Orissa

Jajapur

CC/68/2017

Sri Bidyadhar Sethy. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Medical Officer,Bhoomika Hospital. - Opp.Party(s)

Pratap Kumar Ray

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

    IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                              Dated the 4th day of  April,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 68 of 2017

Sri Bidyadhar Sethy , S/O Late Raghunatha Sethy  

Vill/,P.O. Janha  

P.S. Panikoili ,  Dist. Jajpur                                                                         …… ……....Complainant .                                                                

                   (Versus)

1.Medical Officer,Bhoomika Hospital ,Near Cinema Hall,N.H.5,Jaraka,

P.O. Jaraka , P.S. Dharmasala ,Dist.Jajpur.

2.Medical Officer, SAI SHREE CHAKHYU  HOSPITAL MAA,Kamala Mandap,Near

  Sasan chhak,Jagannath Road,Dhenkanal.

3.Superintendent of S.C.B ,Medical College and Hospital ,Cuttack.

 4. Medical Officer , L.V .Prasad Eye Institute , Bhubaneswar MTC Campus

 Patia ,Bhubaneswar.                                                                                     ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                     

For the Complainant:                                     Sri P.K. Ray, R.Mohanty,S .Dash, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties : No. 1                 .          None.

For the Opp.Parties No.2                                Sri P.Mallick ,Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No.3                                None.

For the Opp.Parties No.4                                Sri D.Mohanty, Sri C.Jena,Advocate

                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                 Date of order:   04.04.2018.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV  DAS , PRESIDENT  .

The petitioner claiming negligence by the O.ps and deficiency of service filed this application praying for relief.

            According to the petitioner on 08.06.17 he went to O.P.no.1 Medical officer, Bhoomika Hospital  for treatment of his right eye paid Rs.100/- towards registration fees as per annexture-1 vide O.P.D No.6164 . The petitioner suffered burning sensation in his right eye since four months  as revealed from O.P.no.2 of Bhoomika Hospital . On 20.08.17  the petitioner went to Bhuban where an eye camp was organized . It is the allegation of the petitioner that in  the eye camp the O.P.no.2 picked up the petitioner to his hospital for treatment saying that there was no adequate facility in the eye camp and  the petitioner can be cured  in the hospital of O.P.no.2 . The right eye of petitioner was operated upon and the petitioner paid Rs.5,000/- to the O.P.no.2 and was advised to come on 30.08.17 but unfortunately soon after the operation the petitioner felt  severe pain in his right eye which was not properly attended  to by O.P.no.2 . So due to the inaction and carelessness of O.P.no.2 in treating the petitioner he  went  to hospital on 04.09.17 by paying Rs.100/- towards registration fees vide O.P.D No.15025  as per annexture-2. But there was no visible improvement in the condition of the petitioner . So the petitioner went to S.C.B, Medical college and hospital on 18.09.17 but doctors at S.C.B medical college and hospital advised the petitioner to go to O.P.no.4 . Accordingly the petitioner went to O.P.no.4 on 19.09.17 , where the  petitioner was treated for his damaged eye sight . Hence the prayer of the petitioner to compensate him  from the O.p.no.2  a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-  who was negligent in providing proper service to the petitioner . The petition filed by the petitioner is supported by an affidavit.

            The O.P.no.1 and 3 have been  set exparte vide order dt.07.02.18 . The O.P.no.2 and 4 entered appearance and filed their  written version and contested the case.

            On the other hand the O.P.no.2 against whom the petitioner made allegation inter alia denied the maintainability of the case filed by the petitioner  stating that the petitioner is not a consumer as he has never hired the services of O.P.no.2 by paying any consideration . According to O.P.no.2 on 19.08.17 an Eye camp was organized  and the patient who were found with cataract were shifted to hospital which was done free of cost  and the petitioner having come to the eye camp voluntarily was found having cataract  and operation was necessary . So the O.P.no.2 never picked up the petitioner nor took Rs.5,000/- from the petitioner. It is also denied by  O.P.no.2 that the petitioner felt severe pain  after the operation and not properly attended to by O.P.no.2. According to the O.p.no.2 ,  21 patients including the petitioner was found cataract and were all treated by  experienced and senior Ophthalmology    who were discharged on 21.08.17 . The  revision test  before the operation of the petitioner was 6/60  and after operation was found 6/18 . So as per  medical science the operation was successful .  After operation   the petitioner was advised by the doctor to come for check up , but he never came after seven days ,30 days and 45 days  for test . So there was no negligence  on the part of the O.P, rather the petitioner himself was negligent.

            According  to O.P.no.2 before the operation the petitioner had blurred vision  but after operation the petitioner was able to see in his right eye . So the entire petition of the petitioner is based on down  right false hood and the petitioner never gave any money and not entitled to any compensation as the petitioner himself was negligent . Hence the  petition is liable to be  dismissed. The written version filed by the O.P no.2 is supported by an affidavit.

            The O.P.no.4 in his written objection submitted that the O.p.no.4 never opined at any point of time that due to operation the Right Eye has been   damaged . The petitioner was referred to O.P.no.4 by O.P.no.3  for cataract management . According to O.P.no.4 on 15.10.17 the petitioner’s  Right Eye was operated  and there was improvement in the Right Eye of the petitioner who was tested  on 24.10.17  by O.P no.4 . Again on 28.11.17 the petitioner was examined by O.P.no.4 and his  vision in  the Right Eye was corrected and he was advised for further check up on 25.01.18. While under treatment  of  O.P.no.4 there was no negligence  by O.P.no.4 and the petitioner Right Eye after operation was found O.K  as revealed  from the Medical papers  . So the O.P.no.4  prayed to   dismiss the case.

            On the date of hearing we heard the arguments from the learned counsels of both the sides. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

            On the above pleadings of the parties ,  it is to be determined whether the petitioner paid Rs.5,000/- to O.P.no.2 . The allegation of the petitioner is that on 20.08.17 the petitioner picked up by O.P.no.2 and was operated in the Eye camp and  whether the petitioner gave Rs.5,000/- .

There is no  description of the petitioner as to who took him from the Eye camp and the manner of giving Rs.5,000/- to O.p.no.2 because the O.P.no.2 is a private hospital  in the Dist. of Dhenkanal . The petition is completely silent  about the manner of giving  and taking Rs.5,000/- from  the petitioner . No receipts have been filed by the petitioner to believe for a moment that the petitioner gave Rs.5,000/- . Excepting the two receipts dt.08.06.17 and 04.09.17 of the Bhoomika Hospital , there is not a  single scrap of paper  filed by the petitioner to establish that he  has paid Rs.5,000/- to O.P.no.2. The petition filed by the petitioner have been   seurpetiously  drafted and  it is very  difficult to know against whom the petitioner wanted to  make allegation  out of the  four O.Ps  vide para-11 . The petitioner stated that due to deficiency of service by O.P.no.2 the petitioner lost his Right Eye sight to which the O.p.no.2 vehemently opposed in his written objection.

            Last but not  least the written objection of O.p.no.2 have been supported by O.p.no.4 who in the written objection specifically denied  and stated that after operation of Right Eye  the petitioner was able to see and the vision of the petitioner’s Right Eye was corrected. Therefore considering the entire ga-mute of evidence on record we are led to believe that the petitioner has not come to this Forum with clean hands and there was suppression of material  fact by the petitioner. Hence , we are unanimously of  opinion that the petitioner utterly failed to satisfactorily  prove the allegation against the O.P.no.2  to the hilt .   

            To conclude  the petitioner first visited Bhoomika Hospital on 08.06.17 .On 15.10.17 the Right Eye of the petitioner was operated upon by O.P.no.2 .On 28.11.17 the petitioner was examined by O.P.no.4 who found the operation was successful and the vision of the right Eye of the petitioner was corrected who was advised for further check up on 25.1.18 . This case was filed on 21.10.17 ,so it is crystal clear that after filing of this case on 21.10.17 the petitioner was examined by O.P.no.4 on 24.10.17  after operation when his Right Eye was found O.K . Thereafter the petitioner was again examined on O.p.no.4 on 28.11.17 after filing of this case on 21.10.17  as revealed from the medical papers of O.p.no.4 . The petitioner was completely cured have been suppressed in the body of the petition.. Thus merely saying that my Right Eye has been damaged is not sufficient ,it is requires strict proof  by the petitioner which is utterly wanting. Lastly  the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 also raised the objection regarding jurisdiction which appears to be true as part of the occurrence took place in the Dist. Dhenkanal . Add to it the learned counsel for O.P.no.2 also raised the objection regarding cause of action  which appears to be true as the treatment of the petitioner continued till 28.11.17 ,even though the case was filed on 21.10.17 . Thus the cause of action appears to be shrouded in mystery , as stated earlier regarding none specification of the payment details of Rs. 5,000/- by the petitioner to O.P.no.2 without receipt . Against this back drop the petitioner hopelessly failed to establish the case beyond the spell of reasonable doubt .

Hence this order

            The  petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed against O.P.no.2 and 4 and exparte against O.P.no.1 and 3.             

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of April ,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.