Delhi

North East

CC/132/2013

MRS. SUNITA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAR EYE CENTER - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 132/13

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mrs. Sunita Gupta W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta R/o:- 1/7240, East Gorakh Park Shahdara Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.       3.	Amar Eye Center B-38, Naveen Shahdara Delhi-110032   Gura Nanank Eye Kendra Back of G.B. Pant Hospital New Delhi-110002   The United Insurance Co. Ltd. 54, Janpath, Connaught Place New Delhi-110001	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION       :

23.04.2013 22.04.2022 31.05.2022.

 

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant had cataract problem in her eye and she went to Opposite Party No. 1 for cataract surgery. The said surgery was done by Dr. Rajeev Sudan and they charged Rs. 25,000/-. It is alleged by the Complainant that at the time of surgery fungus i.e. white water in heavy position occurred in her eye which was not treated by Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant submitted that Opposite Party No. 1 referred her to Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 conducted the surgery for the fungus and Complainant had to remain admitted in the hospital. It is alleged by the Complainant that despite spending the huge amount by her, eye could not be cured. It is also alleged that her eye sight was not improve. It is alleged by the Complainant that she along with her husband and other family members had suffered mental pain due to the improper treatment of her eye by Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 2.
2. Complainant has prayed for issue direction to Opposite Party No. 1 to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for suffering mental pain, agony and financial loss. She has also prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- as amount for continuing treatment of the eye. She has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Complainant has attached copy of medical bills and copy of O.P.D. Ticket of Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

4. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 1 that complaint filed by the Complainant is entirely misconceived and bundle of lies and has been filed with malafide intention and ulterior motives just to harass and to illegally money from them. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 that after more than one month of the surgery, the Complainant was diagnosed with fungal infection of the cornea. Opposite Party No. 1 denied the allegations made by the Complainant that during the course of treatment fungus (white water) occurred in the eye of the Complainant or that they referred the Complainant to Opposite  Party No. 2 for treatment of fungus infection an operation was performed by the Opposite Party No. 2. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 that complainant was diagnosed with fungal infection of the cornea after more than one month of the surgery by Opposite Party No. 1. Fungi can gain access into the corneal stroma through a minor defect on the surface. The same can occur due to external trauma (finger nail injury) in a compromised ocular surface as in topical steroid use or in diabetic patients. The origin of fungus in most of the cases is not known. It is also submitted by the Opposite party No. 1 that Complainant is diabetic an important risk factor for such infections. Opposite Party No. 1 submitted that the Complainant was referred to Opposite Party No. 2 in the best interest and considering the condition of her infection as the corneal patch graft in case of progression or corneal perforation can only be performed at a tertiary eye care facility with eye banking facilities. Opposite Party No. 1 also denied the allegation of the Complainant that the said eye was not fully cured and the eye sight was not proper.  It is submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the eye of the Complainant has been cured and her vision improved and as on 18.02.2013 her vision was recorded as 6/36 without glass at the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital.  

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

5. The Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No. 3 that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No. 3 and hence complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party                   No. 3. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 3 that the Opposite Party No. 1 had taken the professional indemnity policy from Opposite Party No. 3 i.e (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.). Further, Opposite Party No. 3 submitted that the present claim of the Complainant is not maintainable because the Complainant had suppressed the material facts from this Forum.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed affidavit.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

7. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of  Dr. Rajeev Sudan C/o Amar Eye Centre, B-38, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032. Where he has supported the case of Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Arguments and Conclusion

8. We have heard the husband of the Complainant and Counsel for Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused written argument filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file.
9. The case of the Complainant is that she approached the Opposite Party No. 1 for her eye surgery. It is her case that some complications were there in respect of the operated eye and she was referred by Opposite Party no. 1 to Opposite Party No. 2 for further treatment. It is the case of the Complainant that there was medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party No. 1. On account of which complications occurred in her eye.
10. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party No. 1 is that the surgery was performed successfully and there was no negligence on its part. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 that Complainant was diabetic in such a case complications may occur.
11.  The entire case of Complainant is based on the medical negligence. The perusal of her complaint, documents filed by her and her evidence by way of affidavit shows that there is nothing on record on the basis of which one would say there was medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party No. 1.
12.  A report was submitted by Medical Board of Guru Teg Bahadur, Hospital wherein it has been mentioned that there was no negligence on the part of Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 1 has also filed report dated 19.11.2015 of Medical Council of India. The perusal of the same shows that as per the said report there is no medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party No. 1.
13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that Complainant has failed to show any medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party No. 1 or Opposite Party No. 2. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
14.  Order announced on 31.05.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President