Dilip Kumar Biswas vs MOTHARI MEDICAL CENTRE

THE complainant has approached this Commission claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- for medical expenses purported to have been incurred by him. He has also prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental pain and agony.

BRIEFLY stated the fact is that the petitioner was suffering from Gall Stone and obstructive Jaundice and as such was admitted before Kothari Medical Centre (opposite party- 1) on 11.4.1992 for treatment. The petitioner underwent surgery and after discharge from the said Medical Centre the condition of the petitioner turned serious on the ground that Haemorrhage started with the result that he lost vision of both eyes. According to the petitioner, the opposite party was callous and negligent in the matter of treatment. He was again admitted to Hospital on 20.4.1992. Initially, the Haemoglobin level had gone down heavily but ultimately it was restored to normal level. The petitioner alleges that the sudden fall of Haemoglobin was the result of heavy bleeding from Gastro Duodenal Artery. The petitioner was referred to Sankar Netralaya for treatment who declared the petitioner as completely blind in both the eyes. The petitioner alleges deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and has preferred his claim.

The claim is resisted by the opposite party-1 by filing written objection wherein the allegations contained in the claim petition has been denied and disputed.

IT is not disputed that the petitioner was admitted into the medical centre for treatment. The operation was done on 11.4.1992 and he was discharged from the centre on 4.5.1992. The Petitioner alleges that because of Haemorrhage during operation he lost vision of both eyes. IT is admitted that the petitioner was cured of the ailment for which he took admission in the Centre. The petitioner has failed to establish that because of Haemorrhage during operation, his vision of both eyes was impaired and consequently he was completely blind. The complainant could not establish negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the matter of operation nor there is any material to show that there is any link/ connection between the two. In the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that there had been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In that view of the matter, the claim fails and the present case is dismissed on contest but without any cost. Complaint dismissed.