- (1.) AGAINST the present appellant and respondent No. 2 herein, present respondent No. 1 - original complainant had filed complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressai Forum. Mehsana being Complaint No. 49 of 2001. Same has been finally disposed of by the District Forum by its order dated 7.12.200b. partly allowing the complaint, directing the original opponents to pay jointly and severally Rs. 75,000 with interest @ 9% from 7.3.2001 till realisation and cost of Rs. 2,000. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the District Forum, original opponent No. 1 has filed the present appeal.
(2.) HEARD Mr. P.D.Dave for Ms. L.K. Bhaya. Mr. J.B. Trivedi and Mr. H.D. Brahmbhatt respectively for the appellant, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2.
(3.) SHORT facts of the present case are as under: The original complainant had some problem in his right eye. He, therefore, approached the hospital run by original opponent No. 1. He was examined by the doctor of opponent No. 1 and the problem was diagnosed as cataract. He was advised removal of the cataract by surgery. He was admitted to the hospital on 21.10.2000 for removal of cataract and as part of operation, compounder of opponent No. 1 had given injection in the eye of the complainant and thereafter the complainant was operated. During the course of operation, the complainant had unbearable pain in his eye which he brought to the notice of the doctor but the doctor did not give importance to the complaint of the complainant. He was discharged from the hospital on the same day Thereafter, the complainant had difficulty in eye and he was required to frequently visit the hospital of the appellant; that he was unable to see with his right eye on which operation was performed. Medicines were given 10 him but the problem persisted. Therefore, on 22.12,2000 he contacted Dr. Rakesh Patel, who informed him that the cataract operation had failed and therefore he will not be in a position to see with his right eye. He, therefore, went to the appellant and requested for treatment but the doctor demanded to return the case papers first and also asked the complaint to make arrangements for money for treatment. Notice was issued to the opponent through Advocate but as he did not receive any response, on 7.2.2001 reminder was sent. Since he did not receive any reply from the opponent he filed complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with running interest @ 9% p.a. As stated above, the complaint has been partly allowed by the District Forum and awarded Rs. 75,000 to the complainant towards damages with running interest 9% p.a. and also awarded Rs. 2,000 towards cost of the complaint which gave rise to filing of the present appeal. We have heard Mr. Dave, learned Advocate for the appellant at length. It has been mainly argued by him that the appellant Trust hospital had operated the complainant without any consideration and therefore the case against the appellant is not maintainable, as there was no consideration, according to him the complainant is not a consumer in the eye of law. It is required to be noted that though contention has been raised and vehemently argued but the relevant: fact which has been ignored by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that in para 3 of the judgment and more particularly item No. 8 of the list says that where is a receipt issued by the hospital for the amount which has been paid by the complainant to the hospital and therefore it cannot be said that there is no element of consideration or operation has been performed free of cost. Therefore, there is no substance in the above referred contention.;