Order No.31, dated 28/10/2013.

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has filed a petition with heading -

Petition for withdrawal of suit, on acknowledgement of the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1 & 2.

The petition contents speaks that the Complainant of the case withdraw his suit for lack of documents for which he placed  a petition for adding of parties and the Ld. Forum being pleased rejected the petition.

Therefore it is humble submission before the Ld. Forum to allow the petition.

The Ld. Advocate Mr. Bibek Kr. Dutta as Agent has filed his attendance for the O.P. No.1 & 2.

We perused the record.

It appears to us that Sri Tapan Das has filed the complaint on 14/03/2012 against 1. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mistry & 2. Nirada Pathological Laboratory U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging that his wife feeling ill with high fever took her to the O.P. No.1 on 06/08/2012 who after her examination advised some tests which were done at Nirada Pathological Laboratory i.e. the O.P. No.2 on 07/08/2012 and placed the said report to the O.P. No.1.

On perusal of the said Laboratory report the O.P. No.1 disclosed that she had been suffering from Typhoid and advised her to have plenty of water and medicine which she did but there was no improvement.

On 09/08/2012 her condition detoriated and she was again taken to the O.P. No.1 who advised her to follow his prescribed medicine when she returned home and her condition became serious. Again on 11/08/2012 she was taken to the O.P. No.1 when he advised tests. The Complainant asked the O.P doctor to refer his wife for better treatment but he did not pay any heed to it.

Then he admitted his wife at Tufanganj S.D. Hospital, where doctors told why the Complainant did come so late, when he narrated the earlier treatment. The patient did not improve and then he took his wife to Cooch Behar and admitted her at Subham Hospital where she was kept in I.C.U. but ultimately she died.

He has alleged against the O.P doctor liable for not referring the patient for better treatment, negligent attitude, deficiency in Service, unfair trade practice for which his wife died.

The Ld. Agent of the O.P. No.2, he alleged that the report of Test did not disclose the name and designation of the Pathologist not only his signature was there which is unfair trade practice.

He has prayed for direction to the O.P. No.1 to reimburse the expenditure  Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment, Rs.2,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice by the O.P. No.2 and Rs.50,000/- towards of deficiency in service by the O.P. No.1 and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceeding besides other relief. He has filed this complaint on affidavit.

He has appointed Ld. Advocate Mr. Himadri Sarkar Roy as his Agent (without date).

On 09/10/2012 the Ld. Advocate Mr. Bibek Kr. Dutta as Agent of O.P. No.1 & 2 filed a petition and by appears of the O.Ps, for supplying copies. On 17/01/2013 the W/V of the O.P. No.1, doctor has been filed which in gist speaks of the O.P. No.1 as a qualified doctor, claim of advise to the patient for better treatment and denied any negligence and/or deficiency in service etc. and prayed for not allowing the relief and dismiss the complaint.

The O.P. No.2 in his version claimed the allegations baseless, false etc. and claimed that the O.P. No.2 was not involved with the treatment and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Since, 09/10/2012 till date 28/10/2013 i.e. since appearance of both the O.Ps till filing the withdrawal petition in such fashion besides the prayer of the Complainant dated 27/05/2013 to implead Dept. of Health & Family welfare of W.B. on the grounds was, as necessary party allowed by this Forum and on 27/05/2013 the Complainant filed amended complaint adding some words at para 8 against the O.P. No.2 in respect of valid License, illegally and unauthorisedly running the Laboratory.

On 27/05/2013 the Complainant filed another prayer for amendment of complaint petition.

Such petition of amendment, the Ld. Agent of the O.P. No.1 had filed Written Objection on 08/08/2013. So also the O.P. No.2 filed Written Objection against such amendment petition.

During their spent of more than one year, the Complainant filed the instant petition for withdrawal of the case alleging rejection of adding party petition etc.

Thus, we are satisfied that the Complainant without filing any single document as to treatment or his wife, he dragged the case with ulterior motive and this Forum has reason to believe that the Complainant Sri Tapan Das filed the Complaint which is fraud to be trivolous and vexatious and hence we dismiss the complaint and order that the Complainant shall pay Rs.1,000/- within 60 days for this Final Order U/S 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986 to S.C.W.F.W.B.

Accordingly, the petition of the Complainant dated 28/10/2013 decided on its out fortings and on merit.

Thus, the case is decided on merit based on complaint and written version of the two O.Ps and other relevant materials on record.

Let plain copy of this Final Order be made ready and sent to the parties concerned free of cost.