A S NAGPAL Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Ludhiana vide order dated February 14,1996 directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant-Krishan Lal within a period of three months of receipt of the order, failing which to pay interest on the aforesaid amount @ 18% per annum till payment. Hence the opposite parties-Dr. A. S. Nagpa and Nagpal Nursing Home are with appeal, challenging the aforesaid order. The complainant has filed Appeal No.73/96 claiming enhanced compensation. Both the appeals are for disposal. Krishan Lal-complainant approached Dr. A. S. Nagpal for treatment of his right eye on November 21,1993. He was operated upon on that day and discharged from the Nursing Home of the doctor on November 24,1993. According to the complainant even at the time of his discharge, he was suffering from heavy pain and flow of water from the right eye. He approached the doctor again on November 30,1993 and was admitted in the Nursing Home and finally discharged on December 2,1993. However, there was no improvement in the condition of the eye. On December 17, 1993, he contacted Dr. B. S. Chhabra of Mandi Gobindgarh, who advised the complainant to approach Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Thus, the complainant went for treatment at Dayanand Medical College. He lost his vision in the right eye completely and there was loss of vision in the left eye to the extent of 25%. As per allegations made in the complaint, this was all due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party in performing the operation. In the complaint, he claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards expenses and a sum of Rs.3 lacs as compensation.

(2.) On notice of the complaint, reply was filed by the opposite parties. Some of the facts were admitted that on November 21, 1993, the complainant was operated upon for a mature cataract in the right eye and he was discharged on November 24,1993. The operation was successful. There was satisfactory improvement. He was advised to approach again for follow up treatment. It was admitted that on November 30, 1993, the complainant visited the opposite party and since there was satisfactory condition of the right eye, he was advised to come again for follow up. It was however denied that the complainant was admitted to the Nursing Home on November 30,1993 or he was discharged on December 2,1993. The allegations of the complainant of approaching Dr. B. S. Chhabra or getting treatment from Dayanand Medical College, were denied for want of knowledge. It was denied that the damage caused to the eye was on account of his negligent act of operating upon the right eye. It was asserted by the opposite party that no fee was charged for the operation and the treatment and the complainant could not be treated as a consumer. A rejoinder was filed by the complainant. Both the parties produced evidence on affidavit and some documents. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was a consumer and entitled to file the complaint. Even if no fee was charged by the opposite party; but the opposite party was charging fees from the patients approaching him. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in this respect lndian Medical Association V/s. V. P. Shantha and Others, 1995 3 CPJ 1. On going through the material produced by the parties, it was held that damage to the right eye of the complainant was caused on account of negligence on the part of the opposite party in the matter of performing operation for extraction of cataract and thus the amount as stated above was awarded.

(3.) In appeal, the appellants have filed an application for placing on record the opinion of Dr. G. S. Bajwa of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana that the infection to the eyes of the complainant at the time of admission to the Dayanand Medical College was 3/4 days prior thereto. It may be observed that the complainant was admitted in the Dayanand Medical College on December 17, 1993 and was discharged on December 23,1993. The aforesaid certificate is also for consideration along with the appeal. The complainant has also produced photo copies of prescription slips primarily indicating that the complainant got treatment from the opposite party on 2nd December also.