<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 05th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2317/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt.Venkatamma,W/o Rama Shetty,No.105/2, Muniyappa Compound,Madhanayakanahalli,Tumkur Road, Dasanapura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk,Bangalore Rural District.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Hon’ble Secretary,Manav Charitable Trust,Jindal Nagar, Tumkur Road,Bangalore – 560 073.Advocate – Sri.S.V.Bhat<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant had some vision problem due to cataract in her right eye. In that context on 19.09.2007 she approached OP charitable hospital for the removal of the cataract. OP admitted her as out patient and conducted some tests and given treatment. OP assured her that they will remove only cataract with some minor operation. She believed and under went the said operation. But thereafter also she could not get the relief, she was discharged. Then she was asked to go to Minto Hospital for further treatment. When she went to Minto hospital the concerned doctor after removal of the bandage put on her right eye by the OP intimated her that the right side eye-ball is removed by the OP. She was shocked to hear the same. For no fault of her, she lost her right eye. It is all because of the carelessness and negligence of the OP. Hence she felt deficiency in service. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it is a renowned Charitable Institution established for the purpose of helping the poor and disabled mankind. Complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within her knowledge. The allegation of the complainant that her right eye- ball is removed by the OP is false. The document produced by the complainant herself shows that the said eye-ball is removed due to infection by the Minto hospital that too on 22.09.2008 and not on 19.09.2007 as alleged by the complainant. The other allegations are all false and frivolous. Neither OP is negligent nor there is any deficiency in service. Under such circumstances they are not obliged to pay the compensation as prayed. No fault lies with the OP. OP has offered the free treatment as contemplated. Complainant has not availed the services of the OP for consideration. She can’t claim herself as a ‘consumer’. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is contended by the complainant that on 19.09.2007 she approached the OP for the removal of the cataract as she was experiencing some vision problem. According to her OP admitted her as out patient and conducted the cataract operation and discharged her. When she went back to home she experienced the severe pain. Thereafter on very next day she approached the OP again. OP after examining her directed her to go to Minto hospital for further treatment. When she went to Minto Hospital and contacted the concerned doctor the doctor who examined her after removal of the bandage put to the right eye told her that her right eye-ball is removed. She was shocked. Thus she felt deficiency in service and carelessness on the part of OP.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that complainant has not availed the services for consideration as contemplated. OP is a renowned Charitable Institution established for the purpose of helping the poor and disabled. We find force in the contention of the OP that the service as contemplated is not availed. It is a free service. In addition to that the records produced by the OP clearly goes to show that the complainant visited the OP hospital on 06.08.2008 with the complaint of defective vision in the right eye and not on 19.09.2007. She was properly treated and advised. Again she came back on 16.09.2008 she was treated and discharged. A proper medical advise was given to her to keep the bandage in tact and follow the precautions in keeping the wound free from dust, exposing at least for 4-5 days from the date of cataract operation. It appears complainant has not followed the said instructions. Again on 17.09.2008 she appeared, she was examined and the proper treatment was given.<br /> <br /> 8. According to OP they noticed some kind of infection due to unhygienic condition and carelessness on the part of complainant in keeping said wound open exposing to the air and light. Hence asked her to go to Minto hospital and consult Vitoro-rectinal surgeon. At no point of time they removed right eye-ball as alleged. In spite of the proper guidance given by the OP, complainant is hesitant. It appears on 18.09.2008 she was admitted in Minto hospital, some treatment was given. Then on 22.09.2008 right eye-ball was removed by conducting operation under local Anastasia to prevent the infection being spreaded to the left eye, brain etc. The documents like discharge summary issued by the Minto hospital accompanied with identity card speaks to the said fact.<br /> <br /> 9. So the documents produced by the complainant herself goes to show that her right eye-ball was removed at Minto Hospital on 22.09.2008. But unfortunately complainant has not made the said surgeon or the Minto hospital as a party in this complaint. Though complainant is aware of certain material facts which are well within her knowledge, but she has not pleaded the same. She has suppressed the fact of approaching the OP for treatment on 06.08.2008, 16.09.2008, 17.09.2008 to the reasons best known to her and she has also suppressed the fact that she being admitted in Minto hospital on 18.09.2008 and having undergone the operation on 22.09.2008. The documents and the records produced by the OP speaks to all the above said facts. Under such circumstances approach of the complainant does not appears to be fair and honest.<br /> <br /> 10. It is said he who seeks equity must do equity must come with clean hands. But here the approach of the complainant is other wise. Men may lie but not the documents. The contents of the documents are not at dispute. The Minto hospital discharge cum identity card speaks to the fact of removal of right eye-ball on 22.09.2008. So the allegation of the complainant that on 19.09.2007 OP removed eye-ball at their hospital on face of it appears to be false. When that is so, OP is not liable to pay any compensation. There is no proof of either carelessness, negligence, much less deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 05th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br />