Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/137/2022

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director of ESIC - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

RBT/Complaint Case No. 137/22

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash, R/o P-1/114, Sultan Puri, Delhi 110086		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	ESIC Director General Panchdeep Bhawan, Comrade Inderjeet Gupta (CIG) Marg, New Delhi 110002   Medical Superintendent ESIC Hospital Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		08.03.2018 05.03.2024 01.05.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant 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 he had been suffering from some eye problem. His son was having ESIC card and he visited office of Opposite Party No. 2 for his eye check-up. Thereafter, Opposite Party checked the eyes of the Complainant and doctors of Opposite Party No. 2 suggested for operating the eyes. Complainant stated that he agreed for the same and on 12.06.2017/13.06.2017 the eye operation of the complainant was done. Complainant stated that after the operation he had lost his total vision of the right eye which had given a lot of trauma to the Complainant. Thereafter, Complainant went to Opposite Parties but they refused for redressing the grievance of the Complainant. Complainant stated that he lodged complaint to Prime Minister of India, Health Minister of India and        Dr. Udit Raj but no action had been taken in this regard. Complainant stated that due to negligence of the Opposite Parties he suffered a lot of physically, mentally and financial loss. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 10,00,000/- as mental pain, harassment and financial loss and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit. It is stated that the eye surgery of the Complainant was conducted and the patient suffered some post-surgical complications. The said complications were not because of any negligence or deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant was referred to All India Institute of Medical Science for further treatment of his eye. The allegations have been denied. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.   

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.
5. Despite grant of opportunities, Opposite Parties did not file the evidence. Therefore, the right to file the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties has been closed vide order dated 30.08.2022.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that there was some problem in his right eye and he visited the hospital of Opposite Party No. 2. The doctors of said hospital suggested him for eye surgery. The Complainant agreed for the same. The eye surgery was conducted by the doctors of Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital. It is his case that after surgery he lost vision of his right eye which was due to medical negligence of the doctors of Opposite Party No. 2. The case of the Complainant is that thereafter he got treatment from AIIMS.
7. Apart from his bare allegations/averments, the Complainant has not produced any document or any report to show that there was any medical negligence on the part of doctors of Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital. The Complainant has filed only OPD tickets of Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital. The perusal of the same OPD tickets does not reflect any medical negligence on the part of doctors of Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital. The case of the Complainant is that after loss of his vision, he got treatment from AIIMS Hospital but no treatment record of AIIMS Hospital has been filed. No reason or explanation has been given as to why the treatment record of AIIMS Hospital has not been produced. The Complainant apart from the OPD tickets, the Complainant has also filed his handwritten complaints to Labour Minister, Union of India, Chief Secretary, Delhi Govt., President of India and the Prime Minister of India. Complainant has also filed the copy of the letter written by Dr. Udit Raj, Member of Parliament, Delhi whereby the said Member of Parliament has mentioned that the Complainant was getting treatment of his eye in AIIMS Hospital and the said Member of Parliament has requested for considering the request of the Complainant on humanitarian ground.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. The Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service or medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 01.05.2024.

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