IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/149/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:             Date of Disposal:

   05.09.17                                      14.09.17                                18.07.22

Complainant:  Narayan Mondal

S/O- Late Bipad Bhanjan Mondal,

 75/9, Station Road( Swarnamoyee) ,

PO & PS- Berhampore, Pin- 742101                   

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.  Manager,

Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Centre, Berhampore

25/1, Kalikapur Road, PO & PS- Berhampore,

Pin- 742101

    2. Manager, Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Centre

HB-36/A/1, Sector- III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700106                                 

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                               : Sampa Roy.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 1                   : K. Das.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2                   :  S.S. Dhar.

   Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

        Sri. Subir Sinha Ray……………………………….Member.                        

                     Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

 Sri Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Narayan Mondal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Centre, Berhampore & Anr. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant was suffering from eye problem and he went to the OP for treatment and he was informed that he had to operate his eye. Then the Complainant was admitted on 03.05.17 and operation/surgery was done and the Complainant was discharged on 03.05.17. After discharge the Complainant went home. Few days later the Complainant again went to the OP for checking of his eye and getting power of his speaks. Thereafter power was given and from that day on which he got the power he could not see properly. The Complainant again went to the OP No.1 and OP No.1 told the Complainant that the power will be adjusted very soon on regular use of the said power. But the Complainant could not read or write nor feeling comfortable with the power and getting headache went to Kolkata and consulted with proof. Dr. P.N. Biswas on 23.07.17 and he informed that the power was not correct and he gave a new power and after getting that power from proof. Dr. P.N. Biswas he felt comfortable and was again chequed on 06.08.17.

            Thereafter form confirmation of the said power he again went to Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. 69, R.N. Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad on 11.08.17. The Doctor of the said hospital checked the operated eye and the power given to him by OP No.1 was different that of given by Dr. P.N. Biswas and the power given by Dr. P.N. Biswas was same with the power given by Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. For this act of OP No.1 the Complainant suffered a lot both mentally, physically and financially.

            Thereafter the Complainant by a letter dt. 16.08.17 informed about the matter to OP No.1 and OP No.2 for paying compensation. But they did not pay any heed to it.

            If the Complainant did not have gone to Kolkata to Dr. P.N. Biswas then the Complainant would have lost his eyes. There has been great laches on the part of the OP No.1. So the Complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the OP No. 1.

Defence Case

            The OPs are contesting this case by filing written version contending inter alia that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has no cause of action to file the case.

            The specific defence case of the OP is that the prescription of Dr. P.N. Biswas speaks the Cycle:+2 AXIS -170 degree which is quite different from the advice given by Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. So when the advices given OP and Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. are almost same, so there cannot be any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of OP.

            That if the Petitioner do feel any problem then that can be due to changes of Power of his Right Eye. People with Cataract often need frequent changes in their Eye Glasses because of their vision deterioration over time.

            That as there is/was no deficiency of service on the part of OP, so the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

            On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

4. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

5. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

Point to be noted is that the Complainant have not been taking steps since 25.08.20, specifically stated that on 25.08.20, 28.01.21, 16.04.21, 07.07.21, 24.01.22, 21.04.22 and today i.e. 18.07.22. Such being the position, the case record is taken up today for final order on the basis of the materials on record.

The Complainant has stated this complaint that the power given to him by the OP No.1 was different from that of given by Dr. P.N. Biswas and the power given by Dr. P.N. Biswas was same with the power given Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd.

It is coming out from the written version of the OPs that the advices given by OP No.1 and Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. are almost same. This fact is not denied by the Complainant.

The above facts and circumstances may be expressed in the symbolic manner.

A & B are the same as per the version of the Complainant.

B & C are the same as per the version of the OPs and this fact is not denied. Such being the position, we may hold that A & C are the same.

A is the power given by Dr. P.N. Biswas. B is the power given by Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and C is the power given OP No.1.

So, there cannot be any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the OPs.

In the result the instant complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 05.09.17 and admitted on 14.09.17. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                                            Ordered

that the instant complaint case No. CC/149/2017 be and same is dismissed on merit but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

        Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

     Dictated & corrected by me.

             President

Member                                                                    Member                                        President.