DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C.C. No.259/2021

MA/15/2023 arising out of CC 259/2021      

                                       :- Smt. Sukla Sengupta…………….President

P R E S E N T               :- Smt. Monisha Shaw.……………… Member.

                                      :- Shri. Abhijit Basu…………………Member.

Order No. 12

Dated. 14.09.23

            MA 15/23 arising out cc/259/2021is taken up for passing order over the hearing of the petition  filed by the o.p. no. 1 & 2 challenging the maintainability of the petition of complaint.

Perused the petition and objection thereof if any considered.

From content of the petition it appears that the present petitioner that is o.p. No. 1 & 2 has stated in there petition (MA/15/23) that the husband of the complainant herself was admitted in their charnack hospital for several times for her treatment and after discharge she made complaint  before the Hon’ble  W.B. clinic establishment regularatory commission and the case was registered as reference number NPG /2018/000482(M/s. Deepa Ghosh vs charnack Hospital Pvt. Ltd.) in that case the complainant got compensation Rs. 50,000/- vide order dt. 20.8.19 and the Hospital also offer Rs.8000/- note as reembursed made by clinical establishment . it is further alleged by the o.p,no. 1 & 2 that  once the complainant received compensation for same  cause of action she cannot claimed further compensation by way of the petition of complainant and thus the instant petition of complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law because if the same be allowed by this commission /Forum that will be attract the principle of doctrine of double jeopardy.

 Thus the case is not maintainable in the eye of law and is liable to be dismissed with cost .

In view of the fact of circumstances it has to be considered by this commission/Forum whether the case is maintainable or not in his presence form.

During the course of hearing Ld. Advocate for the complainant stated that without going through the evidence on record with due course of the proceeding of this case it cannot be said that the case is not maintainable at this stage.

Ld. Advocate for the o.p.no  1 & 2 submitted that once the complainant bought the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as per direction of the Hon’ble  W.B. clinic establishment regularatory commission so she cannot claimed for further compensation that will be considered as double jeopardy to the o.p. 1 & 2.

However, on careful consider of the materials of facts and circumstance of the  case it is the view of the commission/Forum without going through evidence on record it cannot ascertained  whether the case is maintainable or not?

It is the mixed question of fact of law.

Hence  in the consider view of the Commission it would not be wise to hold the  case  without consulting the evidence of record through due process of proceeding.

In view of the discussion made over it is opined by this commission/Forum the case is well maintainable in his present form.

It is also prayer of the O.p 1 & 2 for expunged their name form the cause title of the petition of complaint but already on scaning the facts of circumstances of this case it has come to the notice of the commission that the O.p.no  1 & 2 are the necessary party of this case and  their presence is  highly required in this case for proper adjudication of the same.

Hence Ordered,

That the M.A. being no 15/23 as filed by the O.P. /petitioner 1 & 2 is considered and rejected on contest without any cost.

Fixing by 30.11.23 for filing evidence by the Opposites party no.1 & 2

Member                                  Member                                     President