Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

40/2011

V.Rathinam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Vasan Eye Care Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Siva

18 May 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   29.11.2010

                                                                        Date of Order :   18.05.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B., M.L.,                  : PRESIDENT            

               DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.40/2011

THURSDAY THIS 18^th DAY OF MAY 2017

 

Mrs. V. Rathinam,

W/o. Venkatachalam,

Gulmugar Apartments,

B-11, First Floor,

Periyar Kudil,

No.35, Sevaliyar Sivajiganesan,

Salai, T.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                              ..Complainant

 

                                              ..Vs..

 

1.  M/s. Vasan Eye Care Hospital,

Rep. Dr. Premraj,

 

2. Dr. R. Prema, M.S.DO.,

Opthalmic Surgen,

M/s. Vasan Eye Care Hospital,

 

Both are at No.120-A,

Bazaar Road,

Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.                                ..Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainant                   :    M/s. Siva Associates & others       

For the opposite parties               :    Exparte.

 

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II      

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties  to return the sum of Rs.26,000/- towards medical expenses and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consultation charges and also to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation for loss of her left eye and to pay cost of the complaint. 

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

      The complainant submit that  she was suffering from sight problem, as such she had approached the opposite parties on 3.12.2009 for consultation.   Thereafter the opposite parties informed the complainant that cataract to both the eyes of the complainant had been formed and developed which require operation, the opposite parties demanded Rs.26,000/- to operate for left eye. 

2.     The complainant further submit that as per advise of the opposite parties she was admitted for operation of her left eye and she paid Rs.26,000/-.    Thereupon  she was admitted on 14.12.2009 operation  was performed for her left eye by the 2^nd opposite party and discharged on 15.12.2009.   After two days of the said operation, the complainant struggled and suffering from heavy pain in the left, operated eye and the eye could  not be opened and left side eye  got swelling, inflammation and not healed for several days, since the operation done by the 2^nd opposite party is defective.    The complainant had gone to Sankara Nethralaya Hospital for further consultation and treatment.   In the said Sankaranethralya Hospital, after careful check, the complainant was informed that due to defective operation by the opposite parties, the said problem arose.   

3.     Accordingly the complainant had issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 13.7.2010 calling upon them to return a sum of Rs.26,000/- for operation charges and Rs.10,000/- as consultation fees and Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for loss of her left eye.  But the opposite parties did  not sent any reply nor settled the amount.     As such, the act of the opposite parties  amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and severe hardship to the complainant.     Hence the compliant. 

4.     Though the opposite parties remained exparte this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials.  

5.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint, the proof affidavit filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked. 

6.      At this juncture the point for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  parties as alleged in the complaint?.

 

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for?

7. Point Nos. 1 & 2 :-

     The complainant aged about 75 years was treated by opposite party’s hospital and opposite party-2 conducted the operation for “left eye Phacoenulsificaton with foldable Iq Intra Oculur lens Implantation”  (Ex.A1) operated on 14.12.2009 by collecting an amount of Rs.26,000/-.   The complainant was admitted on 14.12.2009 and discharged on 15.12.2009.  

8.     The complainant pleaded that because of the negligence of the opposite party she had lost her vision in the left eye and contended it is due to the carelessness of opposite party-2 and dereliction of the duty of both opposite parties 1 & 2.   The complainant submitted the post hospitalization advise of opposite party-2, Ex.A2, Ex.A3 to Ex.A8.  The allegation made by the complainant that the opposite parties have not complied with the C.P. Act of Sec.2 (1) (g) and 2 (1) (o) properly.   Hence the complainant issued legal notice to both the opposite parties on 13.7.2010 alleging the deficiency of  service of opposite party-2 and seeking the refund of Rs.26,000/- collected by the opposite party from the patient.   Despite of receipt of legal notice the opposite party-2 failed to comply her request.  

9.     The opposite parties have not filed any written version even after repeated adjournments; however the opposite parties set exparte.  Thereafter the opposite parties filed set aside petition on 23.8.2011 and was allowed on payment of cost.  Thereafter the opposite parties neither appeared in person before this forum nor filed written version and proof affidavit to substantiate the alleged deficiency of service thrown on them by the complainant that the loss of vision is not by their negligent act and set exparte.  On the other hand the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence or taken steps for expert opinion to substantiate that the complainant to prove the loss of vision due to the negligence of opposite parties 1 & 2.  

 

10.    On a careful perusal of the available records and the allegation made by the complainant in the complaint claiming compensation for  deficiency in service cannot be granted without attribute in fault im-perfection, short coming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by the person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.   The burden of proving the deficiency in service in upon the person who alleges it.   The  complainant as on facts, been found to have not established any willful fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent.

11.    In the alleged complaint, there is no expert opinion or any documentary evidence produced and substantiated the loss of vision in left eye by the operation performed by the opposite party-2.  Moreover, both opposite parties not came forward to defend their case.  Hence this forum is of the opinion, the alleged complaint was not substantiated with proof and this complaint stands dismissed with  No cost.  The points 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

              Dictated by the Member-II to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  18^th    day  of  May  2017.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                   PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 15.12.2009         - Copy of discharge summary issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A2- 7.12.2009  - Copy of prescription.

Ex.A3- 17.12.2009         - Copy of lab report.

Ex.A4- 7.12.2009  - Copy of consultation receipt.

Ex.A5- 22.2.2010  - Copy of consultation receipt. 

Ex.A6- 22.2.2010  - Copy of service charge receipt issued by opposite party.

Ex.A7- 14.12.2009         - Copy of prescription for medicine.

Ex.A8- 14.12.2009         - Copy of Medicines bill.

Ex.A9- 13.7.2010  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A10-29.7.2010 - Copy of reply by the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A11- 11.1.2011         - Copy of prescription by Dr.S.Amudhavalvu.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:   .. Nil.

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                                 PRESIDENT.