was run. So many union problems, 450 patients..." followed by a spirited—"Of course, I'm qualified. Even the National Mental Health Programme trains doctors for 15 days and authorises them to treat psychiatric cases. Even Dr Bhatia, who's a leading psychiatrist and runs a clinic opposite our hospital, is an ophthalmologist by training." You ask: "But is it morally, professionally right?" The answer? A sheepish, "No."