Decided on September 30,2008

D.M. Anjaneyulu Respondents


- (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to set aside the dismissal order passed by the District Forum, Prakasam Dist. at Ongole in C.D. No. 192/2003 dated 20.12.2004. The appellant/complainant filed appeal seeking relief against respondent No. 1 only . The respondent No. 2 is only a formal party . No relief sought against the respondent No. 2
(2.) THE appellant herein is the complainant before the District Forum. She filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to direct the 1st opposite party to pay Rs. 2,25,000 for expenditure incurred by her with interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh and also to award costs.
(3.) THE case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant approached the 1st opposite party with eye problem on 25.3.2002 and the 1st opposite party issued O.P. No. K.555 receiving Rs. 100 and initially examined and informed that she is having cataract in right eye and she has to undergo for operation immediately. The 1st opp. party conducted the operation on 29.3.2002 and discharged on the following day after 24 hours and informed implantation of I.O.L. is made and issued a card to that effect and received Rs. 4,500 towards fees. . Within one week after operation the complainant developed itching and unknown inconvenience in her operated eye. The complainant went to the opposite party No. 1 and expressed her problem. The 1st opposite party told that it is a minor problem and on 5.5.2002 the 1st opposite party referred the complainant to go L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. i.e. 2nd opposite party. On the night of 5.5.2002 the complainant went to L.V.Prasad Eye Hospital , Hyderabad and got her eye tarter. The complainant went to opposite party No. 2 hospital on number of occasions for about 16 times As the operation conducted by the 1st opp.party was not successful the complainant was operated again on 14.5.2002 and on 13.9.2002 at 2nd opposite party hospital at Hyderabad. The 1st opp.party was negligent and inefficient in conducting operation her visual and acetime was confining finger at 2 mtr. in right eye. Examination of right eye rechecked that irregular deep anti chamber with operation chun of I.O.L noted . Due to the negligence of the 1st opp.party , even after three operations the complainant could not restore her visuals and on the other hand any object in her right eye beyond 1 feet she cannot see. Because of the failure of operation conducted by the 1st opposite party the complainant lost her vision barring becoming blind. The complainant got issued legal notice on 17.7.2003 to the 1st opp.party asking to pay the compensation for which the 1st opp.party gave reply personally on 24.7.2003 to the complainant's Counsel and also issued reply notice through his Counsel on 29.7.2003. The 2nd opposite party is added as proforma party to speak his receiving reference letter, conducting operation and their record. The complainant approached the District Forum to direct the 1st opp.party to pay Rs. 2,25,000 for expenditure with interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh and also to award costs. The 1st opp.party filed counter contending that the allegations made in the complaint are false. The opp.party No. 1 stated that on examination of the Fundus of both eyes the retinal degeneration is detected and with the consent of the complainant and her husband the opp.party conducted the cataract surgery with IOL implantation successfully on the left eye on 29.3.2001 and on account of retinal degeneration and weakness she was strictly advised to take complete rest without subjecting to strain and stress to her left eye . She was also asked to have regular weekly check up without fail. And thereafter she got the improved good vision of 6/9 in her left eye. Though the complainant was advised to undergo treatment for the cataract in her right eye, within 6 months after the surgery on the left eye , after thorough examination of her right eye and though she was explained the prognosis of her disease of senile cataract in her right eye with retinal degeneration, she neglected the said advice and did not approach the 1st opp.party till about an year. On 25.3.2002 the complainant came to the 1st opp.party to get her right eye examined and the 1st opp.party examined her right eye thoroughly and explained about the existing previous disease and its ongoing complications. After taking consent of the complainant and her husband the cataract surgery with IOL implantation was conducted successfully on 29.3.2002 . Before the operation her vision in her right eye is 5/60 and pinhole reading is 6/36 and her vision in the left eye is 6/9. At the time of the discharge her right eye was good with no complications. The complainant was advised to get re -examined every week regularly because of the pre -existing retinal degeneration. The complainant came to the hospital only on 11.4.2002 . The 1st opposite party had instructed her in the first visit and strictly advised to adhere to complete rest or else she was again appraise about the possible imminent complications due to retinal degeneration but she again neglected the said instructions and did not take them seriously. Since there are no proper facilities at the hospital of the 1st opp.party or in any other hospital at Ongole to tackle the said disease she was advised to go to the hospital which is having retinal surgical facilities at Hyderabad, Chennai, Madurai, etc. and the complainant opted for L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. The complaint is totally misconceived one and is intentionally filed to extract undue money from the 1st opposite party . The opposite party stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.