The complainant files hajira by his Ld. Lawyer. 

The amendment petition dtd. 23.11.2017 along  with affidavit.   Filed by the complainant is taken up for hearing. 

OP files written objection against this petition.  OP 1 also files some case laws. 

We carefully perused the content of the application as filed by the complainant praying for amendment in the petition of complaint and the written objection filed by the OPs thereto and also  heard arguments advanced by the contesting parties.  It is seen by us that by filing an application the complainant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount from Rs. 250000/- to Rs. 15,00,000/- on the ground of total damge of his eye sight due to medical negligence of the OP.  It is stated by the complainant that on 28.01.2017 he was treated at Belview Eye Clinic wherein the treating doctor has opined  that the petient has lost his total vision.  Based on the said opinion the complainant had approached before this Forum in the month of November, 2017  for enhancement of the compensation amount to Rs. 15,00,000/-. In this regard we are of the opinion that the prescription reveals that the complainant visited the Belview Eye Clinic on 28.01.2017 then what prompted the complainant to approach before this Forum at a very belated stage.   Secondly the said opinion given by the concerned doctor cannot be taken as sacrosanct because the said doctor has not been appointed by this Forum as an expert doctor for providing his expert opinion  after perusing the treatment related papers of the complainant. Thirdly, the prayer of the complainant for enhancement of the compensation amount from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 15,00,000/-, obviously, will change the nature and character of the complaint, which is not permissible in the eye of law.   As per law the amendment can be made,but which shall not change the nature and character of the complaint.  Fourthly, and most importantly in the judgment reported in II (2014) CPJ 180 (NC) wherein it has been held that at the time of argument application praying for amendment cannot be entertained.  In the case in hand we have noticed that the case was fixed for argument after closure of evidence of the both parties.  On the date of argument the complainant filed the application praying for amendment.  Therefore, having regard to the above mentioned judgment we are of the view that at this juncture the prayer for amendment in the petition of complaint cannot be allowed.  Hence, the application filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed without any cost.