BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JUNE 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1470/2014

V/s

O R D E R

BY SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER

      This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2014 passed in CC.No.02/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolar and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.

2.     The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant was having problem in his left eye and took treatment as outpatient vide No.56810 on 25.10.2012 at OP Hospital.  As per the advice of the Doctor Complainant had undergone surgery on the same day.  Before the surgery, the OP without examining the complainant properly advised and assured the complainant that if contact lens is fixed to the left eye, there will be good vision and also assured that Rs.10,000/- valued lens will be given at discounted rate of Rs.4,000/-.  The complainant has paid the said amount on 25.10.2012 and obtained official Receipt No.7645 and he has undergone surgery on the same day.  Eye Surgeon informed the complainant to take one week rest.  During the rest period, there was water flow from the operated eye and there was heavy pain.  When the complainant could not open his eyes, he immediately rushed to OP Eye Surgeon, but Eye Surgeon lamely examined the complainant and told that there is no problem.  Afterwards, when the pain persisted in his eye, the complainant went to Poorna Eye Hospital at Chinthamani and requested the Eye Surgeon to rectify the problems in his eye.  Eye Surgeon on proper examining of his eyes informed the complainant that the lens used is very poor quality due to which heavy pain in the eye and also advised the complainant to have temporary medicines and good lens for improving the eye vision which costs Rs.15,000/-.  As per the advice of the Eye Surgeon of Poorna Eye Hospital, the complainant undergone for the surgery with good quality of lens.   The complainant felt better vision and hope to get complete vision in future.  For the negligent act of the OP, the Complainant got issued legal notice on 05.11.2012, but the OP has not replied the same.  Hence this complaint.

3.     After service of notice, the OP has appeared before this Forum and filed its version stating that OP Hospital is a non-profit organization namely “Globe Eye Foundation” by the fund raised through donations from the individuals, institutions, other NGO’s, government and paying patients. Complainant attended Eye Camp held by OP Hospital at General Hospital Chinthamani on 25.10.2012 with a complaint of dimness of vision in his left eye.  On examination, the Doctors advised him cataract surgery with Intraocular Lens (IOL) implantation to the left eye and as per the advice the complainant agreed to undergo cataract surgery.  To reduce the financial burden, the OP hospital has a policy of counseling the affording patients, who come in as Camp Patients (free) to go for paying section.  Under the paying section, different categories of packages for surgery were available for the patients to choose the package.  The package includes the Hospital stay, operation charges including IOL, O.T. charges.  The complainant chosen the lowest package called cost-paying package which includes all the facilities like the private ward and the surgery done by the senior consultant and IOL from Aurolab (Revision) which considered as the best lenses available in that category and as this IOL’s comes under Drug Control Policy of the country, no lens is allowed to be sold in the market which is injurious to the eye.  There was no complication before, during and after the surgery.   The complainant was discharged on 26.02.2012 with an advice of follow-up, but he did not come back for the follow-up.  Hence, there is no negligence on the part of OP.

4.     After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.  Respondent has submitted writ application.  Inspite of sufficient opportunities granted, appellant has not argued the matter.

6.     Perused the order sheet we noticed that as per the office note there was 262 days delay in filing the appeal before this commission and without condone the delay of 262 days, this Commission has issued notice to the Respondent.  Hence, before going to the merit we have to decide on the delay condonation application first.

7.     The appellant has filed application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay and sworn affidavit that he could not afford to come to Bangalore and engaged the services from Advocate to file the appeal and he was in distressed and lost considerable amount and prays to allow the application and condone the delay.  We have not satisfied the reasons sworn by the appellant in affidavit.  Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

8.     Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay only.  Hence, there is no necessity to discuss on merits.  Moreover, in spite of sufficient opportunities have been granted, the appellant has not appeared before this Commission and argue the matter and explain us how he is entitled for the compensation as prayed in the complaint.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-         

O R D E R

The Appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

MEMBER                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SP*