ABDUL GAFFAR Vs. DINESH SHARMA
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is complainant's appeal against the order dated 11.07.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, dismissing consumer complaint No. 155 of 2002 filed for award of compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/ - and refund of sum of Rs. 5,000/ - paid to the opposite party No. 1 with interest towards the medical services rendered by him and which allegedly on account of medical negligence, did not restore vision in the left eye of the complainant.
(2.) COMPLAINANT has averred in his complaint that he was suffering from cataract in both eyes and got operated his right eye by Dr. Daljeet Singh of Amritsar earlier; that he consulted opposite party No. 1 Dr. Dinesh Sharma at his Amritsar Eye Clinic and then guaranteed that his left eye will get vision after operation; that sum of Rs. 5,000/ - for the operation and cost of the lens was paid; that on 25.04.1998, operation was conducted and lens was implanted by opposite party No. 1 and that despite taking prescribed medicines, the complainant got no vision in his left eye. Complainant alleged that the opposite party No. 1 knew very well that there was no vision in the left eye of the complainant, but still operated the same and fixed lens to make money only and that way, has put the complainant to physical hardship and financial loss, which entitled him to claim compensation and refund of the amount paid.
(3.) THE opposite party No. 1 contested the complaint and denied the allegations of the complainant. It was averred in the written statement that the complainant suffered from age related Macular Degeneration of Retina and partial Optic Atrophy. Thus, whatever vision was hampered by cataract, could only be recovered after operation with the help of lens implanted. In the present case, after cataract surgery, peripheral vision was restored. Thus, the operation was successful in restoring peripheral vision. The operation resulted in restoring peripheral vision and that the lens in the left eye of the complainant was essential to be implanted for the following reasons: (a) The right operated eye of the complainant had already lens implanted at Amritsar by Dr. Daljeet Singh. Hence, in order to prevent double vision and to maintain balance with the right eye, implantation of intraocular lens in the left eye was imperative in the opinion of the opposite party (b) To help gain peripheral vision, intraocular lens is very essential, as without it, there could be no peripheral vision also.
The legal plea of limitation was also taken by the opposite party No. 1.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.