Haryana

StateCommission

A/359/2015

MITTAR SAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.G.K.BHATNAGAR AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.BRAR

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :  359 of  2015

Date of Institution  :    22.04.2015    

Date of Decision    :    16.09.2015  

 

Mittar Sain s/o Sh. Parkash Sain, Resident of House No.1502, Shivaji Colony, Gali No.3, Hansi Road, Karnal, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Dr. G.K. Bhatnagar, Bhatnagar Eye Care centre, Opposite Civil Hospital, Karnal, District Karnal.

 

2.      New India Assurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:

                             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                          

For the Parties:  Shri B.S. Brar, Advocate for appellant.

Dr.G.K. Bhatnagar-respondent No.1 with Shri Johan Kumar, Advocate.

Shri J.P. Nahar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated March 3^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Karnal, whereby complaint No.471 of 2011, was dismissed.

2.      Mittar Sain-complainant, filed complaint alleging that he was suffering from Cataract in his left eye for which he was operated by Dr. G.K. Bhatnagar-opposite party No.1 on 14.01.2011 for which he was charged Rs.10,000/-. It was further alleged that he lost the vision of his left eye due to wrong operation by the opposite party No.1. He approached Chopra Nursing Home, Rohini Delhi on 06.06.2011 for check up of his left eye and Dr. Amit Chopra, disclosed that complainant’s left eye had been damaged and there was no possibility of regaining vision. Then, he visited Civil Hospital, Karnal from where he was referred to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh. The doctors of PGIMER also told that the vision of left eye of complainant was damaged. Thus, alleging it a case of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite party No.1 in his written reply stated that the complainant was chronic patient of hypertension. On 14.01.2011 he was operated upon for left eye cataract disease after stabilizing Blood Pressure. He again visited on 31.01.2011 but his BP was high. He was given the medicines to stabilize the BP. On that day, the complainant did not complain for any problem in his left eye. He again visited on 07.02.2011 and 25.02.2011 with no complaint regarding vision and thereafter no clinical post operative complication was found. It was denied that the complainant was charged Rs.10,000/-. It was stated that Rs.3800/- were charged as economic package which also included cleaning of right eye by the laser. The complainant was given spectacle with vision 3/9. It was admitted that the complainant visited on 03.03.2011 and was referred to Dr. Vikas Mittal, Visiting Cornea Specialist. The complainant then visited on 11.03.2011 with complaint of pain in right eye. On examination Glaucoma was detected in his right eye and medicines were given. Denying the allegations of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on the record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

5.      It is admitted case of the parties that the left eye of the complainant was operated by the opposite party No.1 for cataract problem on 14.01.2011. It has also come on the record that the complainant visited the opposite party No.1 for follow up treatment on 07.02.2011 and 25.02.2011. It is also admitted that the complainant had visited the opposite party No1 on 11.03.2011 complaining of pain in right eye and he was referred to Dr. Vikas Mittal.

6.      Exhibits C-1, C-2 and C-3 (Prescription Slips) issued from Bhatnagar Eye Care Centre clearly show that the complainant was operated for left eye by the opposite party No.1. Exhibit C-7 is the prescription slip issued from Civil Hospital, Karnal and Exhibit C-8 is the treatment record issued from PGIMER, Chandigarh. The complainant also visited Chopra Nursing Home, Delhi, where he was checked on 06.06.2011. All these documents nowhere reflect any kind of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1.  Merely because as per certificate Exhibit P-9, complainant has 30% disability due to loss of partial vision, it is not relatable to cataract operation.

7.      While dismissing the complaint, the District Forum relied upon the authorities in Jacob Mathew (Dr.) State of Punjab, 2005(2) C.P.C.  515 and Indian Medical Association versus Dr. V.P. Shantha, 1995(2) C.P.C. 602 (SC).   Without there being any evidence in support of complainant’s version, no case of medical negligence is made out against the opposite party No.1 and therefore no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

8.      Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.

 

 

Announced 16.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL