LAWS(NCD)-2008-12-5

R K GUPTA Vs. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMICENERGY

Decided On December 18, 2008
R K GUPTA Appellant
V/S
Secretary, Department Of Atomicenergy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal by the complainant is to the order dated 3.11.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai dismissing the complaint.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1/opposite party No. 1 is the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy while respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 is the Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4/opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are the doctors working in BARC Hospital while respondent No. 5/opposite party No. 5 is the doctor on the panel of BARC Hospital, Mumbai. Appellant/complainant joined the BARC in Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Division on 31.1.1964. He retired from service on 31.5.1999 on superannuation at the age of 60. In short, in the complaint it was alleged that the appellant was diagnosed as having Psoriasis in the year 1982 which was caused due to disastrous affects of ionizing radiations on the skin while working in the said division. Grievance against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was that despite request by the appellant he was not transferred by them to some other place. Grievance against respondent No. 3 - doctor was that he did not suo motto recommend transfer of the appellant to some other place and subjected him to P.U.V.A. therapy which is contradicted for a patient of Psoriasis if exposed to ionizing radiations. It was alleged that on 19/20.10.1997 while getting up from the bed the appellant sustained fracture in his right thigh. He was admitted to BARC Hospital under the care of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who opined that the type of fracture suffered by the appellant was pathological fracture. It was pleaded that the fracture was caused as a result of ionizing radiations. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were negligent in treating the appellant. He developed bed sores and was shifted to Jaslok Hospital on 29.12.1997 and was discharged from there on 18.3.1998. Claim for a total sum of Rs. 91.00 lakh was made in the complaint which was contested by filing written version by respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Complaint was dismissed on grounds of appellant not being a 'consumer', it being barred by limitation as also on merit.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Pravin Satale, Adv. for the appellant on admission.