JYOTHI VIVEK Vs. PRADEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the order passed by the District Forum, Thrissur in O. P. No.820/1995. 'appeal No.575/96 is preferred by opposite parties 1 and 2 and the Appeal No.593/96 is filed by opposite parties 3 and 4.

(2.) Shortly stated, the material allegations in the complaint are as follows : the complainant is a welder by profession. On 28.2.1995 while working in the welding section in the Engineering Workshop at Kannur, a small iron particle hit in his left eye and immediately he washed his eye with cold water and thereafter there was relief in pain. Subsequently the pain increased and reddishness developed in the eye and he could not look at the sun and light. On 2.3.1995 he met the first opposite party who is working in the second opposite party hospital as Ophthalmologist. The first opposite party examined his eye and told that there is a small wound on the cornea and there is no other foreign body inside the eye and she prescribed medicines. Even though the complainant told the first opposite party that he had severe pain in the eye and requested to find out the foreign body by x-ray and ultra sound scan she told that those tests are not necessary and there is nothing to fear. Subsequently pain got aggravated and his vision was diminished. On 12.3.1995 when he met the first opposite party, the first opposite party told that he would recover from the illness and he would get back the vision by using the medicines prescribed. Since he was not satisfied with the advice of the first opposite party he went to the 4th opposite party hospital on 13.3.1995. Some doctors of that hospital examined him. On 15.3.1995 the Chief Ophthalmologist also examined the complainant and he was subjected to an X-ray and a lense was prescribed. As advised by the 3rd opposite party the complainant purchased the lense but after one month his vision began to decrease. So he went to the 6th opposite party hospital and he was examined by the 5th opposite party on 18.4.1995, an x-ray was taken and ultra sound scan was done and the iron foreign body was detected and 5th opposite party advised that the foreign body is to be removed by surgery. On 18.4.1995 a surgery was done by the 5th opposite party and the iron foreign body was removed. He continued there for 10 days and then he was discharged with advice to continue the treatment. After the surgery and removal of iron foreign body from the eye his vision was diminished. So he went to Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai on 13.6.1995 and there the doctors examined him and opined that the loss of vision is due to the cutting of the optic nerve during surgery. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties have committed negligence in their treatment of complainant and he claimed compensation.

(3.) Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint written version. It was contended that O. P. No.624/ 95 was filed on the same subject by the complainant alleging deficiency before the same Forum and the District Forum was pleased to return the complaint for presenting the same in the appropriate Forum but instead of presenting it before the State Commission, the complainant abandoned the complaint O. P. No.624/95 and filed the present complaint as afresh one on the same subject matter. Since no permission to file this complaint was obtained the complaint is not maintainable. It was admitted that the complainant was registered as out-patient with O. P. No.10302 on 2.3.1995 with the complaint of eye injury occurred due to an accident on 28.2.1995 and had given his address as the resident of Guruvayur and he made complaint of pain only and if he had mentioned that any foreign body has gone into his eye, he would have been subjected to further checking. His eye was dressed and medicines were given and he was asked to come in the next day but the complainant came after 10 days on 12.3.1995. On that day also the complainant had no other trouble in the eye and medicines were given. The complainant was asked to come on the next day for further check up. They also alleged that the complainant was non-co-operative and there is no deficiency on their part.