West Bengal

StateCommission

CC/72/2009

Laxminarayan Janaki. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director of Health Services. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Nitindra Mohan Mukherjee.

06 May 2010

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGALBHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
CONSUMER CASE NO. 72 of 2009
1. Laxminarayan Janaki. W/O Late Perundurai Ramratnam Muthuswamy, P 84, Niva Extension, Brahmapur, Kolkata- 700096. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Director of Health Services.Govt. of West Bengal, Swasthya Bhavan, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 91.2. Dr. S. K. Maji, S/O Dr. Panalal Maji, GC-207, Salt Lake, Sector-III, Kolkata (Behind GO 'GO' island, Tank No. 13, Kolkata- 91.3. Kalidas Mullick Sebayatan a Nursing Home. 47, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- 700013.4. The Secretary, Kalidas Mullick Sebayatan, 47, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- 700013.5. The Chairman, Kalidas Mullick Sebayatan. 47, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- 700013.6. The West Bengal Medical Council, Regd. Office at 8, Lyons Range, 3rd floor, Kolkata- 700001. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Mr. Prasanta Banerjee., Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 26 Nov 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

No. 4/26.11.2009.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant is present through Ld. Advocate Mr. P. Banerjee.  Heard Mr. Banerjee appearing for the Complainant.  In paragraph 42 of the complaint the Complainant has stated cause of action arose on December 14, 2003 when the patient expired due to lack of proper medical care and attention on the part of O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5.  As the complaint was filed much beyond the period of two years as prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act, the Complainant filed an application for condonation of delay.  As the said application also does not explain the long period of delay we granted liberty to file supplementary Affidavit disclosing further facts and documents by our order dated 05.10.2009.  Adjournments were granted on 22.10.2009 and 09.11.2009, but still no supplementary Affidavit has been filed.  As we find that on the available materials such long delay in filing the complaint cannot be condoned and the explanation given in the application for condonation does not disclose any fact which justifies such condonation of delay of such a long period, the application is dismissed.  The complaint is also dismissed accordingly.


MR. A K RAY, MemberHON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENTMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER, Member