KOMAL RAM SAHU vs SOMNATH SAHU

-THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (the ''district Forum'') in complaint No. 28/2006. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 20. 3. 2007.

COMPLAINANT''s grievance as narrated in the complaint is that he approached the O. P. for treatment of his left eye on 5. 10. 2004. O. P. examined his eyes and told that the complainant will require spectacles for both his eyes. Glasses number 1. 00 SPH and 0. 5 SPH were prescribed for the left and right eyes respectively and spectacles were given to the complainant. Complainant developed pain and burning in the eyes after use of the said spectacles. On approaching the O. P. it was told that the complainant will have to use the spectacles for 2 or 3 years. As the problem did not subside complainant consulted Dr. Nidhi Gwalre who intimated that the number of specs prescribed was not correct and could result in damage to the eyes in the long term. The prescription by the O. P. as well as Dr. Nidhi Gwalre has been produced by the complainant.

It is also stated that the complainant was employed with a medical company and had to give up his job due to the damage to his eyes because of wrong treatment by the O. P. A compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been prayed for.

O. P. in reply has stated that he is a Registered Medical Practitioner but it is denied that the complainant ever approached him for treatment or he treated him. It is also stated that he does not treat the ailments relating to the eyes. It is stated that the complainant had approached him for preparation of specs as his spects were broken. He had merely prepared news specs. It is further stated that the contention that the complainant was an employee of a medical company or he had to give up the job is false. It is stated that the O. P. had worked with Dr. V. K. Agarwal eye specialist from 1988 to 1995 as assistant and prepares specs as per the doctor''s prescriptions.

IT is further stated that the complainant wanted to borrow some money from the O. P. which was refused by him. Therefore, this complaint has been brought. Complainant had also lodged complaints with the police which were found false on inquiry. Questions for consideration are whether the O. P. treated the complainant for ailment of the eyes and if so whether he was authorised to do so. Complainant had submitted the prescription dated 5. 10. 2004 mentioning the number for specs to the complainant. The letter head used for the said prescription Dr. S. N. Sahu, Eye Hospital and Specs Centre.

O. P. has denied all the allegations and stated that he had worked as assistant with Dr. V. K. Agrawal at Raipur from 1988 to 1995 as well as Dr. T. C. Tiwari. It is also stated that the complainant had approached him as his specs were broken and he had prepared the specs. Further it is also stated that he prepares specs on the doctor''s prescriptions.

O. P. has filed affidavits of Abhishek, Punitram, Virendra, Kailash and Shyam in defence stating O. P. treats minor ailments as well as prepares spectacles. Copy of the ''certificate of merit for RMP in Indo Allopathic (Alternative System of Medicine) has also been filed. Dr. Nidhi Gwalre was examined as witness at the complainant''s instance. Learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the complainant. It is also submitted that the District Forum has ignored the fact that the O. P.-respondent is unauthorisedly treating patients and giving medicines.

Learned Counsel for the O. P.-respondent defended the impugned order and prayed for affirmation of the same.

ON going through the prescription we find that the O. P. has prescribed numbers for specs to be used by the complainant. It is the complainant''s case that use of the specs was harmful to his eyesight to such an extent that he had to give up his job. Dr. Nidhi Gwalre complainant''s witness stated that the damage to the eyes may be caused by use of wrong number of spectacles. It is also stated on cross examination that the number of the specs may change after 6 months to one year even if no specs are used. We have gone through the material on record and carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. As obvious from the letterhead mentioning eye hospital, the O. P. has been professing himself to be qualified for treatment of the eyes. On going through the questionable certificate produced by the O. P. , and taking it on face value, the said certificate does not authorise him to treat the ailments of the eyes. In view of the printed letterhead, mentioning eye hospital the O. P. ''s submission that he was merely preparing spectacles on the prescriptions issued by other medical practitioners, cannot be accepted.

IT is common knowledge that the eye specialists invariably examine the eyes for any diseases, before prescribing spects. The O. P. claiming to run an eye hospital appears to be misleading the patients regarding his competence to examine and treat ailments of the eyes. Therefore, in our opinion the O. P. is liable for misrepresentation and unfair trade practice. However, we do not find any substantiation for the damages claimed by the complainant. Under the circumstances of the complainant, a compensation of Rs. 2,000 appears to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The O. P. /respondent is directed to pay Rs. 2,000 (Rs. two thousand only) to the complainant within two months of this order failing which it will carry interest at 10%. Appeal allowed.