Case nº Revision Petition No. 2908 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, May 21, 2014 (case Akhilesh Jain Vs Nobel Hearing and Speech Therapy Clinic)

JudgeFor Appellant: Anurag Gohil and Ruchika Gohil, Advocates and For Respondents: Mohit Singh, Advocate
PresidentJ.M. Malik, J. (Presiding Member) and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Resolution DateMay 21, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member

  1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1599 of 2011, wherein the State Commission has erroneously appreciated the facts and grounds, and upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, 'District Forum'). The District Forum dismissed the complaint No. CC/587/2011 on 21.10.2011. Facts in brief: On 5.5.2009, the Petitioner Akhilesh Jain took his son, about 7 months age, to ENT Specialist, Dr. Jagdish Jain, (OP-2), The OP-2 referred him to Nobel Hearing and Speech Therapy Clinic, the OP-1. The Brainstem Evoked Response Audiometry (BERA) test was conducted, and the report showed that the left ear was normal, whereas the right ear had minor hearing defect. The OP-2 assured the complainant that the child would start hearing and talking very soon and there was nothing to worry about. However, as the child did not show any improvement, he consulted Dr. Satya Prakash Dubey at Bhopal who advised a CT Scan and another BERA Test. The BERA report showed that the child had profound sensory neural hearing loss in his left ear. Hence, the complainant/petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that OP-1 and OP-2 are negligent in diagnosis, issued wrong report by which his child was deprived of specific treatment.

  2. The District Forum dismissed the complaint summarily on the basis of the report of the medical expert committee. The State Commission also confirmed the order of District Forum.

  3. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the Complainant is before this Commission, through the present revision.

  4. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued about the different opinions in two BERA reports and made his best efforts to establish negligence of OPs. The Counsel for OPs submitted that, on 5.5.2009, the 1st BERA test was conducted, thereafter, after lapse of two years, the complainant sought second opinion from Dr. Dubey at Bhopal, as per his advice the complainant got done the HRCT of Temporal Bone, on 3.5.2011; and BERA Test on 5.5.2011.

  5. The Counsel brought our attention to the prescription of Dr. Jagdish Jain, who asked the complainant to bring the child again for a follow up after 6 months and to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT