DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.180/2019
Sh. Rajendar Kumar Gupta,
S/o Sh. Brijwasi Ram Gupta,
For and on behalf of Sh. Sumit Kumar (son Deaf and Dumb)
Being Legal Heir and Natural Guardian
R/o House No. 76,
Ground Floor, Gyan Khand-IV,
Indiapuram, Ghaziabad. ….Complainant
Versus
Dr. J. M. Hans
H. No. 46, Anand Lok,
Opp. Gargi College,
Siri Fort Road,
New Delhi
Also At:
A-63, N Gulmohar Park,
Delhi-110049 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 21.06.2019
Date of Order : 06.12.2021
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The present complaint was filed in the year 2019 and till date ample opportunities were provided to the counsel to file proof of the maintainability of the complaint.
It is the case of the complainant that a son was born to him on 9th December 1983. When the said son was about 1 year 3 months, he suffered from pneumonia. The complainant came to know about six months later that his son was not hearing properly. It is further stated that OP-1 i.e. Dr. J.M. Hans in the year 2004 advised implantation for the hearing aid for his son. Surgery was performed on the son of the complainant on 9th November 2006 by OP-1 at RML Hospital, Delhi. In the year 2006 surgery was performed by OP-1 at RML Hospital for cochlear implantation by which 22 electrodes were inserted in the brain of his son. The complainant was informed by OP-1 and OP-2 (Smt. Asha Aggarwal) that the electrodes were working fine and his son was discharged on 16th November 2006.
It is further pleaded that after about one and half year of surgery, his son could not understand the sound perception. The complainant got tests done and he was informed that 12 electrodes were giving disturbance in mapping. The complainant got several tests for his son between the year 2008 & 2009 and then in the year 2017. It is alleged by the complainant that the OP no. 1 issued a letter in the year 2010 wherein he has stated that only 12 electrodes could be introduced and that an implant in the left side may be implanted if it is provided free by any company. The gist of the complaint is that the implants were not properly installed by OP no.1 and hence were not working accurately. It is also stated that the life of the implant, at best, is ten years.
Thus, the above stated incident is of the year 2009 and the instant complaint has been filed in the year 2019. It is noteworthy that after two years a synopsis with dates and events as requested in the initial dates has been filed today by the counsel. We have gone through the synopsis and have also heard the arguments of the counsel. The letter written by OP No.1 in the year 2010 relied on by the complainant does not really help the case of the complainant as it is categorically stated by OP No.1 in that document ‘as he was a prelingual deaf child he did not do well with the limited intracochlear electrodes’.The complainant has not been able to explain the delay in filing the complaint since the year 2009 and is seeking more time to file additional documents which may try to prove his case.
The request of the counsel is not acceptable as we feel no useful purpose would be served as this complaint has been pending for past two years only at his request either to file synopsis or documents in support of his case and enough opportunities were granted to the Complainant.
Since there is a delay in filing the case for which no sufficient cause has been provided by the complainant or his counsel, the complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after a giving a copy of the order to the complainant
