Complaint No. 667/17.9.2008.

Date of order 4.12.2009.



1. Devi Icha wife of Sh. Surinder Kumar &



2. Surinder Kumar son of Sh. Vas Dev Both resident of Ward No.4, Mohalla Suneiara, Purana Bazaar, Sahnewal, Ludhiana.
(Complainants)
Vs.

1. Aarti Hospital Laser Eye Centre-57-E, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana through authorised signatory.
2. Dr. Pawan Bansal C/o Aarti Hospital Laser Eye Centre, 57-E, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana.
3. Dr. Indu Bansal C/o Aarti Hospital Laser Eye Centre, 57-E, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana
4. United India Insurance Co. ltd. 19 G.T. Road, Jalandhar, through its authorised signatory.

(Opposite parties)
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.

Present:

Sh. M.S. Sethi Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. A.K. Jindal Advocate for OP No.1 to 3.

Sh. D.R. Rampal Advocate for OP No.4 .

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Alleging negligence by opposite parties, complainants claimed in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

2. Their case is that in March 2008 opposite parties no.2 & 3 working in the hospital of opposite party no.1 were consulted for testing eyes of complainant no.1. They recommenced operation of left eye and putting lens in her right eye, for which charged Rs.13,000/-. Left eye was operated on 11.3.2008 and subsequently injury in left eye was found. Said injury resulted due to negligence in conducting surgery of her left eye. They failed to remove the injury. Hence, in August 2008, got treatment from PGI, Chandigarh, who diagnosed the same as fungal corneal ulcer and ultimately on 29.8.2008 gave certificate of loosing sight of left eye. This injury causing loss of sight in left eye occurred due to negligence of opposite parties no.2 & 3 while operating her eye.

3. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 in joint reply have denied operating left eye of the complainant and stated that she has no cause of action. Complaint is filed due to greed only. Rather on 14.3.2008 complainant got her eyes tested and she paid Rs.12,000/- for fitting lens in her right eye. No operation was conducted nor any injury to her left eye was caused. Medicines were only prescribed after putting lens to her right eye. Hence, complainant not entitled for any compensation.

4. Opposite party no.4 by way of separate reply claimed that complaint is false, frivolous, bad for non joinder and misjoinder and there is no deficiency in service on their part. They have also controverted the allegations of the complainants.

5. In order to prove their respective contentions, parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

6. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

7. We may state that case of alleged medical negligence was referred to Medical Superintendent, Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, to constitute a Board of expert doctors to examine the medical record of the complainant. The said Medical Superintendent vide report dated 27.8.2009 reported that there was no wrong treatment of the patient, neither any negligence made out on the part of treating doctors. However, they pointed that in PGI, Chandigarh, fungal corneal ulcer of left eye was found unlikely to be caused by any injury 4-5 months back and that no injury of any kind was recorded in the record of PGI, Chandigarh.

8. In view of the aforesaid report, it is manifest that complainant has not been able to prove her case. Even medical record of treatment of the complainant Ex.R.1 shows that no surgery of left eye was done in the hospital of the opposite party. Record qua treatment Ex.C.1 produced by the complainant also does not show so.

9. In view of this, it is not made out that eye sight of left eye of the complainant no.1 was damaged on account of negligent treatment by OP doctors. Therefore, finding no merit in the complaint, same is dismissed leaving the parities to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.