KARIMBHAI DESAI vs MAHENDRA J.THAKKAR

THIS appeal arises from order dated 30.6.2001 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District [Rural], in Complaint No. 5/A/99. Since the complaint came to be dismissed, the complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

WE have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. WE have gone through the impugned order. WE have gone through the memorandum of appeal and other papers which have been submitted in this matter. It was the complainant''s case before the learned Forum that he consulted opponent doctor, practising as Ophthalmologist, on 24.7.1998 for ailment in his left eye which had become reddish. Opponent examined him and prescribed medicinal treatment. According to his say he once again reported to the opponent on 26.7.1998 as required. He was advised to continue the treatment - both application treatment as well as oral treatment. According to him redness of the eye did not reduce. Since he had severe pain in the eye and the redness had increased on 29.7.1998, He went to opponent doctor and complained of pain, redness and loss of vision of his left eye. Opponent doctor told him to continue the treatment consoling that he would regain vision. He continued the treatment up to 1.8.1998 but since he had infection in his left eye he lost his vision. On 1.8.1998 the opponent doctor referred him to Dr. Bharatiben at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad who advised him for surgery of his left eye. It was his case that if the opponent doctor had displayed proper care, attention and expertise, he would not have lost vision of his left eye and he could have been saved from further unnecessary expenditure as well as from mental and physical pain. He prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- before the learned Forum. The opponent resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the complaint could not be entertained and the case was required to be referred to a Civil Court. It was his case that the complainant had taken treatment on left eye from different doctors from time-to-time. He had first taken treatment in Nagari Eye Hospital. He then consulted the opponent doctor. He had also an occasion to consult Dr. Anilbhai K. Bavishi. All the doctors tried to save his left eye, but none succeeded as the complainant had corneal ulcer. According to him he had given appropriate treatment for the said ailment which was diagnosed by him at the threshold.

After hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced before it and bearing in mind the facts with regard to the nature of the ailment, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish any medical negligence/deficiency in medical treatment on the part of the opponent doctor. It, therefore, dismissed the complaint resulting into filing of this appeal by the complainant.

AT first, some effort was made on behalf of the complainant for allowing the complainant to produce additional evidence in this appeal. Such evidence would relate to complainant having taken treatment in Nagari Eye Hospital not with regard to left eye but with regard to right eye. It was sought to be submitted from such an additional evidence that the complainant did not have any occasion to take treatment from Nagari Eye Hospital so far as his left eye was concerned. In our considered opinion, even if the additional evidence is permitted, it has appeared in the evidence that the complainant did have occasion to go to different doctors for treatment of his left eye. What is important is the nature of ailment which the complainant was suffering from and the treatment prescribed by the opponent doctor. Having gone through the material placed on record, including the evidence of Dr. Bharatiben, it would clearly appear that the opponent doctor did diagnose the ailment to be corneal infection or corneal ulcer. It is not the complainant''s case that the treatment which was prescribed by the opponent doctor was not correct one. In fact according to the evidence of the doctors whom the complainant consulted subsequently, the treatment which was given by the opponent doctor was correct and proper. It has been submitted that the opponent doctor was negligent in not following the surgical process forthwith. In support of such a submission, there is no evidence, much less any expert evidence from the side of the complainant. Even the doctors who were consulted later on had continued with the treatment - both application as well as oral medicinal treatment. If operation was imminent remedy, even they could have followed that remedy. It might be noted from the established facts of the case that after the complainant consulted Dr. Bharatiben at Civil Hospital oral as well as application treatment was continued there also. It was only after noticing that it was not possible to eradicate infection by medicinal treatment that operation was required to be performed. Even performance of that operation did not and could not save the vision of left eye of the complainant. It is nowhere in the evidence of Dr. Bharatiben and/or other witnesses that surgical operation could have saved the vision. It has next been submitted on behalf of the complainant that had the opponent hospitalised the complainant for continuous observation and care, complainant''s vision could have been saved. Even in respect of this submission, there is no expert evidence. It is not understandable how the hospitalisation would have served the purpose when medicinal oral and application treatment was required to be taken regularly by the complainant, whether at home or in the hospital. If that is so, hospitalisation was not the only alternative left out for the treatment of the complainant. Besides, the complainant has not come out with a case that he insisted for hospitalisation in the opponent doctor''s hospital. Even thereafter also he has not been admitted to the hospital of Dr. Bavishi or for that matter in Nagari Eye Hospital. It is unfortunate that the complainant came across the ailment of corneal ulcer in his left eye. It might or might not have been cured. We do not have any material or expert opinion which would indicate imminent surgery as the alternative for saving vision.

IF the matter is viewed from any angle from the evidence placed on record, it cannot be said that the opponent doctor was negligent in diagnosing the ailment of complainant''s left eye or in administering medical treatment for the same. In above view of the matter, there is no alternative except to dismiss this appeal. Order accordingly. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.