IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986)



Date of Decision: 01.10.2007



Appeal No. A-985/2002

(Arising out of Order dated 09.07.2002 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum(Central), Maharana Pratap

Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Delhi in Case No. 189/01)





Mr. Om Prakash … Appellant

S/o Late Sh. Ganga Ram,

R/o Q/48, Andha Mugal,

Delhi-110007.





Versus





Dr. Vijay Sabharwal … Respondent

C/o Jeevan Diagnostic Centre, Through

67/1, New Rohtak Road, Mr. Naresh Gupta,

New Delhi-110005. Advocate



CORAM:



Justice J.D. Kapoor … President

Ms. Rumnita Mittal … Member





1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?













Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)



1. On the allegation that the respondent-doctor conducted operation of the left eye of the appellant which

was having better visibility without ensuring the blood sugar level which resulted in the loss of sight, the

appellant has been vide order dated 09.07.2002 passed by the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/-

towards the mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Feeling dissatisfied with the

amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The main contention of the appellant is that the respondent-doctor was negligent in not firstly checking

the retina at the pre-operative stage and performed the operation even though the same was not safe because of the

appellant being a high diabetic patient and if the respondent-doctor had taken all the precautions he would not

have lost the sight and the amount of compensation awarded is very less in view of the following difficulties faced

by him :







a) Pain and discomfiture.

b) Mental anguish, stress and tension.

c) Loss of vision.

d) Unnecessary physical exertion, inconvenience, botheration.

e) Deterioration of health.

f) Sufferings of other family members.

g) Sufferings of business affairs.

h) Social obligations sufferings.

i) Permanent damage/disablement of eye.

j) Monetary losses.

k) Special damages.

l) Implications that would arise in day to day life.



3. Since the District Forum has held the respondent-doctor guilty for deficiency in service and

negligent, we deem that the amount of compensation as to the loss was little lower. In our view the lump sum

compensation of Rs. 20,000/- which shall include the cost of litigation shall meet the ends of justice.









4. However, the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the hospital has not been made party

where the respondent was working can be taken care by holding the hospital also jointly and severally liable

and in execution proceedings hospital shall be allowed to contradict the claim of the appellant as to his being in

employment or otherwise connected with the said hospital. The contentions being raised by the counsel of the

respondent are contrary to the finding returned by the District Forum as to his negligence. If the respondent had

any grievance it should have filed the appeal against the finding of the impugned order.

5. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

6. Bank Guarantee/FDR if any, furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.













7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and

also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.

8. Announced on 1st day of October, 2007.









(Justice J.D. Kapoor)

President







(Rumnita Mittal)
Member













ysc