CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER Date of filing: 04/02/2017
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/30/2017
W/o Abdul Rauf,
Pakkath House,
Alanallur, Palakkad : Complainant
(By Advocate P.P.Thomas)
Vs
- Sathyan, : Opposite Parties
Eye star Opticals
Computerized Eye Testing Centre,
Hospital Junction, Alanallur.
-
- By Advocate Sharafudheen Musliyar)
O R D E R
By Shri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan , Member
Brief Facts of the Complainant.
On 01.12.2015 the complainant got her eye tested in “i VISION ” EYE CLINIC situated in A.H.S Complex, Kunthipuzha, Main Road, Mannarkkad. Doctor.Venugopal, M.B.B.S, Registration No.16862, had inspected her eye. As per the Doctor’s instruction, the complainant selected the frame. For the frame Rs.2,050/- and for Kodak lense Rs.3,590/- was charged. On the promise that spectacles would be given within a week, the complainant booked for spectacles paying an advance of Rs.2,500/-. After one week spectacles were purchased paying balance of Rs.3,140/-. When the spectacles were used, according to the complainant, clarity was less. In order to view the distant objects, the spectacles should be used above the nose and to view the near objects, spectacles should be lifted. When the complainant told the opposite party about this, the opposite party replied that, Progressive Lense was given to the complainant and within one month clarity would be obtained. Since after one month vision was not clear, the complainant again contacted the opposite party. Unbearable itching, swelling, Water coming from eye etc. were experienced by the complainant and when the complainant the opposite party authorities did not give a satisfactory reply to these, the complainant, on 09.01.2016 got her eye examined again at Al Salama Eye Hospital, Perinthalmanna. This Hospital authorities told the complainant that if lense was fitted in a small frame, vision would be clear.
When the complainant contacted opposite party with the prescription given by Al Salama Hospital, the opposite party gave a small frame in replacement. Even after replacement of the frame, vision was not clear. Again the complainant went to opposite party shop, when she was told that period expired and for a clear vision opposite party does not have any responsibilities, paid amount could not be refunded and her spectacles were taken back by the opposite party hospital authorities. Hence Complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony suffered by her and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses incurred by her.
The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to both parties.
In the version filed by the opposite party, he denies the statements mentioned in the complainant. According to him there is no basis and good faith for the complaint. The complaint does not legally sustained and is filed experimentally. That from the above shop the spectacles were purchased, there was poor clarity to view the distant objects, the spectacles should be placed on the nose to view the distant objects, they should be lifted to view the near objects were denied by the opposite party. Actually only after detailed examination, patients are prescribed spectacles and if there is any defect in them, patients used to show the same to the concerned Doctor. Such a complaint to the Doctor is not seen given by the complainant, in this case, according to the opposite party. That the complainant was given a progressive lense, that it will be clear within a month, that telling this, the complainant was sent back, that after the given period, since the vision was not clear the complainant again contacted the opposite party, that unbearable itching, swelling, red colour, water coming from eye occurred, were denied by the opposite party. That therefore complainant went Al Salama Hospital, Perintalmanna, got her eye tested there, then with the prescription of Al Salama Hospital, she went to opposite party who got back her spectacles and selected a small frame and in the small frame old lense was fitted and after that also vision was not clear are denied by the opposite party. That when again complainant went to opposite party shop she was told that period expired and opposite party has no responsibility for the poor vision of the complainant, paid amount cannot be given back, hospital employees took back the spectacles – these statements of the complainant are quite false. Actually the opposite party for the last twenty years was running an establishment, by name “Eye Star Hospitals” in Alanallur Hospital Junction; a complaint like this did not come against this establishment upto this date. Complainant and his family for a number of years used to consult this Doctor of this establishment and got their eye tested by him and spectacles were received. Many times complainant used to take the spectacles two or three time frame was changed. Spectacles were changed many times after using them for many weeks. Even then the complainant consumer was given maximum co-operation and according to her needs spectacles used to be changed. In the beginning of 2015 complainant purchased a pair of spectacles and telling that the frame was not satisfactory, the spectacles were changed three times and in the 4th time also spectacles were demand to be changed, but the opposite party expressed difficulty telling the complainant that old and used frames could not be sold. The above mentioned spectacles are with the complainant and to cause difficulties and miseries this complaint was filed and there is no basis for any compensation claimed in the complaint.
Hence the opposite party prays to the Hon’ble Forum to accept their contentions and dismiss the complaint with cost.
Complainant filed Chief Affidavit along with documents. Opposite party also filed affidavit. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked from the side of the complainant but no documents were marked from the part of the opposite party. Both parties were heared.
The following issues arise in this case.
- Whether there is any negligence and/or deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
- If so, what is the relief ?
Issues 1 & 2
The complainant got her eyes tested in “i VISION EYE CLINIC” A.H.S Complex, Kunthipuzha, Main Road, Mannarkkad by Dr. Venugopal on 01/12/2015 and issued admit card marked as Ext. A1 showing her name, age and op number. The Prescriptions for spectacles dated. 01.12.2015 was also given by Dr. Venugopal, marked as Ext.A2. Which shows M.R. No. , Patient’s name and age and also instructions for use of spectacles. The receipt No. 451 dated. 01.12.2015 issued by “i VISION EYE OPTICALS” Kunthipuzha, Mannarkkad showing the price of spectacles and advance given by the complainant and COCO’s eye wear were marked as Ext.A3 series. When the complainant reported to the opposite party of no clear vision using the spectacles, the complainant was given a reply by the opposite party that the lens was progressive and if used continuously for one month clarity could be obtained in the vision. Since her vision was unclear even after one month the complainant went to, “Al Salama Eye Hospital” at Perinthalmanna on 09.01.2016 and got her eyes examined there. The patient movement card and feedback form received from the above hospital was marked as Ext. A4 which shows various details of eye inspection. As per the instruction from the Doctor of the above hospital the complainant selected the small frame and even after using the new spectacles with small frame complainant could not get clear vision. When the opposite party was contacted no positive reply was given by them. Hence the complainant please that we full negligence and deficiency in service have occurred on the part of opposite party, thereby causing financial loss and mental agony to the complainant . For financial loss and mental agony a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses Rs. 10,000/- are prayed for with the Hon’ble Forum.
In version filed by the opposite party, opposite party contends that only after expert inspection by the Doctor, spectacle were prescribed to the patients and if there is any defect in the spectacles, patients should show the same to the concerned Doctor. In this case no such complaint was shown as given by the complainant to the Doctor. For the last twenty years opposite party has been running Eye Star Hospital in Alanallur and up to this dates no complaint like the above happened. Hence opposite party prays to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost to opposite party.
Form the evidences produced, we understand that the complainant has got her eyes examined by Dr. Venugopal in “i VISION EYE CLINIC” Kunthipuzha, Mannarkkad on 01/12/2015 and as per his prescription, she selected the frame of her spectacles prescribed by the Doctor from opposite party’s shop; but she failed to contact and consult Dr. Venugopal when her vision was not found to be clear even after using the spectacles prescribed by him. We also observe that the opposite party is seen to have exchanged complainant’s frames many times before this complaint has been failed. Even the small frame prescribed by the concerned Doctor of “Al Salama Eye Hospital” was allowed to be selected by the complainant from the shop of the opposite party. Hence, we observe that complainant has not been able to prove that negligence and deficiency of service have been committed by the opposite party in this case. In addition, we also view that Dr. Venugopal of “i VISION EYE CLINIC” and the concerned Doctor of “Al Salama Eye Hospital” Perinthalmanna who tested complainant’s eyes and prescribed small frame for her spectacles should have been made parties in array of opposite parties, by the complainant .
Under the above circumstances, the complaint is dismissed .
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of July 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Admit card issued by “I Vision Eye Clinic” dated. 01.12.2015
Ext.A2 – Prescription for Spectacles issued by Eye surgeon of “I Vision Eye Clinic” dated.
01.12.2015
Ext.A3 series- Receipt No. 451 dated. 01.12.2015 issued by “I Vision Opticals” Mannarkkad and
COCO’S EYEWEAR
Ext.A4 – Patient movement card and feed back form issued by Al Salama Eye Hospital ltd.
Perinthalmanna, dated. 09.01.2016
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Nil
