The complainant Sri Ramani Barman, has filed the present case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps, Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik, (Eye specialist & Surgeon) and Vision Care, (A Centre for Comprehensive Eye Care) praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay the claim amount Rs.9,18,550/- in total to the complainant and other relief(s) as the Forum may deem feet and proper.
The gist of the complaint as culled out from the record is that the Complainant felt some eye problem and accordingly he consulted with the O.P No.1, Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik, (Eye specialist & Surgeon) on 19/05/2014, who initially examined the Complainant and an advised for LE In PC/IOL (i.e. intraocular lens) and also advised for doing some pathological tests i.e. G.P. Check Up, Blood for Sugar, BP, Biometry. After doing the said pathological tests, the Complainant got admitted to the Vision Care (A Centre for Comprehensive Eye Care) i.e. the O.P. No.2, for cataract surgery with IOL and the said surgery was conducted on 27/05/2014 by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik. After said surgery, Dr. Bhowmik informed the complainant’s family members that the operation was successful and discharged from the O.P. No.2 nursing home on 29/05/2014 and also prescribe some medicines for post operational healing and the Complainant had paid to the O.Ps a package fee of Rs.5,000/- which includes the cost of the surgery, post-operative care as also expenditure on medicines but the O.Ps did not issued money receipt of the said payment to the Complainant.
By taking and using such medicines the Complainant did not get experienced the comfort of cure i.e. he had no vision in his left eye. Therefore the Complainant reported this aspect to Dr. Bhowmik on 09/06/2014 & 24/06/2014, and he further examined the Complainant and prescribed some medicines and also assurance that he will be perfectly alright within one month but his condition did not improve.
Meanwhile the Complainant went to the Disha Eye Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. at Kolkata and consulted with Dr. Saptarshi Banerjee on 10/09/2014. After going through the all reports and examine the complainant, Dr. Banerjee opined that the Complainant’s vision of the LE, PL DENIED.
Afterwards the complainant himself and his family members finding no other alternative rushed to start for Sankara Nethralaya at Chennai on 23/11/2014 for reviving from the said problem of left eye of the Complainant. On 25/11/2014 the Complainant consulted with Dr. Shweta S Agarwal in the Sankara Nethralaya at Chennai and got admitted in the said Nursing home for reviving damage of the eyes and accordingly Dr. S. Agarwal had to undergo several tests and another surgical procedure to repair the RT EYE. The Complainant remain in the said nursing home from 28/11/2014 to 29/11/2014 and the O.P. No.2 issued a discharge summary which reveals that the Complainant’s left eye — INJURY, left eye — PUSE DOPHAKIA, Left eye - IMPAIRMENT VISUL PROFOUND.
From that it is crystal clear that due to lack of ordinary care and skill at the time of LT cataract surgery with IOL, in that event the indispensable part of the body like as left eye of the Complainant, “left eye — INJURY, left eye — PUSE DOPHAKIA, left eye- IMPAIRMENT VISUL PROFOUND”, the Complainant would be suffered various disorder or problem in his life in future. The O.P No.1 & 2, did not maintain professional ethics, which is tantamount to medical negligence and deficiency in service.
Due to such of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 & 2, the Complainant suffer irreparable loss, mental pain and agony and also suffered from huge monitory loss (Nursing Home Charges at Alipurduar and Chennai) Rs.83,550/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.78,550/-) and miscellaneous expenditure at Alipurduar and Chennai like food & lodging, taxi & train fare etc. which would not less than of Rs.25,000/- and for which the Complainant being a bonafide consumer compelled to file this case.
Hence, the Complainant filed the instant case No. CC/1/2015 with enclosed some original/Xerox copy of documents before this Forum for redress of the dispute and prayed for direction to the O.Ps to pay (1) Rs.3,00,000/- for liable of medical negligence and deficiency in service, (2) Rs.83,550/- for Nursing Home Charges at Alipurduar and Chennai, (3) Rs.25,000/- for miscellaneous expenditure at Alipurduar and Chennai like food & lodging, taxi & train fare etc., (4) Rs.5,00,000/- for damage of left eye along with mental pain & agony, harassment and (5) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P. No.1 is that the Complainant, Sri Ramani Barman is an 85 years old male came to Dr. Bhowmik with eye problem on 19/05/2014. On clinical examination the O.P. No.1 found his left eye to be affected by Cataract in a stage of operation, then the O.P. No.1 advised him for Cataract surgery (with intraocular lens, i.e. IOL implication). In the first visit apart from the routine clinical examination (like dilated fundoscopy, Slit lamp examination) the O.P. No.1 advised for doing some routine preoperative check up. This includes general health check up by General physical, Blood sugar check up and Biometry (IOL power calculation). The Complainant was examined by Dr. Judhistir Das, M.D. Physician, District Hospital, Alipurduar, whose tenting blood sugar was 102 mgl, BP 138/80, Biometry 20.50. All these tests being considered satisfactory, the O.P. No.1 advised for Cataract operation.
Moreover the investigation reports by the O.P. No.1 which are mentioned on the prescription, clearly shows that the O.P. No.1 as being a prudent doctor do all the necessary acts and conducts which is to be taken as pre-operational test.
On 27/05/2014 the O.P. No.1 conducted Cataract surgery (Phacoemulsification with foldable IOL implant) in the left eye of the Complainant. Being an uneventful surgery and the condition of the Complainant found satisfactory. On the next day i.e. on 28/05/2014 the Complainant was discharged with necessary post operation advice. But the Complainant mentioned in the complaint that on 29/05/2014 he was discharged which is totally false and against the contents of the Complainant.
The O.P. No.1 contended in his written version that for each of all the Complainant who undergo Cataract surgery, the O.P. No. 1 handed over the discharge certificate to the Complainant and the reverse of which carries detailed post operative instructions to be followed as per the discharge certificate of the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 also stated in his written version that the Complainant filed only the front side of the discharge certificate. The back side of the discharge certificate, there is a list of various precautions and duties of the patients in respect of the post-operative Cataract surgery for 30 to 45 days which is failed to file by the Complainant, and the lens which has been inserted by the O.P. No.1 and the counter fit sticker of the said lens being No. SKIB1IXLSO01413 has been pasted.
Further contention of the O.P. No.1 is that as a doctors duty is to take the necessary care and give proper treatment to the patient for the recovery, and also the duty of a patient to obey all the instructions of the doctor and took the medicines properly and if the patient did not so he will not get well. As per the last point of backside of discharge certificate of the Complainant it is clearly mentioned that, after operation if the patient feels pain and watering or redness in the operative eye he should contact within 24 hours to the concerned doctor. But the Complainant not only negligent to take post operative care but also he never ever contacted to the O.P. No.1 within 24 hours of the said problem in the operative eye.
Moreover, on 03/06/2014 Dr. Bhowmik, the O.P. No.1 examined the Complainant and found his left eye having Hypopyon. In such a condition medical science indicates that, immediately explained the matter to the Complainant party and within one hour Intravitrcal injection of Vancomycian and Ceftazidime was applied in the left eye i.e. the operated eye. In addition to such injection, Dr. Bhowmik also advised necessary medicines to combat the injection. On 09/06/2014 the Complainant again reported to the O.P. No.1 and reports that he feels better symptomatically (visual acuity was PL +). The O.P. No.1 made some necessary alteration in the advise and requested to review after one week. After that the Complainant reported on 24/06/2014. Thus, the Complainant do not follow any instructions of the O.P. No.1, he never reported on time. Thereafter on 24/06/2014 second Intravitreal injection of Vanco + Ceftazidime was applied, but thereafter the Complainant did not come for regular follow up. On 10/09/2014 the Complainant went to Disha Hospital, Barhampore where it is seen that no medicine was prescribed, no surgery was advised. On 28/11/2014 the Complainant went to Shankar Nethralaya, Chennai, the discharge summery of the Shankar Nethralaya, Chennai shows that the other eye of the Complainant was operated for Cataract i.e. right eye.
On the other hand they did not prescribe any medicine or treatment for the left eye. The Hospital Bill shows Rs.24,349.24 of the Complainant for operation and medicine expedite for the Phacoemnbification operation of Right eye. But medical record of Shankar Nethralaya, Chennai does not show any treatment or medicine for the left eye of the Complainant.
It is case of the O.P. No.1 that prognosis of eye infection is always hoarded. Hence the Complainant and party were always explained. The said prescriptions dated 09/06/2014 & 24/06/2014 on both this clearly shows that prognosis explained.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.1 that the medical certificates of the Complainant shows that the Complainant never felt any problem in his left eye which was operated by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Bhowmik. Not only that as the Complainant’s left eye which was duly operated by the O.P. No.1 was fit and fine and in a proper condition that's why the concerned doctors of Shankar Nethralaya, Chennai nor Disha Hospital, Barhampore did not prescribed any such medicine for the left eye of the Complainant.
On the other hand the medical records of the above shows that the vision problem in the right eye of the Complainant and the O.P. No.1 is no way liable for the problem in right eye of the Complainant as he only treated the left eye of the Complainant.
Furthermore, the O.P. No.1 stated in the written version that left eye Pscudophakia, Pseudophakia means the condition of eye where Cataract has been operated and IOL is implanted. Therefore, the discharge certificate of Shankar Nethralaya, Chennai admitted that Cataract was operated with IOL implant.
Beside other facts of the case is that Phaco operation of this type costs nearly 15,000/- in the centre of the O.P. No.1. But the operation was conducted within Rs.5,000/- which does not even covers the cost of consumables i.e., Foldable IOL, irrigation solution, viscoelastic materials and other disposable items. The operation was carried out on humanitarian ground with service mentality at such a low cost. No operation charges i.e. Surgeon fees, OT Charges, Centre Charges were added.
It is the specific case of the O.P. No.1 that the Complainant did not respond to conservative management for which he had to undergo Cataract operation dated 27/05/2014 and the Complainant did not inform the O.P. No.1 anything about his problem in the operative eye after 27/05/2014 within 24 hours from the recognition of the problem in the operative eye, rather the Complainant came to the O.P. No.1 after 5 days. Therefore, the O.P. No.1 did not get any scope to treat the Complainant for further management regarding his problems.
It is pertinent to mention here that Shankar Nethralaya at Chennai, where the complainant treated and operated in the right eye by Dr. Shweta S Agarwal and not in the left eye which is the subject matter of this case.
By putting all this, the O.P. No.1 stated in his written version that there is no deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of the O.P. No.1. and prayed for dismissal of the instant case with cost.
It appears that inspite of due service of Notice upon the O.P. No.2, Vision Care (A Centre for Comprehensive Eye Care) did not turn up and the case proceeded ex-parte against them.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by both parties.
Point No.1.
Evidently the eye surgery of the Complainant Sri Ramani Barman was done by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik, (Eye specialist & Surgeon) and the O.P. No.2, Vision Care (A Centre for Comprehensive Eye Care) on receiving payment.
So, relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps has been established and it can be safely concluded that the Complainant is consumer under the O.Ps, U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
Chamber of the O.P. No.1, Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik, and the O.P. No.2, Vision Care (Eye Care Centre) are situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum and total valuation of the case is Rs.9,18,550/- which is far below than maximum limt of Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
The Complainant Ramani Barman in his complaint and evidence stated that he felt some eye problem and accordingly he consulted with the O.P No.1, Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik, (Eye specialist & Surgeon) on 19/05/2014, who initially examined the Complainant and an advised for LE In PC/IOL (i.e. intraocular lens) and also advised for doing some pathological tests i.e. G.P. Check Up, Blood for Suger, BP, Biometry. After doing the said pathological tests, the Complainant got admitted to the Vision Care (A Centre for Comprehensive Eye Care) i.e. the O.P. No.2, for cataract surgery with IOL and the said surgery was conducted on 27/05/2014 by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik.
The Complainant further stated that on 29/05/2014 he was discharged from the O.P. No.2, nursing home with assurance that the operation was successful and some medicines were prescribed for post operation healing and Rs.5,000/- was paid as package for the said operation.
‘Annexure-A’ i.e. original prescription issued by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Bhowmik dated 19/05/2014 shows that he was attended by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Bhowmik.
‘Annexure-B’ i.e. original Discharge Certificate dated 28/05/2014 issued by theO.P. No.1, Dr. Bhowmik and the O.P. No.2, Vision Care reveals that Cataract operation of the left eye of the Complainant was done on 27/05/2014 and he was discharged on 28/05/2014 with advice to take rest and use dark glass at day time. Some medicines were also prescribed. In the reversed side of the said Discharge Certificate some precautions were given to the patient.
The Complainant further stated in his complaint and evidence that by taking and using such medicines the Complainant did not get experienced the comfort of cure i.e. he had no vision in his left eye. Therefore the Complainant reported this aspect to Dr. Bhowmik on 09/06/2014 & 24/06/2014, and he further examined the Complainant and prescribed some medicines and also assurance that he will be perfectly alright within one month but his condition did not improve.
‘Annexure-C & C1 show that on 09/06/2014 & 24/06/2014 the patient, Ramani Barman was examined by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Bhowmik.
In his complaint and evidence, the Complainant further stated that in the mean time the Complainant went to the Disha Eye Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. at Kolkata and consulted with Dr. Saptarshi Banerjee on 10/09/2014.
‘Annexure-D’ i.e. examination report dated 10/09/2014 issued by Disha Eye Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata reveals that Dr. Saptarshi Banerjee, eye specialist of the said hospital opined that vision of left eye PL DENIED and he became one eyed.
The Complainant further stated that finding no other alternative he rushed to Sankara Nethralaya at Chennai on 23/11/2014 for reviving from the said problem of left eye of the Complainant. On 25/11/2014 the Complainant consulted with Dr. Shweta S Agarwal in the Sankara Nethralaya at Chennai and got admitted in the said Nursing home for reviving damage of the eyes and accordingly Dr. S. Agarwal had to undergo several tests and another surgical procedure to repair the RT EYE.
Discharge Summary dated 29/11/2014 issued by Shankar Nethralaya reveals that the Complainant was admitted there from 28/11/2014 to 29/11/2014. Regarding left eye of the Complainant, it was opined that left eye injury, left eye — PUSE DOPHAKIA, Left eye - IMPAIRMENT VISUL PROFOUND and operation of right eye was done.
So, it is clear from the above discussed medical reports that Cataract surgery of the left eye of the Complainant was done by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Bhowmik in the O.P. No.2, nursing home on 27/05/2014 with assurance that surgery was successful. The Complainant was again examined on 09/06/2014 and 24/06/2014 by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Bhowmik. But there is nothing to show in his prescription (Annexure-C & C1) that Dr. Bhowmik found any trouble in left eye though it is the case of the Complainant that at the relevant time condition of his left eye did not improve.
On the other hand report of Disha Eye Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata dated 10/09/2014 shows that Dr. Saptarshi Banerjee opined that he became one eyed and lost sight of his left eye Report/Discharge Summary issued by reputed eye hospital of India viz Shankar Nethralaya also shows that said hospital opined that the Complainant has lost sight of his left eye.
It is also not the case of the O.P. No.1 that the Complainant was treated by any other doctor in between 24/06/2014 to 10/09/2014 and mischief was done there.
It is the specific case of the Complainant that the O.P. No.1 & 2 did not maintain professional ethics, which amounts to negligence. The O.P also did not file any scrap of paper regarding treatment/operation of the Complainant.
In view of the ruling reported in 2014 CJ 157 (NC) cited by the Complainant in respect of a case of medical negligence regarding death of a child, Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that from the observation of the State Commission it is evident that the Petitioner/Hospital failed to produce the treatment chart of the deceased in their evidence. In absence of the treatment record, which could have thrown light an issue of medical negligence, we are of the view the Foras below have rightly concluded that the Petitioners were negligent in the treatment of the deceased child.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that in back side of the Discharge Certificate (Annexure-B) lists of various precautions and duties were given to the patient/Complainant, but in Xerox copy of Discharge Certificate (Annexure-B) filed by the Complainant with complaint only the front side has been shown and back side portion has been suppressed.
But we find that at the time of filing of original Discharge Certificate both front and back portion of the same has been submitted by the Complainant. We also find that some formal instructions were given to the patient in Bengali in the said page. But it is not the specific case of the O.P. No.1 that the patient/Complainant has violated any such instruction and damage of his left eye was caused due to such negligence.
During argument, the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the Complainant submitted some notes from internet regarding Cataract Surgery.
The Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P. No.1 also submitted (1) Xerox copy of text book page of Southern Colorado’s Choice for Eye Care (Infection/Endophthalmitis), (2) Xerox copy of text book page of Clinical Ophthalmology, (3) Xerox copy of text book page of Cataract Surgery and its Complications, (4) Xerox copy of text book page of Postsurgical Endophthalmitis Diagnosis and Management and (5) Xerox copy of text book page of Pediatric Cataract.
We have already stated that in the present case only Discharge Certificate of the patient/Complainant is forthcoming before this Forum from the Complainant and the O.P. No.1 has not filed any paper regarding operation/treatment of the patient and practically there is no evidence on the point operation and post operation treatment. So, discussion of Medical text regarding infection after operation and other trouble copped after operation is immaterial in this case.
So, in view of our above made discussion it is apparent that the O.P. No.1 & 2 are responsible for causing damage of the left eye of the Complainant.
During argument, the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P. No.1 submitted that in the present case the Complainant has not filed any affidavit challenging statement made by the O.P. No.1 in his written version and evidence. So, it can be safely said that the case of the O.P. No.1 is clearly established on the basis of his un-contradicted evidence.
In support of his contention he cited a ruling reported in (IV) 2006 CPJ 213 (NC) where in a complaint case the Complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence but the O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of evidence nor cross examined the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that allegation of the Complainant remained uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit, case of the Complainant stands proved.
But in the present case we have already stated that the O.P. No.1 did not adduce any evidence on the point of actual issue i.e. regarding operation in question and post operation treatment/care. So, we think the said ruling is not applicable in this case.
It is also the specific case of the O.P. No.1 that the present case is bad for defect of the parties as Dr. Saptarshi Banerjee of Disha Eye Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata is a necessary party to the case but he has not been impleaded in this case as party to the case. But the Consumer Cases are to be decided on the basis of allegation made out in the complaint.
In the present case the Complainant has made no allegation against Dr. Banerjee. So, we think his presence in the present case is not necessary.
More so, in view of ruling reported in 2014 (4) CPR 258 (SC) claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.
During hearing of argument the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P. No.1 submitted that in case of medical negligence regarding operation, evidence of medical expert is must and submitted a ruling reported in AIR 2010 SC 806 where in a case of medical negligence, the Complainant was operated thrice for decompression of Spinal Cord without success and Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to call for expert opinion of Neurologist on surgery but Assistant Registrar failed to forward all records of treatment and vital information to the said expert and the Complainant’s application for reconsideration of expert opinion was rejected by Hon’ble National Commission. Hon’ble Appex Court pleased to hold that the said rejection by Commission would amount to denial of fair opportunity to the Complainant to prove his claim based on expert report.
He has submitted another ruling reported in (III) 2008 CPJ 361 (Delhi) where in a case of medical negligence, Hon’ble State Commission pleased to hold that Forum has mandatory obligation to obtain expert opinion to arrive at just and material decision.
He has submitted a ruling reported in (II) 2000 CPJ 180 (Punjab) where in a case of medical negligence, regarding death of son of the Complainant no medical evidence or Post Mortem Report was produced by the Complainant and the Complainant was dismissed by the District Forum. Hon’ble State Commission pleased to affirm the order of District Forum and dismissed the Appeal.
He has submitted another ruling reported in (I) 2001 CPJ 532 (Punjab) where in a case of medical negligence, regarding abortion, some pices of unborn child remained in womb after operation, no expert evidence produced to prove the allegation of negligence and District Forum dismissed the complaint and Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the Appeal.
He has also submitted two other rulings reported in (I) 2003 CPJ 153 (NC) and (III) 2002 CPJ 242 (Jharkhand) where Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission also pleased to hold that opinion of medical expert is necessary to prove the case of medical negligence.
On the other hand Ld. Agent/Adv. of the Complainant submitted copy of the judgement passed in Civil Appeal No.2641 of 2010 by Hon’ble Supreme Court, where in a case of medical negligence, Hon’ble Appex Court pleased to hold that in most of the cases the question whether a medical petitioner or the hospital is negligent or not is a mixed question of fact and Law and the For a is not bound in every case to accept the opinion of the expert witness. Although, in many cases the opinion of the expert witness may assist the Fora to decide the controversy one way or the other. For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that it is not bound by the general direction given in Paragraph 106 in D’souza (supra). This Court further holds that in the facts and circumstances of the case expert evidence is not required and District Forum rightly did not ask the appellant to adduce expert evidence. Both State Commission and the National Commission fell into an error by opining to the contrary.
He has submitted another ruling reported in 2014 CJ 157 (NC), where Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that expert opinion is not necessary in all cases, where negligence and deficiency in service of treating doctor is established from facts and circumstances of the case.
He has submitted a ruling reported in 2012 CJ 46 (NC), where in a case of medical negligence, sutures were bursted after operation. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that Principle of Res ipsa Loquitur is applicable and there was no need for any further expert opinion.
He has submitted another ruling reported in 2012 (2) CCC 284 (NC), where Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that in case of medical negligence, a mere preponderance of probability would indict the guilty, of profession. Inference as to negligence may be drawn from proved circumstances by applying the rule of Res ipsa Loquitur.
Considering over all matter into consideration and rulings discussed above, we find that it is the latest view of Hon’ble Appex Court and Hon’ble National Commission that where in a case of medical negligence, the Principle of Res ipsa Loquitur operates, the Complainant does not have to prove anything as think(s) proves itself.
It is also the specific case of the O.P. No.1 that he is an unnecessary party to the present case as there was no contractual agreement between the Complainant and the O.P. No.1 and the present case is solely based upon medical service between the Complainant and the O.P. No.2.
During argument, the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P. No.1 submitted that the O.P. No.1, Dr. Bhowmik is not the owner of the O.P. No.2, Vision Care and he has no liability in this case.
But evidently the Cataract operation in question has been done by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Bhowmik and his every prescription (Annexure-A, C & C1) show that all time he has been using letter head of the O.P. No.2, Vision Care. So, we think the O.P. No.1 cannot avoid his liability in this case.
Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record we constrained to hold that both the O.P. No.1 & 2 are liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service and they are liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
Regarding the claim of medical bills the Complainant files bill of Rs.24,349.34 paid to Shankar Nethralaya, Chennai by the Complainant. But said bills relate to treatment of the right eye of the Complainant and his left eye was just examined there. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get said medical bills.
Thus, this points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Accordingly, the case succeeds in part.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The CF Case No. CC-1/2015 is allowed on contest but in part with costs of Rs.5,000/- against the O.P. No.1, Dr. Meghnad Bhowmik and allowed on Ex-parte without any cost against the O.P. No.2, Vision Care (A Centre for Comprehensive Eye Care).
Both the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- jointly and/or severally as compensation for medical negligence, deficiency in service, mental pain & agony and harassment to the Complainant, Ramani Barman. The ordered amount shall pay jointly and/or severally to the Complainant within 45 days failure of which the O.P. No.1 & 2 jointly and/or severally shall pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
