In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.391/2005

1)                   Dr. Dulal Chandra Bag,

“Ushalaya”, Village- Chotta Bahera,

P.O.  Bara Bahera, Via Nabagram, P.S. Uttarpara,

Dist- Hooghly, Pin-712246                                                                    ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Silver Line Eye Hospital,

396, Prince Anwar Shah Road,

P.S. Lake,   Kolkata-45.

2)                   Dr. Sandip Mitra                                           

C/o.  Silver Line Eye Hospital,

396, Prince Anwar Shah Road,

P.S. Lake,   Kolkata-45.                                                               ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.   51    Dated  21/09/2012.

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Dr. Dulal Chandra Bag against the o.ps. Silver Line Eye Hospital and Dr. Sandip Mitra. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant holds Hospitalization and Domiciliary Hospitalization Benefit Policy of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. under policy no.030600/48/04/02603 and the duration of the said policy was valid from 3.11.04 to 2.11.05 midnight and the same was supervised by third party arrangement viz. Medicare TPA Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. having their office at Flat no.10, Paul Mansion, 6, Bishop Lefroy Road, Kolkata. Further case of the complainant is that o.p. no.1 is a hospital specialist in eye care treatment and the said hospital is recognized by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and is an agent of the said TPA and the said insurance company has empanelled hospital where a policy holder may go for cashless treatment and complainant stated that o.p. no.2 is one of the doctors who treats at the said hospital.

            Further case of the complainant is that he has developed some eye trouble on 16.5.05 and went to o.p. no.1 for having his eye check up and for treatment where complainant was examined by o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 advised complainant to undergo operation in the left eye by a Phaco technology for his treatment of cataract in the left . On 27.5.05 o.p. no.2 advised complainant to get admitted to o.p. no.1 for the said operation. O.p. no.1 was informed a package cost of such operation would be Rs.16,500/- out of which complainant paid Rs.1500/- as advance and also paid the balance payment of Rs.1500/- subsequently. On 7.6.05 he got himself admitted to o.p. no.1 and on the same date o.p. no.2 operated complainants left eye by Phaco technology and IOL provided by o.p.no.1 and was  implanted therein and thereafter operated eye of complainant was bandaged and complainant was transferred to bed no.202 of o.p. no.1 hospital.

            Further case of the complainant is that on 8.6.05 o.p. no.2 examined the operated eye of complainant and apparently being satisfied released him from o.p. no.1 upon a discharge certificate dt.8.6.05 wherein complainant was advised to apply certain eye drop to take some medicines. No bandage or protection was provided to the operated eye and was not even advised to wear dark glasses during the day and an eye guard during the sleep. Complainant was further advised to attend o.p. no.1 for check up on 10.6.05. Accordingly, complainant went to o.p. no.1 on 10.6.05 for check up of his operated eye where o.p. no.2 prescribed some medicines and for readmission to o.p. no.1.

            Further case of the complainant is that on 10.6.05 o.p. no.2 did not disclose the nature of deterioration and/or complication that o.p. no.2 had apprehended in respect of the complainant’s left eye. On 11.6.05 while complainant admitted in o.p. no.1 hospital, o.p. no.2 examined complainant’s left eye and found some progress and the staff of o.p. no.2 advised that complainant be treated as an internal patient at o.p. no.l and then again on 12.6.05 complainant was the sole internal patient in the dormitory of o.p. no.2 and the nurse on night duty on that day came to complainant at about 10-00 p.m. to bandage his eye and then said nurse suddenly pumped some corrosive liquid on it and left hurriedly and thereafter, complainant cried out in pain and called out for assistance but none came to his help and complainant experienced severe discomfort overnight and on 13.6.05 o.p. no.2 took the complainant to lesser room in the morning for further examination and to remove bandage and complainant could not see anything to his left eye and o.p. no.2 expressed shock at the condition of the complainant’s eye and loudly wondered how the condition of the complainant’s eye deteriorate overnight and complainant informed o.p. no.2 of last night’s development and o.p. no.2 expressed his helplessness and shifted complainant back to bed and in the afternoon of 13.6.05 complainant was further operated by o.p. no.2 in his left eye and thereafter complainant was shifted to bed.

            Further case of the complainant is that on 14.6.05 o.p. no.2 examined complainant’s left eye and expressed his inability to restore vision and o.p. no.2 advised complainant to consult doctors at Rotary Sankar Narayana Netralaya at Saltlake. Complainant was accompanied by his cousin Sri A.N. Parui and decided immediately to move out from o.p. no.1 hospital and go to Rotary Sankar Narayana Netralaya at Saltlake and o.p. no.1 insisted complainant to clear all his dues in respect of his stay and treatment at o.p. no.1 hospital from 10.6.05 to 14.6.05 and cousin of complainant expressed to o.p. n o.1 that complainant was covered by mediclaim policy of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. under supervision of Medicare TPA and the amount was recoverable directly from insurance company and not from complainant but the personnel of o.p. no.1 insisted on for making full payment and having no alternative cousin of complainant undertook to pay the dues on the following day and finally at the intervention of management of o.p. no.1 cool down the situation and complainant was allowed to leave after assurance of payment and o.p. no.1 issued discharge certificate and from discharge certificate complainant came to know that his problems were diagnosed as “PSEUDOPHOBIA and Post Operative Endopihalmitis”. Thereafter, complainant was under treatment of Rotary Sankar Narayana Netralaya, CN-5 Sector-V,  Saltlake , Kolkata-95 who came to a finding interalia that there was no view in the left eye due to corneal haze and proceeded that the treatment accordingly.

            Further case of the complainant is that the loss of sight of left eye rendered the complainant incapable of performing his delay activities and duties as well as pursuing vacation and as a result he lost his mental peace and earning capacity. Hence the case of the complainant with the prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.

            Both o.p. nos.1 and 2 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v separately denying all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case on the plea that complainant has got no merit in his petition of complainant and complainant is not at all entitled to relief from the o.ps. ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the petition  of complaint filed by complainant without having any adequate fault or negligence on the part of o.ps. and the petition of complaint is a frivolous one and is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:-

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant has corroborated the petition of complaint by adducing evidence and filing documents. Evidence of o.p. no.1 goes to show (vide para 6) that “Eye drops are administered in the affected eye by the nursing staff as per direction of the treating doctor” and this piece of evidence amounts to certain amount of admission showing negligence on the part of o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 as well. From the materials on record we find that o.p. no.2 suggested complainant to consult Rotary Sankar Narayana Netralaya at Saltlake after expressing his inability to restore vision of the left eye of complainant and the discharge summary of Rotary Sankar Narayana Netralaya at Saltlake goes to show the impairment of left eye of complainant after operation by o.p. no.2. Having regards to the aforesaid situation we cannot keep apart the opinion of attending doctor of Rotary Sankar Narayana Netralaya at Saltlake  vide discharge certificate of the said doctor and we find that the said doctor is quite competent enough and we should not disbelieve his prognosis.

            That being the position and taking into consideration of the entire materials on record we hold that o.p. nos.1 and 2 have sufficient negligence on their part being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. nos.1 and 2. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only since this is an old case of 2005 within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.