West Bengal

Jalpaiguri

CC 50/2014

Mahasina Parvin - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. R.N.Halder - Opp.Party(s)

Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, JALPAIGURI
JALPAIGURI
 
Complaint Case No. CC 50/2014
 
1. Mahasina Parvin
W/O Babul Rahaman, Residing at Millpara, P.S. Dhupguri, Dist. Jalpaiguri
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Dr. R.N.Halder
C/O Roraty Diagnostic Clinic, Hakimpara, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Jalpaiguri.
West Bengal
2. Marina Medical Centre,Pvt.Ltd.
Babupara, P.S.Kotwali, Dist.- Jalpaiguri
Jalpaiguri
West Bengal
3. Dr. K.C. Mitra
Mitra Clinic and Nursing Home, Hakimpara, P.S.-Siliguri, Dist.-Darjeeling
Jalpaiguri
West Bengal
4. Dr. Sourav Biswas
Mitra Clinic and Nursing Home, Hakimpara, P.S.-Siliguri, Dist.-Darjeeling
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Asoke Kumar Das PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Bina Choudhuri MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Prabin Chettri MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Mr.  A. K. Das, President

 

Case record is placed before me for passing final order.

Case of the complainant in brief is that in the early part of March 2014 the petitioner felt some gynecological problem and so she consulted with OP no.1 i.e. Dr.R.N.Haldar on 09/03/’14 at his chamber. The OP1 medically checked up her and told her that she was carrying at that moment and advised her to abort her said pregnancy to prevent some problems in future. The petitioner there after got herself admitted at Marina Medical Pvt. Ltd(OP2) and paid all fees. On 10/03/’14 OP1 aborted the pregnancy of the petitioner(unborn baby). After laps of some period she was released from that Nursing Home(OP2). On 29 ultimo at night she falt acut pain in her abdomen and she got herself  admitted at Sadar Hospital Jalpaiguri for treatment, where from she was referred to N.B.M.C., Darjeeling for better treatment. But her husband admitted her at Mitra’s Clinic&Nursing Home at Hakimpara, Siliguri. The petitioner was discharged from that Nursing Home on 5th April, 2014 and that during the course of her treatment under the supervision of Dr.K.C.Mitra & Dr.Sourav Biswas(Proforma OPS) she and her husband came to learn that she sustained acut rupture of left “Ectopic pregnancy” due to wrong procedure of treatment adopted by OP1 on 10/03/’14 and that the said Drs(proforma OPs) told her verbally that, “there may some serious complicacy in her future pregnancy, so it can safely be said that there are will remote chance for the petitioner to get the Honour of the biological mother of a baby in future”. The alleged act of abortion by OP1 amounts to negligence as claimed by the petitioner.

Hence, this case.

OPs 1,2 & ProOP3 have contested this case by filing separate W/Vs denying and disputing the claims & contension of the petitioner with prayer for dismissal of this case with cost.

 

-: Points for considerate:-

1) Is the case maintainable?

2) Is the complainant is a consumer?

3) Are the OPS guilty for negligence as alleged by the petitioner?

4) Is the petitioner entitle to the relief prayed for?

 

-:Decision with reasons:-

Seen and perused the petition of complaint the W/V filed by the OPs 1,2&3(all are supported by Affidavits), W/A filed by the OPs and all other materials of record.

 

Now after due consideration of argument advance by the Ld.Lawyer of the OPS, their W/A and the materials of the record, we find that admittedly the complainant is a consumer of OPs 1&2. Admittedly the complainant has neither produced any experts opinion nor called for any expert on dock to prove her allegation of negligence against the OP1. Now from paragraphs no. 10&11 of the petition of the complainant we find that in these paragraphs the petitioner has stated that she & her husband came to learn about the act of negligence committed by OP1 from proforma OPS nos 3&4 and that those DRs verbally told her that she may suffer from serious complicacy in her future pregnancy and there is remote chance of her being a biological mother of a baby, but Pro OP no.3 Dr.K.C.Mitra in his W/V paragraph no.2 has categorically denied that matter and he has clearly stated that the statements of the petitioner in paragraph 11 of the petition of the complaint are not true. No attempt was made by the petitioner to call Pro OP4 Dr. Sourav Biswas on dock to substantiate her statements in paragraph no.10&11 of her petition of complaint. Therefore we have no hagitation to hold that the complaint has hopelessly failed to prove her case against OP no 1&2. Accordingly we find and hold that OPS 1&2 are not guilty for negligence of duty as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitle to get any relief in this case.

All points are disposed off.

In the result the case fails.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

That this case stands dismissed on merit but in the circumstances we make no order as to cost.

The petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs.200/-(Rupees two hundred)only in compliance with Order No.15 dt.01/04/’15 in the Consumer Legal Aid Account no.34608045225 of D.C.D.R.F.,Jalpaiguri of SBI, Jalpaiguri Main Branch by 30/04/’15 positively and to file receipt thereof before this Forum. Failing which necessary action will be taken as per provision of C.P.Act. 1986.

 

Plain copy of this order be supplied to parties forthwith free of cost. 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Asoke Kumar Das]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. Bina Choudhuri]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Prabin Chettri]
MEMBER

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.