Punjab

StateCommission

RP/13/2017

Leela Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Roshni Eye Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

By Post

01 Sep 2017

ORDER

Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Dakshan Marg, Sector 37-A , Chandigarh
 
Revision Petition No. RP/13/2017
( Date of Filing : 20 Apr 2017 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. 82/2017 of District Bathinda)
 
1. Leela Devi
W/o Sh. Shiv Kumar S/o Sh. Kishori Lal, R/o Mohalla Bhullerian
Bathinda
Punjab
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Roshni Eye Hospital
Urban Estate Phase-I, Mansa Road,
Bathinda
Punjab
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  J.S.Klar PRESIDING MEMBER
 
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 01 Sep 2017
Final Order / Judgement


FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,        PUNJAB,  DAKSHIN MARG,  SECTOR 37-A,  CHANDIGARH.

                             Revision Petition No.13 of 2017

                                             Date of Institution:   20.04.2017

                                                                                                                                           Reserved on   :  29.08.2017 

                                                Date of Decision :    01.09.2017

 

Leela Devi aged about 51 years, wife of Shri Shiv Kumar son of Shri Kishori Lal, resident of Mohalla Bullerian, Bathinda.                                                                                                                                 ....Revisionist/Complainant

Versus

  1. Roshni Eye Hospital, Urban Estate Phase-I, Mansa Road, Bathinda through its Chairman.
  2. Dr.J.K.Gupta, Eye Surgeon, Roshni Eye Hospital, Urban Estate Phase-I, Mansa Road, Bathinda;
  3. Grewal Eye Institute, SCO 168-169, Sector-9, Chandigarh through its Director;
  4. Shri S.P.S.Grewal, Director, Grewal Eye Institute, SCO 168-169, Sector-9, Chandigarh.
  5. Dr.Divya, Eye Specialist, Grewal Eye Institute, SCO 168-169, Sector-9, Chandigarh.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ........Respondents/Opposite Parties

Revision Petition against order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.

Quorum:-

     Sh. J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

        

Present:-

          For the revisionist             :         None

          For respondents No.1&2   :         Ex-parte

          For respondents No.3to5: Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          Revisionist has filed this revision petition against order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short ‘District Forum’), declining the prayer of the revisionist for impleading Ops No.3to5 as parties in the complaint. The short controversy, as gathered from the order of District Forum, is that complainant now revisionist was operated upon for cataract surgery by Ops No.2 and it charged Rs.25,000/- including cost of lens and operation charges. The implantation of lens could not improve the eye-sight of the complainant. Some problems were pointed out in implanting of lens. Complainant got herself checked from Ops No.3&4 at Chandigarh. They stated to her that due to negligence or inefficiency of OP No.2, the lens could not be properly implanted and further suggested for removal of lens avoiding complete blindness of her eye-sight. Ops No.3&4 revealed that cornea in her right eye has been damaged and it requires replacement. She got checked her eyes from other doctors and they said her eye got damaged by wrong operation by Ops. She sought the impleadment of Ops No.3to5 as parties in the complaint, but District Forum held it to be a different cause of action against them and has not joined them as OPs.

2.      From hearing submissions of counsel for respondents No.3to5 in this revision petition, as none appeared for revisionist and respondents No.1&2 herein have been set ex-parte, we find that cause of action as arisen in this case is a continuing one. It is a continuous process and cause of action in that process has arisen both at Bathinda as well as at Chandigarh, because these two procedures were conducted on her to restore her right cornea. We find that District Forum has not appreciated the controversy in the proper perspective. The cause of action with regard to damage to her right eye partly due to act of Ops No.1&2 and partly due to act of Ops No.3to5. Cause of action is, thus, indivisible against them.

3.      As a result of our above discussion, we accept the revision petition by setting aside the order of District Forum dated 07.04.2017 and permit the impleadment of Ops No.3to5 as parties in the complaint on the basis of accrual of indivisible cause of action against all of them. The revision petition stands accepted and order of District Forum is set aside.

4.      Arguments in this revision petition were heard on 29.08.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copy of the order be sent to District Forum for compliance and parties shall appear before District Forum on 29.09.2017. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.

                   5.      The case could not be decided within the statutory period   due to heavy pendency of court cases.

         

                                                                                                                                                (J. S. Klar)

                                                                                                                                   Presiding Judicial Member

                                                                                    

September   01, 2017

Rupinder-2

 

 

 
 
[ J.S.Klar]
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.