Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/2/2019

Satpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rohit Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint No.02 of 2019

Date of Instt.:1.01.2019

Date of Decision:1.12.2021

 

Satpal son of Sh.Sadhu Ram resident of  Ward No.2, Pundri Road, Rajaund District Kaithal(Haryana).

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1.Dr.Rohit Gupta, Shri Guru Nanak Charitable Eye and Dental Hospital and Educational Trust (Sanr Baba Dalip Singh  Road, Pehowa District Kurukshetra.

 

2.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Geeta Colony, Sector 17, Thanesar District Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

                Complaint under Section  12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

                   Ms.Neelam Member.

                 

Present:     None complainant.

                 Sh.Kuldeep Singh Advocate for the OP No.1.

                 Sh.R.K.Singhal Advocate for the OP No.2.

ORDER

                  

                 This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Satpal   against Dr. Rohit  Gupta etc. -the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the  complainant is a Senior Citizen and he was suffering problem in his left eye and the complainant approached the Government Hospital, Kaithal where doctors disclosed that the complainant is suffering from  glaucoma (Kala Motia) and he is to be operated.  Doctors also disclosed that they are not having sufficient machinery and  advised to get operated from somewhere else.  The complainant  for the operation of eye approached the OP No.1 and on 25.5.2018 the complainant got operated his left eye from the OP no.1 for glaucoma and also got placed lances in the eyes against  payment.  That even after the operation what to talk of improving the condition of left eye,  the complainant has lost the sight of his right eye also. Lateron when the complainant approached the OP No.1 he checked the eyes of the complainant and with discussed about the operation with other doctors who disclosed that the complainant has lost his eye due to wrong treatment  carelessness.  On hearing so, the complainant left the site and approached the Government Hospital Kaithal, where doctors disclosed the complainant that the complainant is losing the sight of his eyes day by day and there is no scope of improving the same. He showed the documents of operation and Govt. doctors disclosed that he has lost his eyes due to wrong operation, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.1. Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency has filed the present complaint against the Ops and  sought the  compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs alongwith litigation expenses.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the patient came to Shri Guru Nanak Hospital on 22.5.2018 for eye check up. His work up was done and was diagnosed to have LE Cataract by paramedical staff. His blood sugar was normal. However, his BP was  raised and was advised medication for the same. Patient was called after control of BP. The patient came on 25.5.2018 and was examined by the OP. His BP  was controlled after that. His left eye CATARACT surgery   with intraocular lens implantation was done on the same day under topical anesthesia.  The answering op DID NOT TOUCH THE RIGHT EYE AT ALL. How on earth operating left eye can have loss of vision in right  eye. This is completely false allegations. The answering OP did not do any wrong treatment or carelessness. The answring OP left his job from there on 7.7.2018 to open his own hospital in Mohali.  The answering OP has done thousand of cataract surgeries on charity basis and there is no point of carelessness on the part of the answering OP. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint, principle of non joinder, cause of action and that of jurisdiction have been raised and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The OP  No.2 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant had not supplied any document regarding his treatment from OP No.1 It is submitted that the OP No.1 is qualified and competent doctor and he enjoys a good reputation in the area.  The complainant had leveled false allegations against the OP No.1 in order to grab money. Thus, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

5.             Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the complainant. The complainant failed to produce his evidence and the case was fixed for 10.7.2021 for his evidence with last opportunity.  On 8.11.2021 the complainant failed to appear before this Commission and the complainant was ordered to be summoned through court  notice for 1.12.2021.  Today the complainant despite issuance of court notice failed to appear before this Commission.

 

6.             We have perused the case file and have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

 

7.             A perusal of the file shows that the complainant took treatment and got his left eye from OP No.1. This fact is also admitted by the OP No.1.  But the there is nothing on record to show that there was any deficiency in rendering services on the part of the OP No.1. There is no expert evidence or opinion any medical board that there was any medical negligence on the part of the OP No.1. Even the complainant has failed to appear and produce any evidence regarding medical negligence against the OP No.1.

 

                From the non appearance of the complainant and failure of the complainant to produce any evidence to prove medical negligence on the part of the OP no.1, it appears that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to harass the OP no.1 because the complainant has failed to appear even despite of court notice. Therefore, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.   Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules and the file be consigned to the record  room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated:01.12.2021,

 

                                                                                President.

 

                                Member             Member.