In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 246/2010. 1) R.N. Das, 174/C, Bhupen Roy Road, Manton – Behala, Kolkata-34, P.S. Behala. ----------Complainant ---Versus--- 1) Wockhardt Medical Centre, (Formerly) At present Fortis Hospital, 2/7, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Ballyganj. 2) ALCon, ALcon Laboratories Inc. Parekh Distributor, 100A, Kabi Sukanta Sarani, (Kole Biscuit Complex), Kolkata-85. 3) Dr. Nandini Ray, C/o. Wockhardt Medical Centre. At present Fortis Hospital, 2/7, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Ballyganj. ---------- Opposite Parties Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member. Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member Order No. 25 Dated 12-07-2013. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had to undergo cataract operation in his both eyes during the month of June / July, 08 at o.p. no.1 hospital under o.p. no.3 but problem still persists due to use of ReSTOE+4, Alcon make lens. The right eye of the complainant was operated on 25.6.08 and the left one was operated on 3.7.08 when as per advice of o.p. no.3 Alcon make ReSTORE+4 lens were used in presence of their representative at operation theatre. Complainant had to spend more than a lac of rupees for these operation. Vision / eye sight of the complainant was found perfect after the operation according to his doctor except numerous rings formation surrounding in light source. The more is the distance of light, bigger is the outer ring’s diameter as well as number of rings are more. This was reported to o.p. no.3 from the very beginning and she examined number of times and was confident that his vision would be normalized within six months. Afterwards, when the problem was persisting, o.p. no.3 prescribed spectacles with minor power, even though for usage of ReSTOR+4 lens it does not require any use of spectacle. Till then complainant is using spectacle as per advice of o.p. no.3 but all in vain and problem still persists. Earlier to complainant’s eye operation, he was all along using Photo Chromatic Multifocal Progressive Lens and had no problem at all, even in Riffle Shooting Range for target shooting. Hence, complainant came to the conclusion that usage of ReSTOR+4 lens was not a fulproof product as it is forming multiple rings on any light source, specially, at night. As a result, complainant’s night driving has become impossible when two head lights of approaching car from opposite direction form numerous rings, to the extent of 4/5 meters in diameter (outer rings) on each head light that the whole high-way becomes completely blur. Complainant approached M/s Alcon USA, as well as Kolkata and also to o.p. no.1 for solution but they did not come out with any positive solution other than diverting the complainant to o.p. no.3 only. It appears to complainant that neither o.p. no.1 nor M/s Alcon are serious / concerned at all about patient’s suffering due to the use of their imperfect lens. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint. O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same 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 the right eye of the complainant was operated on 25.6.08 and the left one was operated on 3.7.08 at o.p. no.1 hospital when as per advice of o.p. no.3 and o.p. no.2 Alcon make ReSTORE+4 lens were used in presence of their representative at operation theatre. Complainant had to spend more than a lac of rupees for these operations, but problem still persists due to use of ReSTORE+4, Alcon make lens. We also find that earlier to complainant’s eye operation, he was all along using Photo Chromatic Multifocal Progressive Lens and had no problem at all, even in Riffle Shooting Range for target shooting. It is seen from the record that vision / eye sight of the complainant was found perfect after the operation according to his doctor except numerous rings formation surrounding in light source. The more is the distance of light, bigger is the outer ring’s diameter as well as number of rings are more. This was reported to o.p. no.3 from the very beginning and she examined number of times and was confident that his vision would be normalized within six months. Afterwards, when the problem was persisting, o.p. no.3 prescribed spectacles with minor power, even though for usage of ReSTOR+4 lens it does not require any use of spectacle. Till then complainant is using spectacle as per advice of o.p. no.3 but all in vain and problem still persists. It transpires from the record that usage of ReSTOR+4 lens was not a fulproof product as it is forming multiple rings on any light source, specially, at night. As a result, complainant’s night driving has become impossible when two head lights of approaching car from opposite direction form numerous rings, to the extent of 4/5 meters in diameter (outer rings) on each head light that the whole high-way becomes completely blur. In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we hold that o.p. no.2 has sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant since o.p. no.2 has never disclosed the merits and demerits of lens to be implanted to the patient before operation as it is evident from record, on the other hand o.p. no.2 has filed a copy of the brochure annexed with their w/v where it is clearly stated that the merits and demerits of the lens. We are of the views that if any prudent person understands such type of demerits of the lens obviously he cannot allow to implant such lens. O.p. no.2 annexed the brochure along with the w/v stating the details of the merits and demerits of the lens is nothing but to exhibit their good gesture which may be treated as an afterthought. As such, the complainant is entitled to relief. Hence, ordered, That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.2 and without cost against o.p. nos.1 and 3. O.p. no.2 is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) only towards the expenses incurred for operation and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. 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.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 246/2010. 1) R.N. Das, 174/C, Bhupen Roy Road, Manton – Behala, Kolkata-34, P.S. Behala. ----------Complainant ---Versus--- 1) Wockhardt Medical Centre, (Formerly) At present FortisHospital, 2/7, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Ballyganj. 2) ALCon, ALcon Laboratories Inc. Parekh Distributor, 100A, Kabi Sukanta Sarani, (Kole Biscuit Complex), Kolkata-85. 3) Dr. Nandini Ray, C/o. Wockhardt Medical Centre. At present FortisHospital, 2/7, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Ballyganj. ---------- Opposite Parties Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member. Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member Order No. 25 Dated 12-07-2013. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had to undergo cataract operation in his both eyes during the month of June / July, 08 at o.p. no.1 hospital under o.p. no.3 but problem still persists due to use of ReSTOE+4, Alcon make lens. The right eye of the complainant was operated on 25.6.08 and the left one was operated on 3.7.08 when as per advice of o.p. no.3 Alcon make ReSTORE+4 lens were used in presence of their representative at operation theatre. Complainant had to spend more than a lac of rupees for these operation. Vision / eye sight of the complainant was found perfect after the operation according to his doctor except numerous rings formation surrounding in light source. The more is the distance of light, bigger is the outer ring’s diameter as well as number of rings are more. This was reported to o.p. no.3 from the very beginning and she examined number of times and was confident that his vision would be normalized within six months. Afterwards, when the problem was persisting, o.p. no.3 prescribed spectacles with minor power, even though for usage of ReSTOR+4 lens it does not require any use of spectacle. Till then complainant is using spectacle as per advice of o.p. no.3 but all in vain and problem still persists. Earlier to complainant’s eye operation, he was all along using Photo Chromatic Multifocal Progressive Lens and had no problem at all, even in RiffleShootingRange for target shooting. Hence, complainant came to the conclusion that usage of ReSTOR+4 lens was not a fulproof product as it is forming multiple rings on any light source, specially, at night. As a result, complainant’s night driving has become impossible when two head lights of approaching car from opposite direction form numerous rings, to the extent of 4/5 meters in diameter (outer rings) on each head light that the whole high-way becomes completely blur. Complainant approached M/s Alcon USA, as well as Kolkata and also to o.p. no.1 for solution but they did not come out with any positive solution other than diverting the complainant to o.p. no.3 only. It appears to complainant that neither o.p. no.1 nor M/s Alcon are serious / concerned at all about patient’s suffering due to the use of their imperfect lens. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint. O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same 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 the right eye of the complainant was operated on 25.6.08 and the left one was operated on 3.7.08 at o.p. no.1 hospital when as per advice of o.p. no.3 and o.p. no.2 Alcon make ReSTORE+4 lens were used in presence of their representative at operation theatre. Complainant had to spend more than a lac of rupees for these operations, but problem still persists due to use of ReSTORE+4, Alcon make lens. We also find that earlier to complainant’s eye operation, he was all along using Photo Chromatic Multifocal Progressive Lens and had no problem at all, even in RiffleShootingRange for target shooting. It is seen from the record that vision / eye sight of the complainant was found perfect after the operation according to his doctor except numerous rings formation surrounding in light source. The more is the distance of light, bigger is the outer ring’s diameter as well as number of rings are more. This was reported to o.p. no.3 from the very beginning and she examined number of times and was confident that his vision would be normalized within six months. Afterwards, when the problem was persisting, o.p. no.3 prescribed spectacles with minor power, even though for usage of ReSTOR+4 lens it does not require any use of spectacle. Till then complainant is using spectacle as per advice of o.p. no.3 but all in vain and problem still persists. It transpires from the record that usage of ReSTOR+4 lens was not a fulproof product as it is forming multiple rings on any light source, specially, at night. As a result, complainant’s night driving has become impossible when two head lights of approaching car from opposite direction form numerous rings, to the extent of 4/5 meters in diameter (outer rings) on each head light that the whole high-way becomes completely blur. In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we hold that o.p. no.2 has sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant since o.p. no.2 has never disclosed the merits and demerits of lens to be implanted to the patient before operation as it is evident from record, on the other hand o.p. no.2 has filed a copy of the brochure annexed with their w/v where it is clearly stated that the merits and demerits of the lens. We are of the views that if any prudent person understands such type of demerits of the lens obviously he cannot allow to implant such lens. O.p. no.2 annexed the brochure along with the w/v stating the details of the merits and demerits of the lens is nothing but to exhibit their good gesture which may be treated as an afterthought. As such, the complainant is entitled to relief. Hence, ordered, That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.2 and without cost against o.p. nos.1 and 3. O.p. no.2 is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) only towards the expenses incurred for operation and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. 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. | 
