West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/17/6

SRI CHANDRASISH BANERJEE - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. TAPAS MAITRA - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT LAL CHAKRAVORTI

04 Jan 2019

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri
Kshudiram Basu Bipanan Kendra (2nd Floor)
H. C. Road, P.O. and P.S. Prodhan Nagar,
Dist. Darjeeling.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/17/6
( Date of Filing : 06 Jan 2017 )
 
1. SRI CHANDRASISH BANERJEE
S/O LT. DILIP KUMAR BANERJEE,42-LENIN SARANI, WARD NO.29,DESHBANDHUPARA,SILIGURI-734004.
DARJEELING
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. DR. TAPAS MAITRA
C/O MITRA'S CLINIC & NURSHING HOME, HAKIMPARA,SILIGURI-734001,DIST-DARJEELING.
2. MITRA'S CLINIC & NURSHING HOME,
HAKIMPARA, P.O. & P.S.-SIIGURI,DIST-DARJEELING.
3. DR. BIBHAS KUNDU
34A,MONOHARPUKUR ROAD,KOLKATA-700029.
4. SAMARITAN CLINIC(P)LTD.
4, ROY MANSION , ELGIN ROAD,(10/4D, LALA LAJPAT RAI SRANI),KOLKATA-700020.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA SAMADDER PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Shri Tapan Kumar Barman MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 04 Jan 2019
Final Order / Judgement

Today is fixed for awaiting order from the Honorable State Commission.

 The complainant files hazira through his Ld. Advocate on record.

 Ld Lawyer for the OPs no 3 & 4 files hazira. Other OPs  no 1, 2 & 5 also file hazira.

 For & on behalf of the OPs no 3 & 4, the Ld Advocate files a copy of the order dated 28.11.18 of the Honorable State Commission in c/w the Revision Petition no . RP/272/2017 filed by those Ops against the order no.13 dated 13.9.17 passed by this Forum in C/W CC No.06/s/2017 dismissing the application dated 05.04.17 Of the ops no 3 &4.

A perusal of the Said order transpires that the Honorable State   Commission was pleased to:-

  1. Set aside the impugned order No.13 dated 13.9.17 passed by this Forum in the instant Consumer case
  2.  

 

  1.   Dismiss the concerned  Consumer case on the ground of exceeding the pecuniary ambit of the Forum.

It further transpires from the perusal that thepecuniary ambit of the Forum became impugned because:-

 

  1. The amount Rs.19,50,000/- claimed as Compensation , Rs.58,869/- to be the treatment cost at Op no 4 and of Rs.1,03,463/- at CMRI have been shown  separately in the complainant petition, the aggregate value of which is beyond the pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
  2. The claimed compensation ,if inclusive of treatment cost as stated in para 30 of the complainant petition should, then, have been Rs. (19,50,000-(58,869+1,03,463)) 17,87,668/- which has ,nowhere ,been stated in the complainant petition.

 

Heard both the sides. Considered . In compliance with the order of the Honorable State Commission the consumer case is stopped at this stage without proceeding further.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA SAMADDER]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Shri Tapan Kumar Barman]
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.