DATE OF FILING : 19-07-2012. DATE OF S/R : 21-08-2012. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 23-08-2013. Sri Ujjal Kumar Bose, son of Mr. Ratan Chandra Bose, residing at Andul Dakshin Para, P.O. Andul Mouri, P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah, PIN – 711302.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. Dr. Nanda Dulal Maity, eesiding at 11/4A, Christopher Road, P.S. Tangra, Kolkata – 700046, having his chamber at “Vision Care” ( Computerized Eye Testing & Contact Lens Clinic ), Andul Bazar ( near Rajmath ), P.O. Andul Mouri, P.S. Sankrail, District –Howrah, PIN – 711302. 2. “Vision Care “ ( Computerized Eye Testing & Contact Lens Clinic ) Andul Bazar ( near Rajmath ), P.O. Andul Mouri, P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah, PIN – 711302.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to pay compensation and damages for physical, mental pain and agony to the tune of Rs. 19 lacs and Rs. 10,000/- for reimbursement to the medical expenses and for litigation costs. On 04-03-2012, feeling strong irritation on his left eye the complainant went to the eye clinic of O.P. no. 2 where he attended O.P. no. 1, Dr. Nanda Dulal Maity for treatment. The O.P. no. 1 prescribed medicines and eye drops, but the irritation did not subside. On the next day he again visited the O.P. no. 1 who prescribed one tablet to be taken for five days. The irritation of the left eye not being subsided, the complainant visited Rotary Narayan Nethralaya, Salt Lake, where Dr. Pankaj Rupaliha examined him and prescribed eye drops. Subsequently the irritation subsided. The complainant also challenged the qualification of the O.P. no. 1. Hence the case. 2. The O.Ps. in their written version contended interalia that the prescriptions issued by O.P. no. 1 were not as detrimental as to cause blindness to the complainant ; that the eye drops as prescribed are widely accepted; that the overall nature of iritis as well as uveities are severe inflammation which caused flow tear and abnormal pain ; that the eye drops were also meant for subsiding the pain ; that the O.P. no. 1 has sufficient qualification to issue such medical prescriptions covering allopathic. So the complaint should be dismissed. 3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On perusal of the enclosures and the petition of the complaint together with the BNA filed on behalf of the complainant, it is apparent that the main grievance of the complainant against the O.P. no. 1 is his qualifications or whether he is entitled to prescribe allopathy medicine? We come across from the documents filed on behalf of the O.P. no. 1. That he secured allopath diploma in MBBS from Gowhati, Assam, and the same is recognized in our State also. So there cannot be dispute that the O.P. no. 1 Dr. Nanda Dulal Maity is not eligible to prescribe allopath medicine. On the 1st date the O.P. no. 1 prescribed ( a ) Refresh Tears Eye Drop, ( b ) Milflox Eye Drop ( c ) Chymoral Forte Tablet and ( d ) Tropicacy Eye Drop. We are more or less conversant with the components of the eye drops prescribed and these are not as harmful as to damage the eyesight. On the next date the O.P. no. 1 prescribed Clavum Tablet which is universally accepted medicine and cannot cause harm to the general health rather it helps subside the pain. Had the complainant been a bit patientful, he could have received the recovery ? Being restless he consulted the next Dr. Pankaj Rupaliha in Salt Lake on 7th March, 2012 who prescribed Pred Forte Homide Eye Drops. Subsequetly on 10-03-2013 his irritation subsided. There are thousands of eye drops and if one eye drop does not suit the complainant, there remains chance to make the experiment for the next eye drop and that actually happened in the case of the complainant when Dr. Rupaliha being an experienced doctor realized that the four eye drops prescribed by O.P. no. 1 did not suit the complainant and accordingly he prescribed two eye drops. Therefore, we find that the complainant did not suffer from any permanent damage on his left eye and naturally the claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 19 lacs raises our eyebrows. He is only entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- including the medical reimbursement as we trace no medical negligence on the part of the O.P. no. 1. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 78 of 2012 ( HDF 78 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed in part on contest against O.P. no. 1 with costs and dismissed against O.P. no. 2 without costs. The O.P. no. 1 be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical reimbursement and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. |