IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/93/2009.
Date of Filing: 15.06.2009. Date of Final Order: 18.02.2015.
Complainant: Mahua Mukherjee W/O Dipak Mikherjee of 4/2, Jangu Doctors Lane, Berhampore,
P.O.& P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Dr. Subrata Dutta, 12/1, Netaji Road, Near Uma Sundari Park, Gorabazar, P.O. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad & 68, R.N.Tagore Road, Laldighi(Amita Pharmacy), P.O. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
2. Sheba Sadan Nursing Home, 67, R.N. Tagore Road, P.O.& P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya- Presiding Member.
The instant complaint is for compensation for medical negligence including cost of treatment.
The complaint case, in brief, is that initially the complainant was treated under Op No.1/Dr. S. Dutta for profuse bleeding from her vagina and ultimately OP No.1 doctor advised for removal of her Uterus. For such operation as per advice of Doctor two files blood was infused to the complainant being admitted in the OP no.2 nursing home. Thereafter, she was admitted in the Op no.2. Nursing home on 23.07.2008 and on the same day she was operated by OPno.1 doctor and after two days condition of the complainant became grave and OP no.1doctor advised to have patience but no improvement up to 29.07.2008. Then, on approach of the complainant party the Opno.1 doctor opined for referring the complainant to Kolkata for better treatment and also contacted Dr. S.N. Basak of Kolkata and after consultation our phone with him, advised the complainant party to remove the complainant to Kolkata and to get her admitted in the Mohan clinic nursing home under Dr. S.N. Basak. Having no alternative they rushed to Kolkata the same night of 29.07.2008 by Ambulance and got admitted in that nursing home on the following morning. Dr. S. N. Basak after thorough examination opined that Septicaemia already started and diagnosed “Colostomy’. Accordingly, he made colostomy operation. For the negligence of Op No.1 Dr., speticaemia was consed and for that colostomy operation had to undergo. Hence, the instant complaint petition.
Written Version filed by the OP No.1 Dr. S. Dutta, in brief, is that on 23.07.2008 he along with Anaesthetist Dr. M. Mondal had done Abdominal Hysterectomy Operation of the complainant and on the date of operation the condition of the patient was stable. On 24.07.2008 IV Drip was given and sips of water were given to the patient. Both the doctors examined the patient several times. On 25.07.2008 liquid food was given; Catheter was removed. On 26.06.2007 some solid food was given to the complainant and her condition was stable. On 27.07.2008 the patient complained of Loose Motion and raise of temperature. Immediately, saline was given and Dr. S. Pal, M.D.(Medicine) was called and he examined the patient and decided to re-open the abdomen. But the family member of the patient refused to re-open the abdomen and preferred to take the complainant to Kolkata under S.N. Basak. There was no negligence on the part of the OP no.1 regarding the treatment of the complainant. Hence, the instant written version.
Written version filed by the OP No.2, in brief, is that the allegation of the complainant against the OP No.2 Nursing Home as to environment is not correct. OP No.2 Nursing Home is very much healthy from the date of establishment and Health Department also inspected it regularly and the Nursing Home is not in any way liable for the deterioration of health of the complainant after operation. OP No.2 is always dutiful and never responsible for dereliction of duty to the complainant and for that the OP No.2 is not liable for the payment of the claim as claimed by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written Version filed by the OP No.2.
Considering the pleadings, the following points are framed for disposal of the case:
Whether the complaint is maintainable in the point of law and in fact?
Whether there is any cause of action to file the present complaint?
Whether the complaint is defective in law for non-joinder of necessary party?
Whether the complainant is a consumer?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the award as prayed for?
To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to.
Decision with reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 4.
All those points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
At the time of hearing argument the Ld. Lawyer for the OP has not raised any objection against those points.
Considering the materials on record we do not find any adverse against these points and ass such all these point are disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Hence, all those points are disposed of in favour of the complainant
Point Nos. 5 & 6.
Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience.
To prove the complainant’s case the complainant has examined herself and her husband as PW-1and PW-2 and both of them have been cross-examined by both the Ops at length and has also filed documentary evidence relating to cash receipts and prescription.
On the other hand, the OP No.1 Doctor himself has adduced oral evidence by way of affidavit and he has not been cross-examined by the complainant.
PW-1, the complainant has deposed in her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit that she visited the chamber of OP No.1 Dr. S. Dutta along with her husband for her treatment with the problem of her uterus for profuse bleeding.
She has deposed in her examination-in-chief that on examination the OP No.1 doctor advised her for removal of her uterus.
She has deposed that as per instruction of doctor OP No.1 , 2 files blood were infused in her body by him in the OP No.2 –Nursing Home. Thereafter, according to the instruction of doctor-OP No.1, the complainant was admitted on 23.7.08 and on the same day OP No.1 doctor operated upon her and removed her uterus.
She has deposed that after two days of the impugned operation her condition of health gradually became grave and when her husband and son contacted OpNo.1 doctor for redress, the doctor Op No.1 advised them to have patience and the condition would be improved but up to 29.7.08 condition did not improve.
She has deposed that the OpNo.1 for the first time stated that the patient should be referred to Kolkata for better treatment and he sou-moto contacted to Dr. S.N. Basak of Kolkata over telephone and after consultation he advised her husband to remove the complainant to Kolkata under the treatment of Dr. S.N. Basak and to admit her in Mohan Clinic where Dr. Basak was attached.
She has deposed that according to the instruction of OP No.1 and having no other alternative she was rushed to Kolkata by Ambulance at night on 29.7.2008 and reached on the following morning and she was admitted in Mohan Clinic on 30.7.2008 under Dr. S.N. Basak.
She has deposed that after examination Dr. S.N. Basak opined that septicaemia has already been started and he treated her then and there to stop the function of rectum.
She has deposed that Dr. Basak made colostomy operation and stopped Septicaemia by de-juncting the rectum by the process of making hole in the belly and fitting a tube with a removable packet with a direction to keep the patient in this way for three months though she was discharged after few days of operation.
She has deposed that after three months normal function of the rectum was restored.
She has deposed that if the Op No.1 was very much cautious there would be no septicaemia nor any colostomy operation needed.
On the other hand the OP No.1 Dr. S. Dutta has deposed in his examination –in-chief by affidavit that the operation was successful and the patient was stable. On the next date i.e on 24.7.2008 IV Drip was given and sips of water were also given, Peristaltic sound was present and he was also deposed that he and Dr. D.K. Mondal examined the complainant several times.
He has deposed that on 25.7.08 liquid food was given, Catheter was removed and on 26.07.2008 solid food was given to the complainant and her condition was stable.
He has deposed that on 27.7.2008 the patient complained for loose motion and raise of temperature and then Dr. S. Pal , M.D. Medicine was called who examined the patient and Dr. D. K. Mondal, Dr. N.K. Saha and Dr. Rahaman also examined her, they all decided to repair the abdomen but family members refused and decided to take the patient to Calcutta.
He has also deposed that he personally took the complainant to Calcutta at Mohon’s Clinic. She was admitted under Dr. S. N. Basak. He consulted with Dr. S.N. Basak and took information everyday till discharge. There was no negligence on his part.
PW-1 , the complainant has deposed in her cross-examination that she was admitted at the Berhampore Nursing Home for about seven days for her treatment and that one day after her operation she was feeling much pain.
She has deposed in her cross-examination that after operation radiological test of her stomach was done and she cannot say whether it was USG or X-ray and also she cannot say that after operation what advice was given by the doctor.
She has deposed in her cross-examination that she cannot say whether she was released of her own accord; members of her family can say it very well.
In this regard it appears from her cross-examination that she was at that nursing home from 23.7.08 to 29.7.08 and any discharge certificate or any other paper from “Seva Sadan’ was not given to her.
From the materials on record it is also clear that no bed head ticket of Op No.2 or no discharge certificate relating to the complainant was adduced by any of the parties in evidence.
OPW-1 has deposed in his cross-examination that the complainant was admitted at his Nursing Home from 23.7.2008 to 29.7.08 and during that period, the case history and other related matters were noted in the relevant register and Bed Head Ticket maintained by the Nursing Home (Berhampore Sava Sadan -OP No.2) .
He has categorically deposed that he did not submit any document relating to treatment of the patient before this Forum.
PW-1, the complainant has deposed in her cross-examination categorically that during the tenure of her stay at the Berhampore Nursing Home, she became senseless and when she regained her sense she found herself admitted at Kolkata Nursing Home (Mohon Clinic), subsequently, she had no discussions with the members of her family for what problems she was admitted in Kolkata Nursing Home after being released from Berhampore Nursing Home.
PW-2, husband of the complainant has deposed in his examination-in-chief by affidavit that after two days of the said operation the health condition of his wife became gradually grave, he himself and his son made contact with the staff of OP No.2 as well as the OP No.1 immediately for such deterioration but the Ops without giving any proper answer regarding their quarries and on the other had OP No.1 advised them not to be worried.
He has also deposed in his examination-in-chief that all on a sudden the OP No.1 for the first time expressed his mind if the patient had not been transferred to Kolkata his wife would not be returned and he suo-moto contacted with Dr.S.N. Basak, Kolkata over telephone.
He has deposed in his cross-examination that two days after operation swelling of belly was detected and the matter was conveyed to the doctor accordingly but the Dr. S. Dutta did not refer the patient to any other doctor for further treatment.
On the other hand, OPW-1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that Dr. S. Pal M. D(Medicine) was called who examined the patient. Dr. D.K. Mondal, Dr. N.K. Saha and Dr. Rahaman also examined her and they all decided to repair the abdomen but family member refused and decided to take the patient to Calcutta.
In this regard it appears that the PW-2 has not categorically denied the same during his cross-examination.
Where, he has deposed that he cannot say as to whether Dr. K. Mondal , Dr. N.K. Saha, Dr. M. Rahaman and Dr. S. Pal of Berhampore made further treatment of his wife or not in the nursing home of OP No.2.
Though PW-2 has not categorically denied the same but he has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that two days after operation when swelling of belly was detected and the matter was conveyed to doctor but he did not refer the patient to any other doctor, rather told them not to be worried.
Thus, it is clear that onus is upon the OP-1 doctor to discharge his onus to prove this particular defense. When OP No.1 has not adduced any Bed Head Ticket or examined any one of those doctors as claimed to be proved the same.
He has deposed in his cross-examination that he has documents to show that Dr. Basak of Mohan Clinic made certain allegations against Dr. S. Dutta.
But, no such document has come before this Forum in evidence. In other words, the complaint has not filed any such document before this Forum.
Rather, the PW-2, husband of the complainant himself has deposed in his cross-examination categorically that the doctor of Mohan Clinic, however, advised them after his wife was discharged there-from to make consultation with Dr. S. Dutta (Gynaecologist) and Dr. Nirmal Saha (Surgeon) of Berhampore and the same has been corroborated by the discharge certificate of the complainant issued by Mohan Clinic of Kolkata.
He has also deposed that after his wife was discharged from Mohon Clinic he had consultation with Dr. Nirmal Saha, he has got no prescription of Dr. Nirmal Saha.
Be that as it may, the complainant has filed the discharge certificate issued by Mohan Clinic, Kolkata where the complainant was admitted on 30.7.2008 with septicaemia and generalized peritonitis with disorientation and ligaria, with 07 days post hysterectomy stbis from Berhampore.
Regarding Septicaemia the OPW-1 , the doctor OP No.1 has deposed in his cross-examination that Septicaemia might occur for various reason.
Where, he has categorically deposed in his cross-examination that one of the causes of Septicaemia is infection from the Nursing Home.
In this regard the PW-1 , the complainant has deposed admitting the fact in her cross-examination by Op No.2 Nursing Home that Berhampore Nursing Home(Seva Sadan ) is very much hygienic.
Admittedly, the complaint was operated by the doctor OP No.1 in the OP No.2’s Nursing Home.
Now, it is clear from the above admission of the complainant during her cross-examination by the OP No.2 Nursing Home that the alleged Septicaemia was not caused due to infection from the OpNo.2 Nursing Home.
Further, the Op No.1 has not adduced any cogent evidence rebutting the above piece of evidence admitting that the Op No.2 Nursing Home was very much hygienic.
Also, the OP No.1 has not adduced any cogent evidence to establish that the alleged septicaemia was caused for any other reason and not for his negligent.
To establish the carefulness of Op No.1 doctor the Ld. Lawyer for the OP No.1 doctor has advanced argument referring the evidence that the OP No.1 doctor accompanied the complaint to Mohan Clinic, Kolkata.
To challenge this argument as well as to establish carelessness of the OP No.1-doctor the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument that the OP No.1 doctor accompanied the complainant to Kolkata Nursing Home, Mohan Clinic without any paper relating to the treatment of the complainant.
In this regard OPW-1 , the doctor OP No.1 has deposed in his cross-examination that he had no discussions with the doctor of Mohan Clinic about the patient.
He has also deposed that he did not disclose his identity as doctor to Mohan Clinic where he has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he personally took the complainant to Calcutta at Mohan Clinic and she was admitted under Dr.S.N. Basak.
He has also deposed that he consulted with Dr. S.N. Basak and took information everyday till discharge and this is contradictory to his evidence during his cross-examination.
Then, question will come up automatically that why doctor accompanied the patient to Kolkata.
This act of doctor for accompanying the patient to Kolkata cannot be considered to show his carefulness.
In this connection PW-1 , the complainant has deposed in her examination-in-chief that up to 29.7.2008 the condition did not improve, then her husband requested Op No.1-doctor to take proper steps; but for the first time Op No.1 stated that the patient should be referred to Kolkata for better treatment and the suo-moto contacted Dr. S.N. Basak of Kolkata and advised for admission at Mohan Clinic under Dr. Basak who was attached there.
This piece of evidence has not been denied by the OP No.1-doctor.
To establish the proper care and absence of any negligence in the treatment of the complainant, the OPW-1, the doctor-OP No.1 has deposed in his cross-examination that finding the deteriorating conditions of the patient on 2.7.2008 I called Dr. S.Pal, Dr. D.K. Mondal, Dr. N.K. Saha & Dr. Rahaman and after necessary consultation with them he advised to obtain an ultra-sonography report and the Nursing Home kept that report.
But, no such report or bed head ticket of the complainant has come before this forum in evidence.
In this regard, the OP.W-1 , the Dr. S. Dutta, OP No-1 has deposed in his cross-examination that he did not submit any document relating to treatment of the patient before this forum.
He has deposed in his cross-examination that he offered the patient party for re-opening the abdomen, which was curable locally.
He has also deposed that from the Bed Head Ticket it would be evident that due to insistence of the patient party the complainant was required to be transferred to Kolkata.
He has further deposed in his cross-examination that open of the abdomen of the patient could not be done as the patient disagreed.
When, he has further deposed contradictorily that it is not noted that the patient was disagreed to open the abdomen.
But, in this case Bed Head Ticket of the complainant of OP No.2 Nursing Home has not come in evidence and the same is the vital piece of evidence to prove the defense case.
Admitted position of this case is that the complainant was admitted in the OP No.2 Nursing Home at Berhampore on 23.7.08 and on that day OP No.1 Dr. S. Dutta held operation on her.
After two days problems cropped up and complained to OP No.1 doctor.
Admittedly, on 29.7.08 the complainant was removed from Berhampore to Kolkata accompanied by OP no.1 doctor S. Dutta and the complainant was admitted in Mohan Clinic, Kolkata.
Now, the OP no.1 doctor is to show what treatment was provided by him to the complainant.
The OP No.1 has not adduced any piece of medical paper to show the same.
Rather, he has not even deposed himself anything to the effect particularly what medicine or steps taken.
He has simply deposed he called some doctors, held ultra-sonography and advised to re-open abdomen.
But, no documentary evidence to that effect has been adduced by the OP no.1.
Admittedly, the complainant was subsequently admitted in Mohan Clinic Nursing Home, Kolkata on 30.7.08and discharged on 7.8.08 where colostomy operation of the complainant was held.
From the evidence it is clear that the complainant was admitted in the Nursing Home Seva Sadan at Berhampore on and from 23.7.08 to 29.7.08 and wherefrom she was transferred straight to Mohan Clinic, Kolkata and there she was admitted on 30.7.08 with Septicaemia.
From ‘Seva Sadan’ Nursing home at Berhampore the complainant was not moved to anywhere save and except to Mohan Clinic, Kolkata.
It is also not rebutted by the OP No.1 that after two days of operation problems were cropped up and complained to doctor, OP no.1.
Admittedly, operation of the complainant was held at Seva Sadan Nursing by OP No.1 on 23.7.08.
After two days of operation problems were cropped up and this means that on 25.7.08 problem was cropped up.
Now, a clear question will arise to the effect that during the period from 25.7.08 to 29.7.08 what treatment was provided to the complainant by OP No.1.
In this regard from the deposition of OPW-1 it is clear that on such complaint he called one M.D and other doctors and advised to get Ultra Sonography of the patient and opined for re-opening the abdomen of the complainant.
He has not deposed anything in particular as to any treatment provided by him or by those doctors to take steps against septicaemia.
There is nothing in evidence that such advice of re-opening the abdomen was given on 25.7.08 or any other earlier date the complainant partly caused the delay and for that septicemia was cropped up.
Also, this is not the case of the Op No.1 –doctor.
From the above discussions we can safely conclude that for the negligence of OP No. 1 doctor only the septicaemia was cropped up and for that the complainant had to undergo colostomy operation.
In this case the complainant has claimed Rs.4, 73,925/- from the Ops.
From the evidence already discussed the OP No.2 Nursing Home “Seva Sadan’ at Berhampore being very much hygienic and is not responsible for the septicaemia suffered by the complainant and as such the OP No.2 is not liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant.
Regarding the aforesaid claim amount the complainant has filed the same in details in a separate sheet and has also filed Xerox copies of several cash memos, money receipts and some bills of Mohan Clinic.
In the impugned detailed statement of claim the complainant has claimed Rs.1,66,075/- for Nursing Home , Medicines , blood etc and Rs.20,000/- for Travelling & Other Expenditure, Rs.21,850/- for Food & Lodging(2 times), Rs.20,000/- for X-ray, USG etc at Berhampore (Lump sum amount about approx. 20 tests), Rs.3000/- for Doctor’s fee & Loose materials, Rs.23,000/- for Dressing fees & dressing materials(3 months continue), Rs.20,000/- for Nursing staff at home, Rs.2,00,000/- for Physically demurrage & mental harassment and in total Rs.4,73,925/-.
The complainant has not filed any documents in support of her claim for Rs.20,000/- towards X-ray, USG etc at Berhampore and for Rs.3,000/- towards Doctor’s fee and loose materials and for Rs.23,000/- towards dressing fees and dressing materials , Rs.20,000/- towards nursing staff for home.
The complainant’s case is that if the OP No.1 doctor was much careful, diligent and dutiful, the complainant would not have been shifted to Kolkata and would not have undergone Colostomy Operation constraining her to incur a heavy expenditure.
It is established that Septicaemia was caused for the negligence of the OP No.1 doctor who operated the complainant on 23.7.2008 at ‘Seva Sadan’ Nursing Home at Berhampore and for that the complainant had to shift to Kolkata on 29.7.2008 and she was admitted on 30.7.2008 at Mohan Clinic, Kolkata where her colostomy operation was held and she was discharged therefrom on 7.8.2008 with the advice of following up the treatment.
Thus, the complainant is entitled to get the cost of her treatment at Mohan Clinic and thereafter till recovery and not for the treatment at Seva Sadan, Berhampore.
The OP no.1 held operation of the complainant at Seva Sadan at Berhampore on 23.07.08 and transferred to Kolkata on 29.7.2008.
But, there is no evidence as well as any document to show for the post operation treatment of the complainant at Seva Sadan Nursing Home at Berhampore.
Where the complainant has claimed Rs.20,000/- for nursing staff at home without filing any document and for that we can safely conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get aforesaid claim amounting to Rs.66,000/-.
Regarding the claim of Rs.1,66,075/- for Nursing Home, Medicine, Blood etc. the complainant has filed Xerox copies of four money receipts of Mohan Clinic, Kolkata dated 30.7.08 for Rs.5,000/-, dt 01.8.08 for Rs.20,000/- ; dt. 2.8.08 for Rs.34, 307/- and dt. 3.8.08 for Rs.10, 000/- , dt 5.8.08 for Rs.5, 000/-; dt. 7.8.08 for Rs.83, 000/- and dt 27.10.08 for Rs.42, 650, totaling to Rs. 1, 59,957/-.
From the evidence already discussed it is clear that the complainant was admitted in Mohan Clinic, Kolkata from 30.7.08 to 7.8.08.
The bill of Mohan Clinic dt. 7.8.08 on the date of discharge for a sum of Rs.83, 000/- after rebate shows that the bill dt. 2.8.08 for Rs.34, 307 /- is included in this bill.
It is quite natural that the nursing home will raise a final bill on the date of discharge for the entire period.
Further, from the above four money receipts as well as from the bill dt. 7.8.08 it is clear that the complainant has paid Rs.40,000/- only to the Nursing Home and Rs.3000/- is payable.
Regarding the bill dt. 27.10.08 for Rs.42,650/- there is no case of the complainant that again she was admitted in Mohan Clinic and paid advance of Rs.19,000/- She has not filed any such money receipt.
Further both PW-1 and the complainant and PW-2 , husband of the complainant have not deposed anything regarding re-admission in Mohan Clinic on 27.10.08 as a consequence of earlier colostomy operation.
Thus it is clear that the complainant is not entitled to get Rs.42, 650/- in the bill dt. 27.10.08. It is also clear that the several cash memos of Ashoka Store and other cash memos for purchase of blood etc are also included in the bill dt. 07.08.08 of Mohan Clinic.
Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any such amount for purchase of medicines, blood etc separately. Considering the above discussion we can safely conclude that the complaint is entitled to get Rs.83, 000/- for Nursing Home, medicine, blood etc.
Further the complainant has claimed Rs.20, 000/- for Travelling and other expenditure and Rs.21, 850 for food and lodging without ailing any voucher.
In this regard we find that the question of food and lodging will arise only for the period from 30.7.08 to 07.08.08 for nine days from the treatment at Kolkata sand for travelling expense it will be only for twice ambulance fee, though it has not been mentioned categorically by the complainant in her claim petition.
Considering the above facts and circumstances we are of the view that the complainant will get Rs.10, 000/- towards travelling expenses and Rs.10, 000/- towards food and lodging.
The complainant has claimed Rs.2, 00,000/- as compensation towards physical damage and mental harassment.
In this regard we find from the examination-in-chief of PW-1 by affidavit that Dr. S.N. Basak made colostomy operation of the complainant to stop septicaemia by de-juncting of her rectum by the process of making hole in her belly fitting a tube with a removable packet with the direction to keep the patient in this way for three months after which normal function of the rectum was restored.
From this it is clear that for the septicaemia colostomy operation was held to stop the function of rectum by passing the stool by a separate channel and after three months function of rectum was restored.
For such septicaemia there was no permanent disablement of any organ of the complainant. After three months she was totally recovered from ailment
Considering the above sufferings and harassment we are of view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.50, 000/- for mental agony and harassment.
Considering the above discussions as a whole the complainant is entitled to get Rs.83,000/- for Nursing Home, medicine, blood etc ; Rs.10,000/- for Travelling expenses, Rs.10,000/- for food and lodging, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get total amount of Rs.1, 53,000/-.
On the basis of above discussions as a whole we find all these points are disposed of in part and considering the decision of all other points the complainant is entitled to get award in part as such the complaint be allowed in part and in total the complainant will get Rs.1,53,000/- from OP No.1.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the Consumer Complaint No.93/2009 be and the same is allowed in part on contest.
The complainant will get Rs.1, 53,000/- from the OP No.1, Dr. S. Dutta.
The OP No.1, Dr. S. Dutta is directed to pay Rs.1, 53,000/- to the complainant within a month from the date of passing of this order. In default, the OP No.1 is to pay Rs.100/- as fine for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under registered past with A/D to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum.
Murshidabad. Murshidabad. Murshidabad.
