BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No: 138 of 2008
Date of Institution: 08.10.2008
Date of Service: 05.11.2008
Date of Decision: 09.03.2009
Nachhatar Singh (aged 60 years) son of Surjit Singh, resident of village: Bhinder Kalan, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.
Complainant
Versus

Shree Guru Ram Dass Ji, Charitable Eye Hospital (Regd.) Amritsar Road, Moga through Dr.Harwinder Singh son of Nirmal Singh, resident of village & Post Office: Mirjeke Dialpura, Tehsil: Phool, Distt.Bhatinda.

Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh.D.S.Sandhu, Adv.counsel for the complainant.
Sh.K.S.Gill, Adv.counsel for the OP.

Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla,President
Smt.Bhupinder Kaur,Member
Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member

(J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)
Sh.Nachhatar Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in after referred to as ‘Act’) against Shree Guru Ram Dass Ji, Charitable Eye Hospital (Regd.) Amritsar Road, Moga through Dr.Harwinder Singh son of Nirmal Singh, resident of village & Post Office: Mirjeke Dialpura, Tehsil: Phool, Distt.Bhatinda (herein-after referred to as ‘Charitable Hospital’)-opposite party directing them to pay compensation of Rs.3 lacs for causing mental tension and harassment beside Rs.50000/- as cost of litigation.


2. Briefly stated, on 16.7.2008, OP-Charitable Hospital held ‘free eye camp’ at village Bhinder Kalan, Distt.Moga from where so many persons got their eyes checked up and out of which, OP-Charitable Hospital had advised 11 persons to insert lens in their eyes and charged Rs.1150/- per person. The complainant has also deposited Rs.1150/- for inserting the lens in his eyes with OP-Charitable Hospital. The OP-Charitable Hospital operated upon his right eye on the same day at 7.30 PM. That due to negligence, carelessness and in competency of the OP-Charitable Hospital, the operation of the eye of the complainant did not prove successful. His eyes started giving problem and also his vision started decreasing. That on 26.7.2008, he got admitted himself in Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Ram Nagar, Banur, Distt.Patiala and was discharged on 27.7.2008. Thereafter, he got treatment from Facco and Retina Centre, 5M-19, Jawahar Nagar, Aggarsain Nagar Chowk, Shree Ganganagar, but his eyes could not be treated properly. When his condition started deteriorating, he got checked up his eye from Dr.Sushil Eye and Maternity Hospital, Moga on 6.8.2008, who advised him to go P.G.I. Chandigarh. That on 7.8.2008, the complainant got himself admitted in P.G.I.Chandigarh where on 18.8.2008 the treating doctors told that his vision has totally lost and his eye ball has to be removed. Thereafter, the complainant got his eye checked from Dr.Daljit Singh at Amritsar who also gave him the same advice. At last, cursing his fate, on 22.8.2008 he got himself admitted in Civil Hospital, Moga where his eye was removed and he was relieved on 28.8.2008. That the aforesaid acts and conduct of the OP-Charitable Hospital has caused great harassment, mental tension and agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.3 lac as compensation beside Rs.50000/- as costs of litigation.


3. Notice of the complaint was given to OP-Charitable Hospital who appeared through Sh.K.S.Gill, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. It was averred that neither Harwinder Singh was a doctor nor the owner of OP-Charitable Hospital. It was further averred that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the OP-Charitable Hospital because the OP-Charitable Hospital held ‘free eye camp’ and they did not receive any fee from the patients/ complainant and thus, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the definition of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. On merits, it was admitted that on 16.7.2008, the OP-Charitable Hospital held ‘free eye camp’ at village: Bhinder Kalan, Distt.Moga and checked the eyes of the patients. Moreover, the Trust has held the ‘free eye camp’ without receiving any fee. It was averred that the operation of the eye of complainant was conducted by Eye Specialists i.e. Dr.Mohammad Amjad Khan and Dr.Khurshid Ahmad. Moreover, if any loss occurred to the complainant that was not due to the carelessness and deficiency on the part of the treating doctors, but the same might be due to his own carelessness. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.


4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of prescription Ex.A2, copy of discharge chart Ex.A3, copies of prescription Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, copy of prescription Ex.A7, copy of discharge certificate Ex.A8 and closed his evidence.


5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP-Charitable Hospital tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Harwinder Singh and closed their evidence.


6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.D.S.Sandhu ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.K.S.Gill ld. counsel for the OP-Charitable Hospital and have also carefully perused the evidence on the file.


7. Sh.K.S.Gill, ld.counsel for the OP-Charitable Hospital has mainly argued that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act because the OP-Charitable Hospital has not charged a single penny from him, so the present complaint is not maintainable. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OP-Charitable Hospital has full force. In the instant case, the complainant has failed to produce any receipt or document regarding the alleged payment of Rs.1150/-, made by him to the OP-Charitable Hospital for the operation of his eyes. Had the OP-Charitable Hospital charged Rs.1150/- from the complainant, then no explanation is forthcoming as to why he did not get the receipt from them. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the complainant has contended that when the condition of the eye of complainant became deteriorated, the OP-Charitable Hospital took him to different hospitals to get the expert advice and during that process, they had taken back the receipt from him. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant can not be believed because no secondary evidence or other document has been produced to prove the same. Thus, in the absence of any payment made by the complainant for conducting his eye operation, it can not be said that he had hired the services of the OP-Charitable Hospital for consideration. Hence, his case does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’ contained in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. 8. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a ‘consumer’ of the OP-Charitable Hospital and thus, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.


9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.

(Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)
Member Member President

Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:09.03.2009.