Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/72/2022

DR.Maman Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EYE Q - Opp.Party(s)

in person

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

Consumer Complaint No.:72 of 2022

                                             Date of Institution          : 04.04.2022

                                                    Date of order                  : 16.10.2023

 

Dr. Maman Chand Sharma son of Shri Palla Ram, Resident of B-12, Giriraj Colony, Meham Road, Bhiwani-127021.

 

          …Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.  M/s Eye-Q Vision Private Limited through its Manager, Dadri Road, Rohtak Gate, Opp. K.M. Hospital Bhiwani-127021 (Haryana).

 

2. Dr. Ankit Vinayak through the Manager, Eye-Q Vision Private Limited, Dadri Road, Rohtak Gate, Opp. K.M. Hospital Bhiwani-127021 (Haryana).

 

…Opposite Parties (OPs)

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

BEFORE:    Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

         Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                 Brief facts of present complaint are that  the complainant visited the hospital of OPs on 14.10.2021 for consultation for operation of his right eye and the employee at the optical counter entered his name at Sr. No. 5 in the OPD Register as Dr. Maman Chand after receiving Rs.270/- as OPD fee.  It is alleged that after testing of the right eye on 14.10.2021, Dr. Manav Sachdev recorded distance vision as UCDVA 6/18 P and Dr. Ankit Vinayak (OP No. 2) as second opinion cataract recorded the same vision as BCDVA-6/18 P on 22.10.2021 who advised complainant to come 29.10.2021 for operation of his right eye.  It is alleged that just before the operation on 29.10.2021, the Manager of the OP asked complainant to pay a sum of Rs.32,500/-  for operation of immature contract in right eye and the complainant paid by way of transfer from his SSB A/c No.27840100005309 but no receipt thereof was issued.  It is further alleged that after operation on 29.10.2021, Dr. Ritu Kumari tested the complainant’s right eye on 19.11.2021 and 30.11.2021 and mentioned distance vision as UCDVA 6/24 and the complainant told her about heaviness in his eye and she opined that it was on account of dryness in the eye and it would take 3 or 4 months to set it right.  It is further alleged that in pursuance to Dr. Ritu Kumari’s advice, the complainant visited the hospital after passage of 4 months on 16.03.2022 to get the right eye tested but to his surprise, the employee on optical counter asked him to pay Rs.220/- for testing, though he was asked to get the eye tested after 3-4 months on account of dryness in the eye.  Complainant paid the aforesaid amount and got the receipt and after testing the right eye, Dr. Navita Yadav recorded his vision as UCDVA 6/24 P, whereas before operation, it was UCDVA 6/18 P.  Complainant has alleged that the purpose of operation was for better vision that was not served after the operation costing him Rs.32,500/-.  Complainant has submitted that due to the OP’s deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice by charging again OPD fee Rs.220/- caused him mental tension & agony as well as financial loss as complainant has been told that the eye cannot be re-operated for better vision, it will remain as such throughout the complainants’ life. Thus complainant has submitted that he has lost his part vision of his right eye as it is evident from the comparative distance of vision before and after operation of the right eye. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant seeking directions to OPs:-

a.       To pay sum of Rs.32,500/- due to unsuccessful operation and Rs.220/- charged again arbitrarily OPD fee with interest @ 24% per annum (market rate) till actual payment.

b.       To pay Rs.50,000/- for indulging in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

c.       To award Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and agony and financial loss caused to complainant and by denigrating his status as Doctor of Philosophy (Dr.) by not mentioning it in the receipt for Rs.220/-.

d.       To award Rs.1,00,000/-  due to loss of part vision of his right eye on account of unsuccessful operation.

e.       Any other relief that the Commission deems it fit and proper to award.

f.        To try summarily and decide on priority basis being complainant a super Sr. citizen of 80 years.

2.                 OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement  taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and concealment of material facts from this Commission.  On merits, it is admitted that Rs.32500/- duly received by OPs but it is denied that no receipt issued to complainant and allegedly receipt annexed herewith. It is submitted that  complainant intentionally misinterpreted the visual acuity to misguide the Commission as mentioned/used term UCDVA (Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity) instead of BCDVA (Best Corrected Distance Visual Acuity) as per record BCDVA is 6/18P on 14.10.2021, 6/18P on 22.10.2021, 6/9P on 19.11.2021, 6/9 P on 30.11.2021 and 6/9 P on 16.3.2022.  The above mentioned BCDVA shows that cataract operation was good and success and the complainant himself already mentioned in above para no. 3 that Dr. Vinayak recorded the vision as BCDVA-6/18P on 22.10.2021 and advised to come on 29.10.2021 for operation, then it is clear that he is well aware about the difference of visual acuity.  It is submitted that the right eye of the complainant was operation by Dr.Ankit Vinayak  (Op No.2) was for Cataract not to remove specs. It was also clearly defined to the complainant that the visionary specs as per cylindrical number will be necessary to carry further even after cataract operation for proper vision.  Further, the issues related to heaviness in eye  of complainant also due to self-negligence as non-use of proper numbered prescribed glasses/specs. It has been stated that complainant also moved a complaint/application before Chief Medical Officer, Bhiwani. In this regard, the OPs produced all the records and discussed properly before the panel of doctors in medical board which duly conducted the enquiry on each and every point and after that no any call or information in this regard received to answering respondent.  Now the decision/report of medical board is finalized and certified copy thereof has applied through various processes. It is submitted that as per terms of answering respondent only three visit/OPS are free with a month of operation and as per record the OP never charged any single penny for OPD till 30.11.2021. As such, complainant has submitted that there is no negligence on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with special costs.

4.                 To prove his complaint, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-8  and then closed the evidence on 05.05.2023. 

5.                 On the other side, leaned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Ankit Vinayak, Surgeon as Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-4 and closed the evidence 09.06.2023.

6.                 Written argument filed on behalf of complainant as well as OPs side.

7.                 We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OPs and have gone through the record minutely.   

8.                 The grievance of complainant is that the OP hospital despite taking sufficient charges for operation of complainant’s right eye, no results for better eye vision came out rather it deteriorated the eye sight of complainant. Complainant has argued that the act & conduct of OPs towards the complainant has remained deficient and negligent which caused him mental agony, physical loss and as well huge monetary loss.  The complainant has added that the loss to his eye vision cannot be compensated in terms of money however, this complaint has been filed to provide him some relief. Complainant has further argued that the Ops may be restricted not to adopt such practices  against gullible patient/consumer in future. In the end, complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint, as prayed for.

9.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OPs has argued that OPs have applied every professional tactics while doing operation of the eye of complainant. The doctor who operated upon the complainant is well qualified and experienced for such like operations.  Every medical care and caution was adopted while doing the treatment of the complainant. However, the complainant himself was negligent and careless while complying with the advices of OP doctor which might have caused some problem to the complainant. As such, learned counsel Ops has prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy punitive costs.

10.               Perusal of documents Ex. C-1, Ex. C-2, Ex.C-4 to Ex. C-7 reveal that complainant was diagnosed and operated by the OP hospital. Perusal of receipt Ex.R-1 & bank account statement of complainant Ex. C-3 reveal that a sum of Rs.32,500/- was taken by the OP hospital for the operation/treatment of complainant.  Admittedly, the complainant was operated on 29.10.2021 at the OP hospital for the alleged eye treatment.  Thereafter, complainant had to go for follow up treatment on 19.11.2021 and 30.11.2021. Thereafter, complainant had to go the hospital of OP with regard to problem to his operated eye on 16.03.2022 (Annexure C-6).  Perusal of Annexure C-8 reveals that complainant not satisfied with the treatment of OPs has to go Kishan Lal Jalan Govt. Eye Hospital, Bhiwani on 24.09.2022 which clears that the OP hospital has remained negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. 

11.               From the above, it has come out that before operation of the complainant, his eye vision on 14.10.2021 and 22.10.2021 (Annexures C-1 & C-2) respectively was UCDVA 6/18P. Admittedly, the complainant was operated upon on 29.10.2021 and after that, as per (Annexure C-4), complainant’s vision on 19.11.2019 was UCDVA 6/24 (0.60) and BCDVA 6/9P which remained same till 16.03.2022 as per Annexure C-7.  The main grievance of complainant is that after getting operated upon, he has deteriorated his eye vision. It is worthwhile to mention here that a person undergo for a operation to get rid from the ailment he suffers but when it does not cause any betterment then there must be some negligence or deficiency in service on the part of treating doctor whether it may be, by poor quality of lens or some omission during the course of operation while putting the same in the eye of a patient. This view got strengthen when the treating doctor has not mentioned in the OPD slip or on any other document that the patient not followed the advice/instructions of the doctor concerned. On this score, the OPs are negligent in providing proper services to the complainant.

12.               The next question that now arises is what should be appropriate compensation to be awarded to the complainant. The determination of damages/compensation for loss of human part/organ is extremely a difficult task yet considering all the facts of case especially that the complainant has to suffer a lot by going time and again to the OP hospital for his treatment being a senior citizen of 80 years for which the OPs have remained negligent and deficient.

13.               In view of the totality of the facts & circumstances of this case, we observed that the OP hospital was negligent in performing their duties which caused physical loss, mental agony, harassment as well as monetary loss to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is allowed. The Ops jointly and severally are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

1. To refund Rs.32,500/- (Rs.Thirty two thousand five hundred) to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of harassment suffered by complainant at the hands of OPs.
3. To pay Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the Ops shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount for the period of default. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:16.10.2023.

 

 

                    (Shashi Kiran Panwar)              (Saroj Bala Bohra)

                                           Member               Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani.