- (1.) These are two connected appeals one by Dr. Kumud Garg (hereinafter called the appellant) and the other by Sh. Raja Bhatia (hereinafter called the complainant) arising out of judgment and order dated 31.5.2000 whereby the learned Forum has allowed the compensation of Rs.50,000/- plus Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation against appellants. While the complainant has filed the appeal for the enhancement of the compensation so granted. Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, therefore, both are taken together for disposal.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has taken his daughter Kajal of the age of two and a half years to the opposite party for operation of her right eye. According to the complainant Dr. Kumud Garg was working with Shri Ganga Mata Charitable Eye Hospital and Research Institute, Saptrishi Link Road, Haridwar, opposite party No.2. It is said that the vision in both the eyes was proper but there was some pressure in the right eye for which the complainant had taken his daughter Kajal for treatment to the appellants. After examination Dr. Kumud Garg told that the eye is to be operated upon and the lens is to be fitted. The doctor told him to deposit Rs.1,800/-, which the complainant deposited on 6.12.1996. Kajal was operated on 6.12.1996 and she was discharged on 7.12.1996. The opposite party gave some medicines. In July, 1997 the complainant got his daughther examined in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi where the doctors informed that this was due to the negligence of the doctor who operated upon the eye. On 18.6.1998 as well the victim was shown to Dr. Siddharth Trivedi who also told that this was due to negligent operation. It is said that this has given great mental shock to the complainant and the life of his daughter has also become dark, hence compensation was claimed through the Forum.
(3.) The opposite party contested the complaint and they took the plea that this is a Public Charitable Hospital, no fee is charged, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. It is said that on 30.10.1996 the complainant had brought his daughter to the hospital and has informed that her right eye is losing sight. The doctors examined her and found that this has got Congenital Cataract and it is to be operated upon. Then on 6.12.1996 the girl was admitted in the hospital and she was successfully operated. On 7.12.1996 it was found that the operation is satisfactory and, therefore, she was discharged. On 9.12.1996 the victim came to the hospital, she was found satisfactory. She was again brought on 9.1.1997 and the doctors regularly visited her whenever she was brought to the hospital. Again she was brought on 2.6.1997, but they did not show the victim to the doctor, opposite party for about 6 months, which created "updrawn pupil" in the eye. Medicines were given to her. It is said that there was no negligence on the part of the doctors.;