West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/108/2013

Sri Mridul Kanti Mahapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Asim Kumar Ghosh - Opp.Party(s)

11 Sep 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No. 108/2013                                                                                         

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.    

 

            Sri Mridul Kanti Mahapatra.……………..……...Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

      Dr. Asim Kumar Ghosh………………….…………Op.

 

Order No.03                                                                       Dated:-11/09/13                         

            The complainant is present.

            Today is fixed for hearing of this case on the point of its admission.

           Hd. and considered.

           The petitioner complaint is supported by affidavit disclosing the fact that the petitioner/complainant received medical advice from the Dr. Asim Kumar ghosh, Ophthalmologist on 20/04/2013 and purchased spectacle on 12/05/2013. After getting the same the petitioner/complainant acquired serious troubles of vision and then and then on the same day he rushed to the Op and reported the nature of trouble. It is alleged in the petition of complaint that the Op. Dr. Ghosh made a comment that there would be no trouble assuring him that the prescription dated 20/04/2013 is correct regarding the assessment of vision and gradually the trouble will disappear. Being dis-satisfied with the Op. Dr., the petitioner went to another Dr.J. N. Mahato on 14/05/2013, who on examination of the petitioner, issued a prescription. Following the prescription of Dr. Mahato, the petitioner/complainant made another spectacle and thereby he has became free from such trouble to some extent. Raising the allegation of serious negligence against the Op. the instant case has been filed with the prayer as mentioned in the petitioner complaint.

In this connection, some documents in Xerox copy as per firisty are filed for consideration.

Upon prima facie scrutiny of the materials on record, it appears that the Op. Dr. hosh issued a report regarding vision assessment on 20/04/2013. Curiously it is also found that the complainant purchased lens on 12/05/2013, delaying 20/22 days since medical advice with

Contd………………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

vision report made by the Op. Dr. Ghosh. It is also found that after two days purchasing the lens, the complainant went to another Dr. Mahato and corrected a separate vision report dated 14/05/2013. Thereafter, no documentary evidence has come before this Forum in support of the second time purchase of another spectacle as per medical advice of Dr.Mahato. In this contest, there is no medical report on vision-trouble allegedly acquired by the petitioner due to vision report of the Op. Ghosh. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the petitioner started use of lens after delaying 20/22 days of the report, there exists no valid ground on the point of medical negligence against the Op. Dr. Ghosh.

 Considering the prima facie report, there exists no valid ground on the point of medical negligence against the Op. Dr. Ghosh convincing us to proceed the matter of this case.

Hence admission of this case is dismissed.

                       Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

                   Member                                 Member                                          President     

                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur.