Order No.  11                               Date : 07-07-2014.

          On scrutiny of the HDF Case no. 21 of 2012 it appears that the complainant was allowed ex parte against the o.p. no. 2. The rest of the three o.ps. have already paid Rs. 60, 000/- ( Rs. 20,000/- each ) to the complainant out of the total decreetal dues of Rs. 80,000/-. Though at this execution stage, this Forum cannot interfere with the decree, still we are of the view that a bonafide mistake cannot be allowed to sustain as because, the o.p. no. 2 BMOH had no involvement in the faulty eye operation of the complainant. The o.p. no. 2 only initiated a campaign in the locality as a benevolent gesture to help the senior citizens suffering from cataract problem. O.p. no. 2 never conducted any cataract operation on the eye of the complainant and as such there cannot be any relief against him.  Furthermore, the cause of action arose on 30-08-2011 i.e., on the date of operation by the o.p. no. 1. 

          Since the complainant has already received the major portion of the decreetal dues ( Rs. 60,000/- ) it would be miscarriage of justice and abuse of  Court’s process if we take recourse to the provision of Section 27 C.P. Act, 1986. On the contrary the complainant should be held liable for misleading the Forum as enjoined in Section 26  C.P. Act, 1986 by way of leveling false allegation against the o.p. no. 2 whose conduct was although benevolent so as to assist the patients developing Cataract problem.

          Since the complainant/ decree holder is a senior citizen, we feel it proper to exonerate him without taking any penal measures.