Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

225/2010

Mrs. Ishita Shampa Datta - Complainant(s)

Versus

m/s. B.K.Optical & Balakrishna Eye Hospital & others - Opp.Party(s)

L.Sankaran

01 Dec 2021

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                Date of Complaint Filed: 25.03.2010

                                                                                                                                                                Date of Reservation: 10.11.2021

                                                                                                                                                                Date of Order: 01.12.2021

                                                                                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:

 

                  Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.                                  : President

                 Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                                           : Member

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.225/2010

 

WEDNESDAY, THE 01^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                                

 

 Mrs.Ishita Shampa Datta,

W/o.Debashis Datta,

No.17/9, Hospital Road, Kannammapet,

T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.                                                                        .. Complainant.                                                              ..Versus..

1.M/s.B.K.Opticals &

   Balakrishna Eye Hospital & Eye Research Centre,

   No.11/6, Sastri First Cross Street,

   Kaveri Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai -15.

 

2.Dr.M.Balakrishnan, Eye Surgeon,

   11/6, Sastri 1^st Cross Street,

   Kaveri Nagar, Saidapet Post,

   Chennai- 600 015.                                                                            ..  Opposite parties.

******

Counsel for the complainant                              : M/S.L.Shankaran, Advocate,

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                     : Mr.M.Kamalakannan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                    : M/s.Dr.B.Cheran. Advocate

 

            On perusal of entire records and after having heard the arguments of opposite parties we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.

 

            The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking direction to replace the defective power glasses supplied by the 1^st opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant.

2. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. Though the complainant filed proof affidavit as his evidence, he has not filed written argument and also not adduced oral argument on his side.   While so, on the side of the 2^nd opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, document Ex.B1 was filed and written argument filed. The 1^st opposite party filed vakalath and written version and not filed proof affidavit and also written argument on his side.

            3. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

            The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party who is an Eye Surgeon for testing the complainant’s eyes and the 2^nd opposite party after testing the complainant’s eyes and advised to wear the power glasses in the following specification 1.SPH-1.25 on the Right Side Eye and cylindrical-Nil and Axis-nil measurements, 2.SPh – 1.25 on the left side eye and cylindrical –nil and Axis – nil measurements with V/A.6/6; and the above Doctor himself is running the 1^st opposite party optical shop.  As per advice of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and placed order of power glasses on 05.12.2009 for a sum of Rs.500/- and for which the 1^st opposite party supplied the power glasses on 09.12.2009.  The complainant started to use the spectacle from 09.12.2009 onwards, immediately after using the power glasses the complainant suffered from severe head-ache which resulted to giddiness. Hence the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and who in turn informed the complainant after using the glasses gradually pain and giddiness will be reduced. On 12.12.2009 the complainant went to a local optical shop and tested both glasses and found that the left eye is 1.25 and Right eye is 0.75 only. On 14.12.2009 when the complainant again went to meet the 1^st opposite party to recheck up, but the 1^st opposite party clearly says both the glasses were 1.25 is correct and also informed the 2^nd opposite party to also verify the same.  On the same day the complainant went to another optical shop in Pondy Bazaar for check up and they also tested and given a report as that right eye is at .75 and left eye 1.25.  Then the complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party and asked about the checking of said glasses power and for which the opposite party checked and told the complainant both the glasses were 1.25 is correct. The complainant stated that the opposite parties not properly tested the complainant’s eyes and acted in a negligent manner while testing the eyes of the complainant and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are duty bound to test the patients in a very careful manner but the opposite parties failed to do so.  Hence this complaint.

            4.Written version of 1^st & 2^nd opposite party in brief:-

            The 2^nd opposite party is in Ophthalmic filed for 16 years after his MD from prestigious and Apex Institute – All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi in 1994.  He is having extra care in making, fitting and dispensing glasses to his patients rather than sending patients to optical shop. The patient’s refraction is done by Doctor himself and not by optometrists; Glass is also made by him and not by outside agencies. It is submitted that the patient visited the hospital with pre-existing continuous head ache and for which the 2^nd opposite party advised to the complainant for refraction on 03.12.2009 under cycloplegic drug. On 05.12.2009 acceptance test was done with detailed verification of suitable power of glasses and the power of the glasses mentioned by the complainant is true. The 2^nd opposite party denies the allegation that the complainant suffered severe headache and giddiness wearing of the said spectacles and the complainant has not met the 2^nd opposite party after 09.12.2009 and hence it is requested this complaint may be dismissed.

            5.The points for consideration are:-

            1) Whether there is any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties?

2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

4) To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

6. Point Nos.1&2:-

 

            On perusal of entire records it is found that the complainant has not denied the test made by the 2^nd opposite party and also not denied the specified power glasses and further there is no prayer as against 2^nd opposite party and therefore there is no medical negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  The only allegation is the 2^nd opposite party specified SPH 1.25 on the Right Side Eye and also SPH 1.25 on the Left Side Eye but the 1^st opposite party wrongly given spectacles which had specification of 0.75 on the right side. The complainant stated that she was tested her eyes in the local optical shop and that they checked up and given a report as that the left eye is 1.25 and Right eye is 0.75 only. To prove the same no document was marked.  Even complainant was not furnished the name and address of the local optical shop. Further on 14.12.2009 the complainant tested her eyes in Pondy Bazaar and they have also given a report as that the Right eye is 0.75 and left eye is 1.25.  To prove the same the complainant submitted Ex.A4 testing document. On perusal of Ex.A4 report it is found that the complainant name and Doctor’s name and the optical shop name are not found.  Ex.A4 report is not an authenticated document. It is bounden duty of the complainant to prove the averments made in the complaint against the opposite parties by way of relevant document and proper evidence but the complainant has failed to do so. The main allegation of the complainant as that the 1^st opposite party supplied spectacles with wrong specification, but she was not produced these spectacles before this commission and also the complainant has not taken any steps to get expert opinion in respect of alleged specification of glasses.  In the absence of authenticated document and expert evidence we found that the opposite parties have not committed either medical negligence or deficiency in service on their part.  Accordingly point Nos.1& 2 are answered.

            7.Point Nos.3 & 4:-

            We have discussed and decided that there is no medical negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in this complaint. Accordingly point Nos.3&4 are answered.

            In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

            Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission, on this the 01^st day of December 2021.

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                                                           R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	03.12.2009	Copy of receipt for fees.	Xerox
Ex.A2	05.12.2009	Copy of receipt from purchase of power glass issued by 1st op	Xerox
Ex.A3		Copy of testing report issued by the 1st opposite party	Xerox
Ex.A4	14.12.2009	Copy of receipt for tested reported by another optical shop in pondy Bazzar	Xerox
Ex.A5	29.12.2009	Legal notice sent by the complainant.	Xerox

 

            List of documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

Ex.B1

CASR sheet of the complainant.

Xerox

 

 

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                                                               R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT