ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 10.05.2022 Reserved on : 19.11.2025 Date of decision : 04.12.2025 Ritesh Kumar aged about 23 years son of Sh. Mohinder Kumar, resident of Krishna Gali, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.

…..Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Bariana Eye Hospital & Lasik Laser Center, 1-R, Model Town, opposite Hotel Presidency, Near Bus Stand, Hoshiarpur, through its Managing Director.

2. Dr. Prabhjinder Aulakh Bariana C/o Bariana Eye Hospital & Lasik Laser Center, 1-R, Model Town, Opposite Hostel Presidency, Near Bus Stand, Hoshiarpur.

….Respondents/Opposite Parties First Appeal under Section 41 the Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission, Hoshiarpur in CC/17/2018 Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. M.S. Rana, Advocate For respondent : Sh. Manpreet Singh, Adv. for Sh. Arnav Sood, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur (in short, now “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’), under the Consumer Protection Act, was dismissed being devoid of merits.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant on 20.11.2017, approached OP’s Hospital, as he was having some eye problem. The OPs after examination of his eyes told him that his distance vision of right eye was -2.00 and left eye was -1.75 and advised for standard Lasik operation. Thereafter on 23.11.2017, the complainant also took second opinion from another doctor and same problem was diagnosed i.e. Myopia in both eyes. The said doctor also suggested for the same operation. The complainant visited OP No.1 and deposited Rs.25,000/- advance for operation and Rs.3000/- for tests. Thereafter, the complainant again visited OP No.1 hospital on 24.11.2017, where OP No.2 suggested to conduct Lasik with Custom Vue operation instead of standard Lasik operation, which would cost him around Rs.55,000/-. The OPs told the complainant that under the said surgery the light would not scatter in the eyes and further no blade is used. On the suggestion of OP No.2, the complainant agreed for Lasik with Custom vue operation and deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- with OP No.1. The operation was conducted by the OPs and he was discharged on the same day. The OPs charged a total sum of Rs.59000/- from the complainant and when he demanded the original bills, OP No1 assured him that he would get the same within one or two days. The complainant alleged that the OPs took 2 ½ hours for conducting the operation and blade was also used during operation. Thereafter, on 25.11.2017 the complainant noticed that he was not able to see the things properly and he approached OP No.2, who assured that after taking the prescribed medicines, his eye sight would be OK within 5-6 days. However, even after 7-8 days, the problem still existed and light was also scattering in his eyes. The complainant again approached OP No.2, who misbehaved with him and gave a vague reason that before operation, the back light of his eyes was already very weak, therefore, he was not able to see properly. The complainant alleged that the act and conduct of the OPs was unprofessional and sheer negligence in performing the medical obligations. The complainant further stated that bill provided to the complainant on 02.12.2017 was qua standard Lasik operation and the amount of Lasik with Custom vue was mentioned on the bill. Thereafter on 08.01.2018 the complainant visited to Gautam Eye Hospital and after che