Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/227/2015

C.Jothi, S/o.Mr.Chinnappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, E.S.I Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

A.Q.Choudhury

03 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   13.05.2015

                                                                        Date of Order :   03.10.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.227/2015

TUESDAY THIS  3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

C.Jothi,

S/o. Mr. Chinnappan,

No.284, Muthu Nagar Extn.,

Melamenammedu,

Vellavedu,

Chennai 600 124.                                         .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.  The Director,

E.S.I. Corporation,

No.143, Streling Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 034.

 

2. Dr.D.Rajakannan, M.s.(OPHL),

Eye Specialist,

Ophthalmic O.P.,

E.S.I.C. Hospital,

K.K.Nagar,

Chennai 600 078.

 

3. Medical Deputy Superintendent,

E.S.I. Corporation,

K.K.Nagar,

Ashok Pillar Road,

Chennai 600 078.                                    .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant            :   M/s. A.Q.Choudhury & another       

Counsel for opposite parties       :   M/s. K.C.Ramalingam & another  

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards eye operation charges and another sum of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of employment, andcompensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that he is a member of ESI Corporation having I.D. card No.5114508048.   During the month of December 2013 when the complainant was suffering from his right eye, he consulted the 2^nd opposite party on 20.12.2013.   The 2^nd opposite party told that the complainant  has cataract problem and it should be operated.  On 4.1.2014 the complainant was admitted in E.S.I. Hospital, K.K. Nagar, Chennai and due operation was conducted on 6.1.2014.  The complainant also discharged from the hospital on 7.1.2014.  Further the complainant  state that he was administered Intra ocular lens  and prescribed drops, tablets etc.  Even after using the drops and taking the tablets the complainant’s right eye had high irritation, hitching, running water from the eye etc. caused severe pain and suffering.  Hence the complainant consulted and availed treatment from M/s. Sankara Eye Hospital, Pammal, Chennai  on 16.4.2014.  After given due intimation to the 1^st opposite party in Sankara Eye Hospital, Chennai  the complainant’s right eye was operated on 17.4.2014.  The complainant underwent vitrectomy and removal of the retained lens fragments on 17.4.2014;    Thereby the vision of the complainant has been improved to 6/24 N10 and all the pains and redness were relieved.   Thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint to the 1^st opposite party on 7.1.2015 for the negligence of 2^nd opposite party while carrying out the operation.   Even after enquiry there is no proper response.   Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice  to the 1^st opposite party dated 24.4.2015 for which the opposite parties sent a false reply.    As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite parties 1 to 3 are as follows:

      The opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party state that  the complainant undergone treatment from 20.12.2013 to 21.3.2014 on a reference of ESI Dispensary, Poonamallee with observation that “Referring a case of known HT (Hyper Tension) with cataract for further treatment”.    Further the opposite parties state that on 4.1.2014 the complainant’s right eye scanning was done and the power of IOL (Intra ocular lens) was calculated and administered Tablet Diamox, Inj T.T.O. 5CCIM, Xylocaine test including Tropicamide plus eye drops.  On 6.1.2014 the complainant eye was operated for cataract surgery and administered PC 10L (Posterior caphular intra ocular lens) under local anesthesia and prescribed Cap Amozycillion (3 times a day) 2) Tab Para (2 times) and Tab. Rantac (2 times) for five days and the complainant was discharged on 7.1.2014 after examination and instructed to follow the post operative treatment.   During the post operative check up the complainant right eye was diagnosed   psedophakia (normal) with further advice of eye drops to continue and rest from 4.2.2014 to 26.2.2014 as he had regular normal post operative vision in the right eye, the vision being 6/9.   But the complainant felt severe irritation,  hitching, running water from the eye etc.   The opposite parties also state  that due to the poor cooperation of the complainant for the post operative check up and the complainant was not willing to continue the treatment the opposite parties helpless. 

3.             Further the opposite parties state that on 17.4.2015  the complainant was operated in a Private Hospital, for vitrectomy; for autologus inflammation (transfer from patient own body) and removal of retained lens is under due to Autologus inflammation.   Further the opposite parties state that the complainant was  a Local sepsis and Diabetes Melitus Type-II.     Further the opposite parties state  that all the treatment given to the complainant are by the expert doctors.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A49 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3  marked on the side of the opposite parties.

  

5.   The points for the consideration is:  

1) Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards eye operation charges and another sum of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses as prayed for?

 

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards financial suffering and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation as prayed for ?

 

3) Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of employment and another sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. towards feature medical expenses with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for ?

 

6.  POINTS  1 to 3:

        Admittedly the complainant is a member of ESI Corporation having I.D. card No.5114508048.   During the month of December 2013 when the complainant was suffering from his right eye problem, he consulted  the 2^nd opposite party on 20.12.2013.  The 2^nd opposite party told that the complainant has cataract problem and it should be operated.  On 4.1.2014 the complainant was admitted in E.S.I. Hospital, K.K. Nagar, Chennai and due operation was conducted on 6.1.2014.  The complainant also discharged from the hospital on 7.1.2014.  The complainant was administered Intra ocular lens  and prescribed drops, tablets etc.  Even after using the drops and consuming the tablets the complainant’s right eye had high irritation, hitching, running water, etc. from the eye caused severe pain and suffering.  Hence the complainant repeatedly consulted the 2^nd opposite party;  but the 2^nd opposite party has not taken into consideration  of such severe pain.  Hence the complainant consulted and availed treatment from M/s. Sankara Eye Hospital, Pammal, Chennai  on 16.4.2014.   After giving due intimation to the 1^st opposite party, in Sankara Eye Hospital, Chennai  the complainant right eye was operated on 17.4.2014.  The complainant underwent vitrectomy and removal of the retained lens fragments on 17.4.2014,  thereby the vision of the complainant has been improved to 6/24 N10 and all the pains and redness were relieved.   Thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint to the 1^st opposite party on 7.1.2015 for the negligence of 2^nd opposite party while carrying out the operation.   Even after enquiry there is no proper response.   Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice  to the 1^st opposite party dated 24.4.2015 for which the opposite parties sent a false reply.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost of the operation and another sum of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and nutrition.  But the complainant filed only Ex.A33 receipt issued by M/s. Sankara Eye Hospital, Chennai  for a sum of Rs.26,000/- and another document Ex.A17 to Ex.A32 and Ex.A34 to Ex.A37 for a sum of Rs.4878/- towards consultation fees and medicines including nutrition.     Further the complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards financial suffering and compensation.  But the complainant has not proved the claim in such logical manner.   The complainant also claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of employment for 7 month and a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. towards feature medical expenses has not been proved by way of document and evidence.  

7.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the complainant undergone treatment from 20.12.2013 to 21.3.2014 on a reference of ESI Dispensary, Poonamallee with the observation that “Referring a case of known HT (Hyper Tension) with cataract for further treatment”.  But the opposite party has not produced any such reference letter except Ex.B1 letter from the Medical Superintendent,  Government Eye Hospital, Emgore in which it is requested to depute a senior consultant  between 13^th April 2015 to 24^th April 2015 for expert opinion.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that on 4.1.2014 the complainant right eye scanning was done and the power of IOL (Intra ocular lens) was calculated and administered Tablet Diamox, Inj T.T.O. 5CCIM, Xylocaine test including Tropicamide plus eye drops.    On 6.1.2014 the complainant’s  eye was operated for cataract and administered PC 10L (Posterior caphular intra ocular lens) under local anesthesia and prescribed Cap Amozycillion (3 times a day) 2) Tab Para (2 times) and Tab. Rantac (2 times) for five days and the complainant was discharged on 7.1.2014 after examination and instructed to follow the post operative treatment.   During the post operative check up the complainant’s right eye was diagnosed   psedophakia (normal) with further advice of eye drops to continue and rest from 4.2.2014 to 26.2.2014 as he had regular normal post operative vision in the right eye, the vision being 6/9.    But the complainant felt severe irritation,  hitching, running water from the eye etc.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that due to the poor cooperation of the complainant for the post operative check up and the complainant was not willing to continue the treatment the opposite parties are helpless.   But it is apparent that there is no fast improvement during the post operation period.  Further the contention of the opposite parties that on 17.4.2015  the complainant was operated in a Private Hospital, for vitrectomy; for autologus inflammation (transfer from patient own body) and removal of retained lens is under due to Autologus inflammation.    But it is apparently clear from the records that such Autologus inflammation  has  not been diagnosed by the opposite paries till the operation for vitrectomy on 17.4.3014 proves the deficiency of service of the opposite parties.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant was  a Local sepsis and Diabetes Melitus Type-II but there is no proper record.    Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that all the treatment given to the complainant are by the expert doctors.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the claim of the complainant is baseless and imaginary and exorbitant.   The  complainant has not proved basis for such huge claim.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.31778/- towards medical expenses, doctors fees, operation expenditure etc.  and also shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-  towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly. 

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.31778/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight only) towards medical expenses, doctors fees, operation expenditure etc.and also shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.         

            Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 3^rd day  of  October  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 20.12.2011         - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A2- 23.1.2014  - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A3- 6.1.2014    - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A4- 17.1.2014  - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A5- 31.1.2014  - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A6- 4.2.2014    - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A7- 17.2.2014  - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A8- 25.2.2014  - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A9- 28.2.2014  - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A10-4.2.2014   - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A11- 21.3.2014         - Copy of O.P. Chit.

Ex.A12- 1.4.2014  - Copy of prescription issued by Sankara Eye Hospital.

Ex.A13- 18.4.2014         - Copy of prescription issued by Sankara Eye Hospital.

Ex.A14- 17.6.2014         - Copy of prescription issued by Sankara Eye Hospital.

Ex.A15- 23.8.2014         - Copy of prescription issued by Sankara Eye Hospital.

Ex.A16- 9.10.2014         - Copy of prescription issued by Sankara Eye Hospital.

Ex.A17- 1.4.2014  - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital.

Ex.A18- 18.4.2014         - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A19- 18.4.2014         - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A20- 8.5.2014  - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A21- 27.5.2014         - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A22- 17.6.2014         - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A23- 1.7.2014  - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A24- 25.7.2014         - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A25- 23.8.2014         - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A26- 9.10.2014 - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A27- 8.11.2014 - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A28- 8.11.2014         - Copy of Manual bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A29- 1.4.2014  - Copy of printed bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital.

Ex.A30- 5.4.2014 - Copy of printed bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A31- 5.4.2014  - Copy of printed bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A32- 7.4.2014  - Copy of printed bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A33- 17.4.2014         - Copy of printed bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A34- 22.7.2014         - Copy of printed bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A35- 9.10.2014         - Copy of printed bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A36- 9.10.2014         - Copy of printed bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A37- 29.11.2014- Copy of printed bill issued by Sankara Eye Hospital

Ex.A38- 15.4.2014         -  Copy of Blood report done by Sankara Eye Hospital.

Ex.A39- 18.4.2014         - Copy of  Discharge summary.

Ex.A40- 31.5.2014         - Copy of complainant’s representation to the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A41- 23.12.2014- Copy of certificate issued by Sankara Eye Hospital.

Ex.A42- 7.1.2015  -  Copy of complainant’s representation to the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A43- 2.2.2015  - Copy of complainant’s letter to the 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.A44- 4.2.2015  - Copy of 3^rd opposite party’s reply.

Ex.A45- 11.3.2015         - Copy of complainant’s another presentation.

Ex.A46- 27.4.2015         - Copy of complainant’s advocate notice.

Ex.A47- 27.4.2015         - Copy of registered receipts.

Ex.A48- 28.4.2015         - Copy of A.D.Card from 3^rd opp. party.

Ex.A49- 29.4.2015         - Copy of reply from 2^nd opp. party.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -     

Ex.B1- 2.4.2015    - Copy of letter of O.Ps. to Medical Superintendent,

                              Institute of Ophthalmology, Government Eye Hospital,

                              Egmore for expert opinion.

 

Ex.B2- 24.4.2015  - Copy of opinion of the expert.

 

Ex.B3-         -       - Copy of relevant portion of Medical Dictionary by Churchill

                               Livingstone explaining Autologus inflammation.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.