NIRMALENDU PAUL Vs. P K BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri Nirmalendu Paul, aged 73 years approached the opposite parties for the first time on 18.3.1993 for the treatment of his eye. Opposite party-1, is a Surgeon and a Specialist in Intra-oculur Lens implant and Micro-surgery and is attached to opposite party-2, an Eye Foundation Centre. After examination of the complainant, opposite party-1 observed that the poor vision in his left eye would be cured after operation. On his advice, the petitioner went through some pre-operative tests. He was also examined by one Dr. D. K. Saha an associate of opposite party-1 and a Specialist in the subject.

(2.) On 29.6.1993, the complainant got himself admitted in the Clinic of opposite party-2 and Surgery was done in the left eye of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant visited several times to the chamber of opposite party-1 for post-operative care and treatment. The petitioner claimed that the opposite party has taken a total sum of Rs.30,000/- on several occasions towards operation charges and other fees. It has been alleged that the opposite parties did not grant receipt for all the money they have received. According to the complainant because of gross negligence the vision of his left eye has been impaired. Gradually, the condition of his left eye deteriorated. The complainant consulted several other renowned Eye Surgeons of the Town and was under their treatment for some time. But no improvement was noticed. On 1.8.1995, the complainant again met opposite party-1 who examined him and referred the complainant to Dr. Siddhartha Bose. The said doctor suggested re-operation of the left eye. On 8.8.1995, the complainant attended the Chamber of opposite party-1 when he was taken to the Operation Theatre. The petitioner felt that a Cord has been removed from his eye. According to the complainant the non-removal of the Cord at the time of the first operation was an act of gross negligence. His left eye had become smaller compared to the right eye. He suffered permanent disability in his left eye due to wrong operation. The complainant consulted Dr. V. Pahwa on 27.11.1995 and understood that he lost vision of the left eye because of wrong operation. The complainant wrote a letter to opposite party-1 making allegation about the damage done to his left eye by the operation. Subsequently, he served Lawyer's notice upon opposite party-1 claiming compensation.

(3.) Initially, the complainant filed a case before the District Forum at Chinsurah, Hooghly but subsequently it was withdrawn with liberty to sue fresh. Thereafter, he approached this Commission claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with refund of all expenses incurred by him towards charges received by the opposite parties. He has also claimed damages and compensation against the opposite parties.