West Bengal

Howrah

CC/12/78

SRI. UJJAL KUMAR BOSE, - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. NANDA DULAL MAITY, - Opp.Party(s)

23 Aug 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOWRAH
20, Round Tank Lane, Howrah – 711 101.
(033) 2638-0892; 0512 E-Mail:- confo-hw-wb@nic.in Fax: - (033) 2638-0892
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/78
 
1. SRI. UJJAL KUMAR BOSE,
Mr. Ratan Chandra Bose, Andul Dakshin Para, P.O.- Andul Mouri, P.S.- Sankrial, Howrah-711 302.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. DR. NANDA DULAL MAITY,
11/4A, Christopher Road, P.S.- Tangra, Kolkata-700 046,
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE T.K. Bhattacharya PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. P.K. Chatterjee MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

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.

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE T.K. Bhattacharya]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. P.K. Chatterjee]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.