PRESIDENT

1)        By this complaint the Complainants have prayed that it be declared that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 were negligent in providing the Complainant proper, diligent, professional services though the Complainant paid full consideration for availing of services.  It is further prayed that the order be passed in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 jointly and severely directing them to pay an amount of Rs.14,63,100/-  to the Complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost. 

2)        According to the Complainant the Opposite Party No.2 is a qualified eye surgeon, practicing and consulting in the hospital run by the Opposite Party No.1.  It is alleged that the Complainant was suffering from Cataract in the left eye which is very important and crucial organ of the body.  The Complainant therefore, wanted to be treated and operated to his eye in the best available hospital and by the best surgeon.  The Complainant therefore, approached to the Opposite Party No.1 which is well reputed institution in the field of eye surgery and any diseases related to eye.  Opposite Party No.2 is a well known eye surgeon who was attached to Opposite Party No.1 and was working under the control of Opposite Party No.1.  The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 on 23/01/2006.  He was examined and check by Opposite Party No.2 and other staff members of Opposite Party No.1.  It is submitted that after thorough examination of the Complainant and by carrying out various tests in the hospital of Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.2 suggested to the Complainant to undergo surgery for removal of cataract in his left eye.  Accordingly the Complainant, agreed to get operated for consideration by Opposite Party No.2 in the hospital of Opposite Party No.1.

3)        It is the case of the Complainant that he got admitted on 23/02/2006 in the hospital of Opposite Party No.1 and on the same date some more tests were carried out by Opposite Party No.1 prior to he was operated.  It is submitted that as such the Complainant was operated only after Opposite Parties were amply satisfied about the health condition of the Complainant.  The Complainant was operated on 23/02/2006 at 8.00 a.m. by the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant was discharged by the Opposite Party No.1 on the same date at about 14.30 hrs. only after Complainant settled all his dues. The copy of discharge card and payment receipt and other relevant documents are marked as Exh.‘A’.  It is submitted that on next day of the surgery i.e. on 24/02/06 the Complainant stated suffering from sever and unbearable pain and itching in his operated left eye. 

4)        According to the Complainant, he immediately visited the Opposite Party No.1 and reported the problem about an itching in the left eye.  It is alleged that instead of examining the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2 eye surgeon employed with the Opposite Party No.1 Dr. Niren Dongre, specialize in vitreo surgery simply advised the Complainant to take second opinion from a vitreo retinal surgeon. The copy of the opinion of Dr. Dongre dtd.25/02/06 issued to the Complainant is marked as Exh.‘B’.  It is alleged that act on the part of the Opposite Parties is the case of medical negligence as the Opposite Parties neither consulted vitreo retinal surgeon prior to surgery nor after the surgery though the facilities are available in the hospital through the said Dr. Niren Dongre which they ought to have done considering the age and condition of the left eye of the Complainant.  It is submitted that disappointed by the services of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant had consulted Drushti Eye and Retina Centre and Rajeev Nursing Home which is popularly known as Drushti Clinic near opera House, Mumbai for the problem of sever etching and pain in the left eye on 01/03/06 Dr. Vatsal Parikh of Drushti and retinal centre diagnosed the Complainant with sever Endophthalmitis with no glow & PL + vision.  The smear showed fungal and gram negative infection and pseudomonas growth of culture.  It was also diagnosed that the Complainant had scleral nercosis and the view was not good and was considered inoperable.  The copy of the certificate issued by Dr. Vatsal Parikh dtd.21/03/06 of Drushti Eye and Retina Centre is marked as Exh.‘C’. The said Drushti Clinic advised the Complainant to undergo sonography for high resolution, of the said affected left eye and he did it on 07/03/06.  It was revealed in high resolution ophthalmic diagnoses carried by one Dr. Deepak Bhatt at UBM Institute, Bhalchandra Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai as follows –

“Ultrasonographic imaging of left eye was carried out using 20 MHz Pathalmic problem and synchronized Veatir Scan. 

There are multiple mobile ---- seen in the poster for segment of the left eye. 

These --- have 50% respectively. 

There is bullious membrane attached to the ---- disc seen in the left eye. 

The epic nerve is normal.

The Eetro Obbital Space is normal.”

               The copy of the said report is marked as Exh.‘D’. 

5)        It is alleged that from the aforesaid report and the diagnosis done by Dr. Vatsal Parikh that the services given by the Opposite Parties were deficient, which resulted in a fungal infection of the left eye and instead of curing the same, the Opposite Parties avoided to treat the Complainant and simply advised him to take second opinion without referring to any specific specialized renowned eye surgeon, which aggravated the problem faced by the Complainant.  It is further alleged that the Complainant had to undergo immediate treatment from Drushti Clinic on 07/03/06 and the Doctors attached to the said clinic carried out left eye vitrectomy surgery on 07/03/06 which cost the Complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/-.  The copies of the documents of Drushti Clinic are marked as Exh.‘E’. 

6)        According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 had negligently carried out the Cataract surgery of the left eye of the Complainant which caused the Complainant severe pain and itching to his left eye due to the fungal infection which ultimately cost him his left eye.  It is alleged that the Opposite Parties are solely responsible for negligently carrying out the left eye cataract surgery of the Complainant which amounts to deficiency in services.  It is submitted that the Complainant has therefore, suffered mental pain and agony and pecuniary losses in his business.  The Complainant has also produced the copies of the bills of medicines and other charges paid by him for the above surgery at Exh.‘F’.  It is alleged that the Complainant was forced to undergo duplication of various tests as well as hospitalization in Drushti Clinic for which he had incurred an amount of Rs.1,20,0000/-.  The copies of the said expenditure and reports are marked as Exh.‘G’. It is submitted that the Complainant could not attend his business and earn profit to the tune of Rs.3 Lacs during the period of hospitalization and thereafter.  It is alleged that the said loss was caused due to the negligent and deficient service rendered by the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant also suffered mental trauma and stress for which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay Rs.10 Lacs.  It is alleged that because of negligent and deficient service on the part of Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has lost vision in his left eye permanently and made him permanent disabled. The Complainant has therefore, valued total claim of Rs.14,63100/- and cost of the complaint to the tune of Rs.5,000/- against the Opposite Parties. 

7)        It is submitted that the case made out by the Complainant is covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainant had served notice to both the Opposite Parties through advocate on or about 11/06/06, the copy of which is at Exh.‘H’.  The Opposite Party No.1 by reply notice dtd.22/07/06 denied all the charges leveled against it.  Copy of it is at Exh.‘I’. The Complainant thereafter, issued two more notices dtd.29/07/06 & 08/09/06.  The copies of which are marked as Exh.‘J’.  The Complainant therefore, prayed to grant reliefs as per para 1 of this order.

8)        From the record of this complaint, it appears that the Complainant had earlier filed complaint for the claim of more than Rs.20 Lacs before the Hon’ble State Commission being C.No.155/06. The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dtd.22/03/07 held that the claim preferred in the complaint is unnecessarily exaggerated.  The genuine claim is below Rs.20 Lacs. The Complainant was therefore, allowed to reduce the claim and file it in the appropriate District Consumer Forum.  It appears that therefore, the present complaint is filed before this Forum on 09/04/2007.

9)        The Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint by its written statement.  It is contended that the complaint is filed not with respect to any deficiencies in the services of Opposite Party No.1 or for any unfair practices adopted by it, but it is purely filed to tarnish the clean image and bring disrepute to its good name.  It is contended that there is no element of any negligence in the services rendered by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant (hereinafter referred as patient) and therefore, this complaint must be dismissed with cost.  It is contended that this complaint is filed to extract monitory consideration and to unnecessarily harass the Opposite Party No.1.  It is contended that as the present complaint involves complicated issues of facts and law, it would be improper on the part of this Forum to hear and decide this case by summary trial. It is contended that the Complainant has deliberately suppressed relevant and material particulars touching upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Complainant has not disclosed the fact that on 25/02/2006 an important investigation called B Scan Ultra sonography was performed.  The Complainant has not disclosed the fact that the problem with which he came to the Opposite Parties was that of the anterior chamber of the eye and he had no symptoms with respect to the posterior chamber of the eye.  It is contended that under the said situation there was no need for the patient to be referred to the vitreo retinal surgeon pre operatively.  It is submitted that only those patients who have posterior problems are referred vitreo retinal surgeon.  According to the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant has deliberately not disclosed the fact that when posterior chamber problems were identified in the Complainant, he was immediately referred and seen by vitreo retinal specialist.  It is contended that the Complainant has deliberately not disclosed the fact that subsequently he was lost to follow up, after which Dr. Kulin Kothari i.e. Opposite Party No.2 personally telephoned at the Complainant’s residence to know about his eye condition and advised him to come for detailed revaluation of his eye condition.  It is submitted that the Complainant’s relative mentioned to Opposite Party No.2 that they would bring the patient to the hospital at the earliest.  However, the Opposite Parties did not hear from the patient or his relatives thereafter. It is contended that the Complainant has deliberately abstained from treatment and was lost to follow up.  The Complainant if followed up everything possible could have done for him.  It is contended that on 25/02/06 when the Complainant came with itching problem he was examined by the in house Vitreo Retinal Surgeon - Dr. Niren Dongre and Opposite Party No.2. It is denied that Dr. Dongre simply advised the Complainant to get second opinion.  According to the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant opted for the second opinion from another vitreo retinal surgeon and as such Dr. Niren Dongre helped him to seek a second opinion by giving letter to that extent.  It is thus, contended that as the Complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and resorts to falsehood to obtain an order favourable to him, the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

10)      It is contended that the Opposite Party No.1 has a diagnostic centre with the latest ophthalmologic investigatory facility and the hospital renders specialty and super specialty services in ophthalmologic.  The hospital is fully equipped to manage any kind of ophthalmic problems or complications.  The Opposite Party No.1 has been recognized by National Board of Examinations for Diplomat of National Board of Ophthalmologic.  The hospital is clear and hygienic place where many patients with various Ophthalmic disorder having successfully treated.  Hospital also is adequately staff with doctors/persons who are professionally well qualified, vastly experienced, service oriented and who have integrity of personal guarantor. 

11)      It is contended that the eye is divided into two segments – the anterior segment and the posterior segment and the two segments are separated by lens.  The lens is enclosed in a capsule – the anterior and posterior.  The eye ball is prevented from collapsing because of the intraocular pressure which is maintained by the aqueous humor (anterior chamber) and the vitreous humor. It is contended that in certain diseases and in most of High Myopic and diabetic patients there are degenerative changes and inflammatory changes in their retina.  These changes results in decrease in quality and acuity of vision.  Such patients do not regain good quality vision and acuity of vision after operation, unlike most of the other patients.  The eye is connected to the brain by the optic nerve according to the Opposite Parties, the case of the Complainant was a Myopic.  It is contended that the on 24/01/06 the Complainant was examined by Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1 Institute as he came with the complaints of diminish vision in the left eye. His past medical and drug history was unremarkable. It is contended that pre-operative condition of the Complainant were examined as mentioned in para No.25 of the written statement and in view of the Cataract the Complainant was explained regarding complications associated with such Cataract in the left eye.  Thereafter on 23/02/06 after routine  preoperative investigations the Complainant was scheduled and operated for left eye cataract surgery by Phacoemulsification with the use of mofviscot and Healon, GV (soft shell technique) with foldable 13.5 D acrysof intra ocular implant (IOL) Implantation.  Patient was discharged on the same day.  It is contended that on 24/02/06 Opposite Party No.2 Dr. Kulin Kothari examined the Complainant as a routine post operative follow-up in the afternoon. Patient was doing well post operatively.  It is alleged that on 25/02/06 patient came with complaints of pain and itching in the left eye.  The Opposite Party No.2 examined the patient in detail and referred him immediately to in house Vitreo Retina Specialist Dr. Niren Dongre.  The said Dr. Dongre recorded his findings on 25/02/06.  The said findings are mentioned in para 30 of written statement. It is submitted that based on the clinical findings and B scan report – the Opposite Party No.2 Dr. Kothari alongwith Dr. Dongre discussed the left eye condition in detail with the Complainant as well as his attendants. The Complainant was advised left eye vitrectomy surgery alongwith intra – vitreal antibiotic injections Vancomycin, Ceftazidime and Amikacin. It is alleged that urgency and immediate need of this vision savings vitrectomy surgery was discussed.  Left eye vitrectomy surgery and administration of intravitreal antibiotics like vancomycin, Ceftazidime and amikacin was done immediately on the same day without losing time and undertaking effective and aggressive treatment.  It is alleged that the Complainant opted for second opinion from other vitreo retinal surgeon and Dr. Niren Dongre gave letter for second opinion to the Complainant.  On 26/02/06, the Opposite Parties reviewed the Complainant in the morning. The B scan ultra sonography was re-performed (B scan report attached). It is submitted that clinically there was reduction in the signs and symptoms of inflammation. The Complainant was advised to continue topical and systematic medications and to follow on Tuesday which was after 26/02/06.  The Complainant was also given emergency contract nos. of Opposite Party No.2 and Dr. Dongre in case of requirement.  According to the Opposite Party No.1, subsequently the Complainant was lost to follow up after which Opposite Party No.2 personally telephoned at the Complainants residence to know about his eye condition and advised him to come for the detailed revaluation of his eye condition.  It is alleged that the Complainants relative informed Dr. Kothari to bring the Complainant to the hospital at the earliest.  It is contended that however, the Opposite Parties, thereafter did not hear anything from the Complainant or his relatives. 

12)      The Opposite Party No.1 denied the allegations made by the Complainant and contended that the Opposite Party No.1 was never negligent in rendering services and never adopted unfair trade practices.  It is denied that the Complainant came with itching problem in the left eye on 24/02/06.  It is contended that he came on 25/02/06 with such problem to the Opposite Party No.1.  It is contended that on 24/02/06 everything was normal and there were no symptoms of any pain or itching.  It contended that on 24/02/06 Complainant came for the first time and on that day Opposite Party No.2 not only examined him from a Cataract point of view but his retina was also examined in the department by the in house vetreo retinal surgeon Dr. Dongre.  The findings of him are on record and the Complainant has deliberately suppressed the said fact.  It is contended that when the posterior problems identified in the Complainant he was immediately referred and seen by the vetreo retinal specialist on 25/02/06 and the further treatment was provided on 26/02/06.  It is submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the hospital.  All the necessary care and caution was taken when the cataract operation was performed. It is denied that the Complainant sustained a mental trauma worth of Rs.10 Lacs.  It is contended that as there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, there was no question of paying any compensation.  The treatment rendered by Opposite Party No.1 is in confirmative with treatment protocols followed anywhere in the world.  It is submitted that the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost as provided u/s.26 of 1986 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

13)      The Opposite Party No.2 by filing separate written statement contested the complaint.  The defence raised by the Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement is almost adopted by the Opposite Party No.2.  It is contended that the Opposite Party No.2 is actively involved in academics. He is well qualified and practicing Ophthalmology for last 27 years.  The Opposite Party No.2 has been awarded multiple awards.  It is alleged that she is also involved in social activities.  It is contended that Endophthalmitis post operatively infection can be transmitted to the eyeball either to exogenous cause which in medical parlance is called Nosocomial infection which is because of faulty environment where the patients are operated.  It is contended that in the instant case no patient was operated on 22/02/06, 23/02/06 & 24/02/06 got Endophthalmitis.  It is contended that the eyeball can be infected due to Endogenous infections being transmitted to the eyeball.  It is submitted that this is by organisms the patient himself harbors i.e. self infection or endogenous infection.  It is submitted that when one isolated case gets infected and no other case operated in the same environment gets infected the infection is more likely to be due to endogenous organism as the case in the instant case.  It is contended that the Opposite Party No.2 had taken all the care that was expected from any reasonable prudent medical practitioner and therefore, there cannot be any element of negligence or rashness in the services rendered by Opposite Party No.2.  Established treatments, protocols were never violated.  It is contended that every treatment has its own risk factors which does not signify negligence or deficiencies in the services rendered by the doctors. It is contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the Complainant as he did not come for follow up.  It is submitted that if the Complainant followed up everything possible could have been done him. On 26/02/06 he was asked to come on next Tuesday, but he did not come.  It is contended that in spite of taken all precaution by doctors at times Endophthalmitis cannot be prevented.  It is thus, submitted that the complaint deserves to be dismissed as provided u/s.26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

14)      The Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence.  The Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit in evidence for Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  The Opposite Parties have also filed affidavit of Dr. M.I. Doongerwala Vetreo Retinal Surgeon.  The Opposite Parties have also filed affidavit of Dr. Niren Dongre, Vitreo Retinal Surgeon and Dr. Vatsal Parikh, Ophthalmologist.  The Complainant has filed written argument.  The Opposite Parties have also filed their written arguments.  We heard the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant Smt. Sushma Dave and the Representative of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 Dr. Shenoy. 

 15)      Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under –

Point No.1 :  Whether the Complainant proves medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 ?                              

Findings    :  No                   

Point No.2 :  Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for from the Opposite Parties ?

Findings    :  No                   

 Reasons : 

16) Point No.1 :  It is undisputed that Complainant suffered from left eye cataract and at the institute of Opposite Party No.1 it was removed by Opposite Party No.2 by Phacoemulsification with the use of mof viscoat and Healon GV (Soft shell technique) with foldable 13.5 D acrysof intera ocular implant (IOL) implantation and patient was discharge on the day of operation i.e. 23/02/06.  According to the Complainant, he had thereafter approached on 24/02/06 to the Opposite Parties with complaint of pain and itching in the said left eye. However, the Opposite Parties have disputed the said contention and it is contended that the Complainant had approached on 24/02/06 for check-up and there was no complaint from him about any pain or itching.  According to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant approached regarding such complaint on 25/02/06 and thereafter, the aggressive treatment was provided by the Opposite Parties and as the Complainant insisted for second opinion the Opposite Parties Dr. Niren Dongre issued letter to the Complainant to that effect.  According to the Complainant, on 07/03/06 vitrectomy surgery was done at Drushti Clinic by Dr. Vatsal Parikh.  According to the Complainant, in B Scan test taken by Dr. Dipak Bhatt certain abnormalities were diagnosed and for that the Opposite Parties are responsible as they had not given proper services while treating the Complainant.  On perusal of the case papers and documents placed on record by the Opposite Parties, it appears that the Complainant has suppressed some material facts and investigations and treatment provided by the Opposite Parties to him for his cataract problem.  In our view the Complainant has not come out with clean hands before this Forum. Thus, the Complainant’s case that the Endophthalmitis was because of Opposite Parties negligence is required to be scrutinized cautiously.  Upon going through the evidence and documents produced by the Opposite Parties, it appears that the infection suffered by the Complainant was endogenous (self sponsored) infection. It is also pertinent to note that the Complainant has not filed any expert opinion to prove the deficiencies in Opposite Parties services.  The contention raised by the Complainant that the Opposite Parties did not consult Vitreo Retinal Surgeon prior to and post surgery cannot be accepted as the Opposite Parties have placed on record the report of retina evaluation dtd.24/01/06 and it appears that on the said date the Complainant was examined from a Cataract point of view and also his retina was examined in the department by the in house Vitreo Retinal Surgeon by Dr. Niren Dongre. From the documents placed on record it also appears that on 25/02/06 i.e. post operatively when posterior chamber problems were identified in the Complainant he was immediately referred and seen by a vitreo retinal specialist of the Opposite Parties.  Findings of the vitreo-retinal surgeon of 25/02/06 are on record.  Thereafter on 26/02/06 as per the documents placed on record by the Opposite Parties it appears that the B Scan Ultra Sonography was    re-performed.  It also appears that the Complainant was advised to continue topical systematic medication and to follow up on Tuesday i.e. on 28/02/06.  The Opposite Parties in support of their contention that there was no negligence while carrying out Cataract surgery and the infection was due to an endogenous source carried by the Complainant himself has relied the affidavit of Opposite Party No.2 Dr. Kulin Kothari.  The Opposite Parties have also filed affidavit of Dr. Niren Dongre and Dr. M.I. Doongerwala, Vitreo Retinal Surgeon. Dr. Niren Dongre in his affidavit has specifically stated that he and Opposite Party No.2 before surgery discussed the left eye condition in detail with patient (Complainant) as well as his attendants.  He had stated that the urgency and immediate need for the vision saving of the Complainant vitrectomy surgery was discussed.  In the affidavit of Dr. Niren Dongre, it is stated that the condition of the Complainant’s eye on 26/02/06 in the morning was reviewed and B Scan ultra sonography was re-performed.  Clinically there was reduction in the signs and symptoms of inflammation. Complainant was advised to continue topical and systematic medication and to follow up closely. He has stated that the Complainant subsequently lost to follow up.  Dr. M.I. Doongerwala has filed affidavit in support of the defence raised by the Opposite Parties.  Said doctor is an expert as Vitreo Retinal Surgeon has also stated in his affidavit that he has examined the case papers of the Complainant and found that the infection was because of an endogenous organism harbored by the patient himself.  Besides that Dr. Vatsal Parikh who had treated the Complainant and know about the facts of the case of the Complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of the defence raised by the Opposite Parties.  He specifically stated in his affidavit that the Complainant’s cataract was rightly extracted by Phacoemulsification.  He further stated that Ophthalmologist all over the world put the patients on antibiotics post operatively and this they do as a matter of abundant precaution and the same precautions were rightly taken in the instant case.  He further stated that the mere presence of Endophthalmitis not necessarily mean that there is negligence or deficiencies in the services on the part of the doctor.  The same can be caused due a variety of reasons.  He in his affidavit has specifically stated that whatever post operative care was taken by the Opposite Parties was proper and there cannot be negligence or deficiency in the doctor’s service.  Considering the affidavit of Dr. Vatsal Parikh who had provided further treatment to the Complainant and who had re-operated the Complainant on 07/03/06 for vitrectomy has not opined that there was negligence in rendering service by the Opposite Parties which can be considered as deficiency in service.  In view of the above facts in our view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab reported in 2005(3) CPR 70 (SC) can be said applicable to the facts of this case.  The said observations are as under –

            “A physician could not assure to the patient of full recovery in every case.  A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on.  The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practicing and while under taking the performance of the task entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence.  This is all what the person approaching the professional can expect.”

            Considering the aforesaid observation and in the present case the Complainant himself did not follow up further treatment as advised by the Opposite Parties on Tuesday after 26/02/2006 and he did not turn up to the Opposite Parties for the detailed revaluation of his eye condition.  Furthermore, as stated in the affidavit of Dr. Parikh mere presence of Endophthalmitis does not necessarily mean that there is negligence or deficiency in the services on the part of the doctors and the same can be caused due to variety of reasons, it cannot be held that the problem which was required to be faced by the Complainant was due to negligence or deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has also not placed on record any expert opinion to substantiate his case that the Opposite Parties were negligent in providing services to him as held in the case of Ms. Swati P. Patil V/s. Dr. Kiran Rajaram Wanarse 2006(2) CPR by Hon’ble State Commission of Maharasthra.  We therefore, hold that the Complainant has failed to prove allegations of medical negligence or deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  In the result we answer point no.1 in the negative.  

17) Point No.2 :  In view of the fact that the Complainant has failed to prove medical negligence or deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties, we hold that the claim made by the Complainant regarding recovery of medical expenses, compensation or the other reliefs can not be granted as prayed for in his favour and against the Opposite Parties.  We therefore, answer point no.2 in the negative and passed the following order - 

O R D E R

i.                    Complaint No.117/2007 is dismissed with no order as to cost. 

ii.                 Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.