Date : 23.10.2012.
Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This is appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2008 passed by District Forum, Jalna in C.C.No.20/08, whereby the said complaint has been dismissed.
2. The allegations made by the complainant in complaint in brief are that opponent No.1 to 3 are respectively Civil Surgeon,Resident Medical Officer and Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Jalna. Complainant was examined in the year 1998 and he was treated in Civil Hospital at Jalna for ashthama disease. Doctor gave him certificate stating that his disease of Asthama is incurable. Thereafter the said complainant felt severe pain in his back and he was also feeling pain while standing up and walking. On 23.7.2006 he had undergone examination called as MRI in Seth Nandlal Dhoot Hospital, Aurangabad. In that examination, it was found that intervertebral disc No. C4-C5, C5-C6 & C6-C7 had been badly affected and therefore they were causing pain to the complainant. Thereafter complainant approached to the Civil Hospital of Jalna in the month of July-August 2006. Opponent No.1 to 3 treated him from time to time after taking various test. Complainant brought to their notice the MRI report of Seth Nandlal Dhoot Hospital. He also gave information to them about his asthama disease and he requested them to issue disability certificate. They issued permanent disability certificate dated 16.8.2006 which was incorrect. There is no mention of Asthama disease in that certificate. There is also reference of only two vertebrae i.e. L3 –L4, L4-L5 in that certificate. There is no mention of remaining three affected vertebrae in that certificate as shown in the MRI report. Therefore on 31.8.2006 he visited to opponent No.1 to 3 and they said that they would make correction in that certificate. They took away said certificate dated 16.8.2003 and said that they would return the same after making due correction. But thereafter they refused to return that certificate or to make any correction therein. Therefore complainant served notice to them. Despite of receiving that notice they did not give him that certificate. Therefore the complainant claimed total compensation of Rs.55,000/- from both the opponents. He also prayed that direction be given to opponents to issue corrected disability certificate to him or to issue another disability certificate.
3. All the opponents filed common written version. They submitted that on examination of the complainant by Medical Board it was found that he was suffering from protrusion of intervertebral disc C4-C5, C5-6, C6-7, L3-4, L4-5 radiologically but clinically he was not having any physical disability due to this disease, as this is an age related change in the vertebrae. They further submitted that therefore complainant was given only 10% temporary disability certificate for the disease as per norms given by Chief Commissioner of Disabilities, Government of India. He was suffering from bronchial asthama but this is not criterion for being physically handicapped as per the government notification. Hence it is not mentioned on the certificate. His earlier disability has been cancelled by them so as to avoid it`s misuse as he was found not having any physical disability. They therefore submitted that complaint may be dismissed.
4. District Forum below after considering the evidence brought on record and hearing both the sides came to the conclusion that complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and that the Forum can not decide as to what is actual percentage of disability and it is power of Medical Officer to decide the same. It also observed that complainant cannot seek relief from District Forum for direction to the opponents to make correction in the certificate or to issue another certificate about disability. Therefore Dist.Forum dismissed the complaint
5. Original complainant filed present appeal and in person appeared before this Commission and submitted that appeal memo may be treated as his argument. None appeared for respondent for final hearing though duly served. We have also perused the papers placed before us by the appellant.
6. Main contentions raised in the appeal memo are that District Forum below has not properly considered the evidence and it has incorrectly construed the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and therefore impugned judgment and order may be set aside and complaint may be granted.
7. It is specific case of the respondent that change in the vertebrae of the complainant is an age related and this cannot be permanent disability for issuing permanent disability certificate to him. Complainant has shown his age as 66 years in the complaint. There is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid case of respondents when there is no contrary evidence to accept the case of complainant. In our view, District Forum below has rightly observed that the question that complainant has suffered from permanent disability due to change in his vertebrae cannot be gone into the said Forum, since it is for the concerned Medical Officer to decide the said question. Respondent however issued certificate showing 10% temporary disability but subsequently cancelled the same when it was found by them that complainant is not suffering from any such permanent disability. No direction can be given to the respondents by the Forum to issue any corrected certificate or new certificate when complainant is not suffering from any permanent disability. Clinically he is not having any physical disability change in aforesaid vertebrae of appellant is due to his old age. Therefore we do not find any reason to entertain with the impugned judgment and order. Appeal thus deserves to be dismissed.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Pronounced on 23.10.2012.
