MRINMOY DUTTA S/O. SHRI MURARI MOHAN DUTTA, R/O. AT 1/4, DESHPRAN SASMAL ROAD HOWRAH Vs. DR. ANUPAM GOLASH PVT. LTD. AND ANR. S/O. DR. BALKRISHNA GOLASH, FLAT NO. 15 BELVEDERE ESTATES, 8/8, ALIPORE ROAD, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to the order, dated 12.03.2013, passed by the West Bengal Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") in Case No. SC/5/O/2006. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint, observing that the Petitioner/Complainant had failed to establish that there was any deficiency in service or medical negligence on the part of the Respondents.

(2.) The brief facts, as set out in the Complaint, are that in the year 1986, while playing cricket, the Complainant met with an accident and hurt his nose, resulting in breathing complications. Subsequently, a septoplasty operation was performed removing most of the septum along with the tip support in the columella region. The Complainant felt sudden structural weakness in his nose which was solved three years later, by a plastic surgeon of N.R.S. Medical College, by grafting with the iliac crest bone. The Complainant averred that he was successful in his business and was also acting in T.V. serials and that in this profession the structure of his facial features is extremely important. During the year 2005, the Complainant again started feeling some functional disorder in his nose as the graft got dissolved giving rise to weakness in the support at the tip. The Complainant pleaded that on 27.03.2005 he had consulted the first Opposite Party, (hereinafter referred to as "the treating Doctor"), who, on physical examination and analysing the history of the Complainant, gave him an option of fixation of support at the tip by way of an L-shaped graft.

(3.) The Complainant averred that on 07.08.2005, the treating Doctor had advised him to undergo rhinoplasty costing Rs. 22,000.00 and subsequently, on 15.08.2005, the operation was performed on his nose by the treating Doctor at the Nursing Home of the second Respondent. The Complainant pleaded that after the operation, he found a much longer columella scar extending above the original tip position. There was further dumping of that portion of the skin below the nose, which was done to hide the scar and this resulted in aggravating his discomfort, on account of re functioning of the Ala muscles. The Complainant brought to the notice of the Doctor that the soft tissue above the dorsum on the end (tip) had bent down in a vertical direction through the columella. On 28.08.2005, the plaster was removed and a red infected patch was found in the nose above the graft and on top of the dorsum. He was asked to come again after two weeks and certain medicines were prescribed. The Complainant pleaded that the treating Doctor did not take proper care, though pus was oozing out of the nose. On 03.09.2005, the Complainant visited the treating Doctor, who advised proper drainage and complete washout under anaesthesia. On 27.09.2005, the Complainant once again visited the clinic of the treating Doctor at CMRI with continuous infection and pus accumulation.