Challenge in this Revision Petition by Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, namely, the Nursing Home, is to the order dated 2.8.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Kolkata (for short, “the State Commission”)  in First Appeal No.469 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the order dated 8.3.2013 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Burdwan (for short, “the District Forum”) in D.F. Case No.41 of 2004, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein with costs, quantified at ₹5,000/-.

In the first instance, while accepting the complaint filed by Respondent No.1, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Nursing Home and the attending Gynaecologist  in causing delay of almost five hours, despite desperate efforts by the mother to contact in attending Doctor, in attending to a new born critically ill child who ultimately expired,  the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹1,80,000/- due to its negligence and deficiency in service towards the Baby, alongwith  litigation costs, quantified at ₹2,000/-.

When the case came up for motion hearing, on 17.5.2017, the Petitioner was granted last opportunity to cure the defects pointed out by the Office, which included typed copies of the prescriptions, being relied upon, within four weeks thereof. It was made clear that no further opportunity for the said purpose shall be granted. When the case is taken up today, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite best efforts, he has not been able to remove all the objections as he has not received translated copies of certain documents.

Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on merits and perused the documents on record. On a pointed query, learned Counsel has not been able to point out any document showing the line of treatment given to the Baby on 21.6.2003 between the period 3.10 p.m. till 8.15 p.m. As noted above, unfortunately, the Baby passed away in the early hours of the following day, i.e., 22.6.2003.  In that view of the matter, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora below, to the effect that there was clear deficiency on the part of the Petitioners in rendering service to a critically sick child, warranting interference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.