DATE OF FILING: 26.6.2013.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 17.2. 2016.
Miss S.L. Pattnaik, President:
The complainant filed this complaint case alleging negligence against the Opposite Party for giving careless and wrong eye report to the complainant. His case is that on dt.7.4.2013 he went to the clinic of Dr. Suru Manmatha Rao, (O.P.) for testing and treatment of his eye problem by paying the requisite fees. The O.P. tested the eyes of the complainant and furnished the test report to him. Accordingly the complainant purchased the prescribed spectacles for use by following the test report. But soon after use of the spectacles, the complainant felt serious and intolerable pain on his eyes. Then he immediately went to another doctor Visakhapatnam for relief. The doctor at Visakhapatnam again tested the eyes of the complainant and after perusing the examination report of O.P. told that the report of O.P. was false. On testing he found SPH DIST. 1.5 where as O.P. has prescribed 5-00. Due to this latches, carelessness and negligence treatment of the O.P. the complainant suffered serious pain and made unnecessary expenses and further suffered mental agony. Being aggrieved the complainant send pleader notice to the O.P. and requested to compensate his loss but O.P. received the same and replied that the allegation raised by the complainant is false and advised him to withdraw the same without giving any loss or compensation.
Finding no other resort, the complainant filed this complaint case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 12% as compensation till date of filing and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
In support of his case the complainant filed the following documents.
(A) Legal notice.
(B) Reply of O.P.
© Prescription and testing report of Dr. Suru Manmmatha Rao dt. 7.4.2013,
(D) Testing report of Dr. Prafulla Chandra Mohapatra, dt.18.11.2011/ 15.4.2013.
2. Notice being duly served upon the O.P. but the O.P. was not present despite service. Therefore, O.P. was preceded against exparte.
3. We have gone through the case in detail, perused the documents filed by the complainant and heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant at length.
On perusal of the documents, the Forum observed that the O.P. doctor on dt.7.4.2013 has given the eye testing report of the complainant namely P.K.Padhy with power
RIGHT EYE. LEFT EYE.
DIST. 5.00 SPH -2.25 SPH
NEAR 2.5 SPH +0.2 SPH
We observed the eye testing report of complainant namely Sri P.K.Padhy prescribed by doctor Prafulla Chandra Mahapatra, Senior Eye Specialist Goilundi Main Road, Berhampur on dated 15.4.2013 having power.
RIGHT EYE. LEFT EYE
Distant vision -2.00 -1.25 SPH
Near vision +0.25 +1.00 SPH
On perusal we found that the O.P. doctor has prescribed the high power SPH DIST -5 in relation to power disclosed by the second report. The two reports are different. There is no report of Visakhapatnam filed by the complainant.
The allegation of the complainant that he felt serious and intolerable pain on his eye after using the spectacles by following first test report of O.P. as a result he could not perform his duty properly as he is working as Junior clerk of District Court, Berhampur.
Although notice was duly served upon the O.P. he neither appeared nor filed any documentary evidence to counter the above allegation of the complainant. Only giving the reply to the legal notice of the complainant the O.P. remained silent without obeying the court notice which clearly proves the disregard and disobedient to the court proceeding on the part of the O.P. So the in absence of presence of the O.P. in the whole court proceeding given weightage to the grievance of the complainant.
The above inaction of the O.P. has attributed to negligence of deficiency service.
In the case Jacob Mathew versus State of Punjab & Another 2005(3) CPR 70 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that: - “A professional may be held liable on one of two findings: either he was not possessed of requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise reasonable competence in given case, the skill which he did possess”.
In the instant case, the report discloses that the O.P. has not exercised reasonable care on preparing the report for which the complainant suffered a lot. Therefore the Forum held that the O.P. has committed negligence amounting to deficiency in service. Hence ordered.
In the result, we allow the case of the complainant and direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only towards mental agony, harassment and litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 6 ( six) percent per annum thereafter till final payment is made.
Pronounced in the open Forum today on 17th February 2016.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
