The complainant Krishna Ray has filed this case against the o.p. named above for claim of death of his son damage arises Rs. 25,00000/- (Twenty Five Lakh) with interest @ 18 %.
The case of complainant appears from his complaint petition dated 06-03-2018 filed on 07-03-2018 supported with an affidavit that the complainant has carried his son to Minkshi Hospital for his treatment on 13-12-017 as he was complaining the pain in his leg where Dr. Vivek r o.p no.1 examined him and directed the complainant that o.p. aperation necessary and first he will deposit money of Rs. 1,00,000/-immediately at the counter, their after he will examine his son. As such after Managing the money the complainant has deposited the money and required receipt which was directed to be latter on got available to him on faith he was agree, the money was deposited at the end of o.p no.2 and wanted to know what for operation is necessary because the patient has no complain of plain in stomach. The Dr. has stated that he will accompany the patient to O.T and o.p no3 is coming to give anesthesia a before operation, in mean time o.p. no.3 came in drunken state on which he objected, but Dr. has taken patient in o.T assuming the complainant that nothing problem will arise. Latter on when Dr. Sandeep Suarav came in drunken state from O.T and after taking papers from the complainant stated that his patient is in good condition nothing problem will arises and has been shifted to ICU, he came there and found the respiratory system was not functioning and after viewing the complainant the Dr. & staffs were got away and his son was died. He has alleged that under the connivance of all three opposite parties they have taken Rs. 100000/- from the complainant and to grabe the money and after giving much more anesthesia by which his son was died as such the act of o.p’s are not proper and have done negligence and killed his son and is clear-cut discrepancy arises against them, for which he has filed this case of claim Rs. 2500000/- with interest @ 18 %.
The complainant has filed Prescriptions of his son treatment done in the hospital, of o.p, copy of Furdheyan of complainant regarding the death of his son registered as Brahampura P.S case no.316/2017 dated 14-12-2017 under u/s 304 (A) IPC, At Postmortem report.
In this case o.p appeared and filled his written statement dated. 29-05-2018 supported with an affidavit alleged there in that the case is not maintainable and false, baseless because of the son of complainant was complaining the pain in his leg which was happens from road accident which has been substantiated by medical examination of post mortem report. He has taken the depoiste of Rs. 1, 00,000/- is false and concocted. He was directed that after receipt of examination report it should be declared that operation is necessary or not. The allegation of drunken state of o.p no.3 is totally false, because when operation was not done then his becoming in O.T is totally false, when the report of son of complainant came in which internal injury found from accident and the blood found clotted in his lung, chest inestine and liver for which the deceased has complain of pain in his stomach. He was never admitted in ICU but he was refereed by the o.p to higher centre but due to their in capability they have not taken his son mean time he died and after his death the complainant and companion have started loot and assault and damage of hospital property for which the o.p has registered Brahmapura P.S. Case No.- 317/2017 and on the aforesaid ground the o.p has prayed to dismiss the case.
The. O.P has filed Xerox copies of medical prescription, report and postmortem report & copy of FIR.
The o.p no.1 has also filed a separate written submission alleged there in that the complainant has file this case to harass & humiliate the o.p no. 1 in the society and to grabe the money. The case is fake & false, fabricated, misleading, without any relevant documentary evidence. Actually the complainant was met with son having internal injury occurred by road accident which came from test report, ultra sound report as well as postmortem report. He has clearly mentioned the injury of his son found by him at the time of first examination which the complainant has deliberately suppressed in his complain petition. There was no any demand of money. He was never operated in the Minakshi Hospital by the o.p no. 1 rather he died but after admitted in ICU of Minakshi Hospital as such he has prayed to dismiss the case.
O.P no.2 & 3 have file their written argument dated 19-06-2018 mentioning the same fact as alleged in his written statement nothing new fact has been submitted.
Considering the facts, circumstances, material available with the record as well as allegation of respective parties the admission in ICU is admitted o.p no.1. As per FIR this case has been registered u/s 304 /A IPC after going though the postmortem report the Dr. who has Performed the postmortem of son of complainant found at the time of postmortem he has found external & internal injuries and on direction of chest and abdomen, liver was enlarged in size and white in colour, heart was also enlarged in storage of deposition of the fat the lungs was backis in colour and inlarged in size He has reserve the Vicra for Pathelogical examination and he has not given his opinion regarding the cause of death. Report of Vicra is not procured, as such we cannot find that the death was happen due to heavy anesthesia as alleged by the complainant.
Further after careful scrutiny and going through the complainant petition it appears before us that the complainant has demanded Rs. 25,00,000/- as damage against the o.p . In this regard it is necessary to say that the D.C.F has its pecuniary jurisdiction provided up to Rs. 20,00,000/- only and this case come beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum. On this score alone this case is not maintainable.
Considering the fact circumstance material available with the record as well as above finding we are of the constrained view that this case is not maintainable and the complainant is not found able to proof his case as such this case is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly this case stands dismissed, parties bear their own cost.
