BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No.203 of 2015
Date of Institution: 1.4.2015
Date of Decision: 23.6.2016
Kulwant Singh aged 64 years son of Shri Udham Singh resident of village Sultanwind Pind, Main Bazar, Gali Depotwali,Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
Preet Eye Care Centre through Dr.Manmohan Bhanot, Nea Arneja Honda, Batala Road, Amritsar
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Parminder Kumar Devgan,Advocate
For the Opposite Party: Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Kulwant Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 &13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is a senior citizen and he was suffering from some disease in his left eye . In this respect complainant on 5.4.2013 had consulted the opposite party and it was revealed by the opposite party that ailment of the eye shall be cured. In this respect complainant paid requisite consultation fee to the opposite party and opposite party gave medicine to the complainant. Doctor of the opposite party told the complainant that his eye problem shall be re-solved after fixing lens in his left eye . The doctor further told the complainant that approximate expenses for lens, medicine etc would be Rs. 15000/- to Rs. 20000/-. The complainant paid the aforesaid amount as demanded by the opposite party and lens was affixed in the left eye of the complainant. The opposite party gave medicine and other precautions to the complainant and the complainant went to his house. But after passing of 2/3 days , bleeding/zen started from the left eye of the complainant and the complainant immediately approached the opposite party . The opposite party changed the medicine , but despite taking medicine, problem of the eye of the complainant became serious and visibility of the eye sight of the complainant was impaired. Ultimately, when the complainant suffered loss of his eye sight, then the complainant consulted Dr. Om Parkash Eye Institute and produced the whole of the record of the treatment as well as precautions given by the opposite party. There, it was revealed that opposite party has not given decent direction which resulted into loss of the left eye of the complainant . The doctors of Om Parkash Eye Hospital suggested the complainant that he should get his left eye removed, otherwise, it will cause problem to the other organs of the body of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party on several occasions and demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as compensation but the opposite party did not accede to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs from the opposite party. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not legally maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed ; that complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed a number of material facts from the notice of this Forum. It is pertinent to mention over here that since the opposite party never operated the complainant, the complainant has raised false and frivolous allegations against the opposite party ; that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone ; that complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is a matter of fact that complainant approached the opposite party on 5.4.2013 as he was having a complain of pain, watering, redness and photofobia . The complainant was advised by the opposite party accordingly and the complainant was prescribed the requisite medicines which were necessary for the treatment of his eye. The complaint is a bundle of lies and it has been drafted in a manner merely to give length and colour to the complainant. Infact the complainant approached the opposite party on 5.4.2013 and he was advised by the opposite party keeping in view the disease . The complainant was prescribed requisite medicines which were necessary for the purpose. Opposite party never received any amount from the complainant as alleged. The opposite party never affixed the lens in the left eye of the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has put forward a false and frivolous story merely to harass and humiliate the opposite party and to extract money from it. Remaining facts in the complaint have also been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Parminder Singh Devgan,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of prescription slip dated 5.4.2013 Ex.C-2, copy of history sheet Ex.C-3, copy of Laboratory report Ex.C-4, copy of prescription slip Ex.C-5, copy of discharge summary of Om Parkash Eye Institute Ex.C-6, copy of 3 cash receipts Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit of Dr.Manmohan Bhanot Ex.OP1/1, copy of OT register Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that it is an admitted fact that complainant was suffering from some disease in his left eye and in this respect he approached the opposite party on 5.4.2013. It was revealed by the opposite party to the complainant that ailment of his eye shall be resolved . The complainant paid requisite consultation fee to the opposite party and the doctor gave prescription of medicines to the complainant. Opposite party further told the complainant that his eye problem shall be solved after fixing lens in his left eye. The doctor also told the complainant that approximate expenses for the treatment/medicine etc would be Rs. 15000/- to Rs. 20000/-. The complainant paid the aforesaid amount as demanded by the opposite party and lens was affixed in the left eye of the complainant and the doctor gave medicine and other precaution to the complainant.But after passage of 2/3 days bleeding/zen started oozing from the left eye of the complainant. The complainant immediately approached the doctor of the opposite party and the opposite party changed the medicine of the complainant. But, despite taking medicine, the problem of the eye of the complainant did not improve. Rather visibility of the eye of the complainant was considerably impaired. Ultimately the complainant suffered loss of his left eye sight. Thereafter the complainant consulted Dr. Om Parkash Eye Institute and produced the whole treatment record as well as precautions given by the opposite party. There it was revealed that the opposite party has not given the adequate treatment & precautions which resulted in the loss of eye sight of left eye of the complainant. Doctors of Om Parkash Eye Institute suggested the complainant that he should get his left eye removed, otherwise, it will cause problem to the other organs of the body. Opposite party has taken a wrong stand that they never affixed any lens in the eye of the complainant nor they charged any fee for the same. The complainant has suffered loss of his left eye due to the negligence of the opposite party, therefore, he has approached this forum for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs from the opposite party. It is contended that the complaint is liable to be allowed in view of the prayer made by the complainant.
7. However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes amply clear that the story put forward by the complainant does not stand legal scrutiny . The allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint, do not have any foundation. The complainant has not disclosed as to when the alleged surgery was conducted . No date, month or year has been mentioned for the reasons best known to the complainant. The only date mentioned in the complaint is 5.4.2013, which relate to OPD consultation. The complainant has failed to place on record any documentary proof for proving the alleged surgery. It is pertinent to note that in para No.4 i.e. the 3rd line of the para, the complainant has pleaded that “produce his whole of the record and direction given by the opposite party” . But if there was any such alleged record, why the same has been withheld from the scrutiny of this Forum. Opposite party also moved an application for production of the record by the complainant , but in reply, the complainant categorically denied that he was in possession of any such record.
8. Further point for consideration before this Forum, was that the complainant has alleged that he got corrective treatment from Dr.Om Parkash Eye Hospital, Amritsar. But even no doctor or certificate issued by that hospital has been placed on record . No opinion of the treating doctor has been adduced on record to prove that some surgery has been conducted at some earlier stage. The record placed by the complainant is suggestive of the treatment given at the hospital. There is nothing on record to prove the alleged negligence. A perusal of the entire complaint shows that the same is based on frivolous allegations and is not supported by any documentary evidence . The complainant has based his complaint on one OPD slip , which is not suggestive of any alleged medical negligence in itself. It is cardinal principle of law that medical negligence cases are to be treated very cautiously as the entire career and reputation of the medical professional is at stake in such cases. The complaint should be decided on the basis of the strict medical evidence and not merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
9. The complainant has failed to bring any evidence, much less any expert medical opinion of ophthalmologist to substantiate his allegations in the complaint. There are no allegations as to what the opposite party has not done and what are their acts of omission and commission which resulted in deficiency in service. The complaint is purely based on frivolous allegations which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently , instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 23.6.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
