Delhi

North East

CC/137/2018

Munna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Retina Foundation - Opp.Party(s)

04 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 137/18

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Munna (Since Deceased) Through LR Poonam D/o Late Sh. Munna R/o H.No. 308, Sonia Camp G.T Road, Near Vivek Vihar Railway Station, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara Delhi 110095		Complainant
		Versus
	1.   2.	Sai Retina Foundation   Dr. J.S Guha C/o Sai Retina Foundation   Both at: F-5 (Basement & GF), Dilshad Colony, Main Road, Delhi 110095		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER:		13.07.2019 12.02.2024 04.04.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the vehicle of the Opposite Party Hospital came in the area of the Complainant and Complainant got his eyes check from them. It is his case that after checking the eyes, the doctor of Opposite Party Hospital told that there was a cataract in Complainant’s eyes and the same would be cured by giving further treatment. On assurance of the Opposite Party, Complainant visited the Opposite Party Hospital on 12.02.2018 and got the treatment of left eye. It is his case that doctors of Opposite Party Hospital stated that firstly they would do the treatment of left eye which would be operated and after the operation Complainant would be able to see properly. It is his case that he was admitted in the Opposite Party Hospital and got discharged on 14.02.2018. Complainant paid Rs. 3,000/- for the same. Complainant stated that after operation Complainant having severe pain in the left eye and feeling uncomfortable but doctors of Opposite Party assured that due to operation, Complainant was having pain and soon the Complainant would be able to see properly. It is his case that after several visits to the Opposite Party Hospital, there was no relief in his left eye and again his left eye was stitched. Complainant stated that still no visibility of left eye came and Opposite Party also did not give any paper regarding this. Complainant stated that after some time the behaviour of the staff and doctors of the Opposite Party Hospital changed and still there was no relief in the eye. After that the Complainant approached Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital on 12.05.2018 as well as Guru Nanak Eye Centre as the visibility of the left eye of the Complainant had totally gone. After that Complainant came to know that due to negligence of the hospital of Opposite Party his visibility of the left eye had totally gone. Complainant stated that at present Complainant was not able to do his work and facing difficulties. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 21,000/- on account of litigation expenses. During the pendency of the complaint, the Complainant died and her daughter namely Poonam was brought on record as LR.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is stated that the Complainant has filed this complaint in order to extort money from the Opposite Parties. It is stated that there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. The surgery of the left eye of the Complainant was performed on 14.02.2018 by Dr. Seema Sharma to the best of her ability with due care and caution while adopting Standard Surgical Procedure.  It is stated that Complainant was not co-operating.  It is stated that there was infection in the eye of the Complainant and he was treated by the Dr. J. S Guha for the said infection. It is alleged that the Complainant was non co-operative and missed his follow-up appointments. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Parties have filed common affidavit of     Dr. J.S Guha, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that his left eye was operated for cataract by the Opposite Party Hospital. It is his case that there was medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties while performing the cataract surgery and for this reason the vision of his left eye was totally gone. The case of the Complainant is that after feeling that his vision was not improving and rather it was totally gone he visited the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital and thereafter Guru Nanak Eye Centre. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that there was no medical negligence on their part and the Complainant was non co-operative and also missed the follow-up appointments.
7. The case of the Complainant is that there was medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, however, apart from his bare assertion he did not file any document on record to show that there was medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. As per the case of the Complainant, he also approached GTB Hospital and Guru Nanak Eye Centre. There is no document of Guru Nanak Eye Centre to show that the Complainant visited there for      check-up. The Complainant has filed two, three copies of the OPD card of GTB Hospital. The perusal of the same does not show that the problem was due to negligence on the part of the doctors of the Opposite Party. The perusal of the OPD card dated 30.03.2018 of the Opposite Party Hospital shows that one Bablu had taken the Complainant to Shroff Eye Centre, Daryaganj for Cornea consultation but the Complainant did not got his eyes checked at Shroff Eye Centre which is reveal from the OPD card. This shows that the problem was not regarding cataract surgery rather it was problem relating to Cornea. The perusal of the OPD card/follow-up shows that the Complainant has missed some follow-ups at the Opposite Party Hospital. The Complainant did not lead any evidence to show that there was medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.   
9. Order announced on 04.04.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President