SUBHASH S Vs. PRADEEP G.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dtd. 24/3/2021 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, 'the State Commission') in RP no. 06 of 2021 arising from the order dtd. 28/1/2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, 'the District Forum) in IA no. 25 of 2020 in CC no. 323 of 2017.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Mr. Subhash S visited Chaithanya Eye Hospital and Research Institute on 30/6/2017 due to a problem in his left eye. After carrying out some eye tests, eye drops were prescribed for two weeks by Dr Pradep G K, respondent no.1 herein. After using the eye drops for two weeks the petitioner's problem was cured completely. On 27/7/2017, the petitioner went to the doctor for review. The petitioner was directed to go for another dilation eye test. After the test, the doctor prescribed spectacles and directed the petitioner to go to Drishti Opticals located in the premises of the respondent no.1. On the same day, i.e., 27/7/2017, the sales expert at Drishti Opticals explained to him about progressive bifocal lenses and spectacles amounting to Rs.8600.00 were ordered. An advance of Rs.4000.00was paid against a receipt. On 4/8/2017, the petitioner was given the spectacles and a card for reading.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that using the spectacles while working in the computer, the petitioner could see the center portion of the computer screen in depressed and all other four corners bending towards the petitioner's face as distorted/ concave. The petitioner further states that he could see the letters clearly only where the eyes were accurately focused on the letter and other letters around were blurred. The petitioner alleges that he is using reading glasses for working on computer and reading which were bought for Rs.120.00 and which are more comfortable to use than the one which he had purchased for Rs.8600.00. The petitioner further states that he never used the spectacles while walking or driving a vehicle. The petitioner only faces only difficulty while reading the small letters on TV screen. The petitioner states that when using the reading glass, the surface of book, computer screen, calendar are seen flat, whereas when the spectacles purchased are used, the vision gets distorted / concave. This gives discomfort to his eyes and his vision.