Date of Filing: 23.04.2014. Date of Disposal: 15.05.2023.
Complainant :Anupam Sengupta S/O Late Gorasashi Sengupta, residing at Katwa Town Hall Para, P.O. & P.S. Katwa, Dist. Burdwan, Pin – 713130.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party :1. Dr. Sabitabrata Basu, S/O Sundar Gopal Basu, Residing at Hill View North 2nd Lane, Joy Durga Bhawan, S. B. Garai Road,
Asansol-1,
Chamber at Kachari Road, (Preeti Optics, Kachhari Road, P.O.& P.S. Katwa, District Burdwan, Pin-713130.
2. Proprietor, Savasadan Nursing Home at Dakbunglo Road, Katwa, Burdwan, Pin-713130.
3. Dr. D.D.C, Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. 14, G.T. Road, Sheoraphuly, Hooghly, West Bengal, Pin-712223.
4. Micron Diagnostic, Katwa Division, 498, K.G. Bose Sarani (Goenka More), Katwa , Burdwan,
5. Dr. Kumar Sourav, Shankara Netralaya, 147, Mukundpur, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata.
6. Preeti Optics, Kachhari Road, Beside Janakalyan Sangha, P.O.& P.S. Katwa, Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713130.
7. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Division No. V, Thapar House, 2nd Floor, 25 Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
: Mr. Atanu Kr. Dutta. - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Mr. Kishalay Sengupta Son of the Complainant.
Appeared for the O.P No.1 : Mr. Nirmal Chakraborty. Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the O. P . No. 2 : Mr. Subrata Ghosh Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the O.P. No.3 : Mr. Amitava Chowdhury Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the O.P. No. 4 : Mr. Lokenath Dey Ld. Advocate.
F I N A L O R D E R
On 23.04.2014 the complainant Anupam Sengupta has lodged this application u/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 against the OPs.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant is a resident of Katwa Town Hall Para and OP No.1 is a doctor having chamber at Kachhari Road, Katwa, Burdwan within the jurisdiction of this Commission, whose wrong treatment the petitioner lost his left eye and OP No.2 is the Proprietor of Sevasadan Nursing Home at Dakbunglow Road, Katwa, Burdwan wherein the operation was done by OP No.1. That the petitioner is a sole earning member of his family including his wife and son, that the petitioner was a teacher and retired on 30.09.2005. He was suffering from Cataract to his left eye . So he contracted OP No.1 who is a doctor consultant Phaco Surgeon. OP No.1 advised the petitioner for Fhaco Surgery in his left eye and issued prescription on 01.12.2012 (Annexure-A) . As per advice of the doctor, on 05.12.2022 Phaco Surgery was done by OP No.1 at the Nursing Home of OP No.2 and Foldable IOL has been installed by the OP No.1 in the left eye of the complainant and also OP No. 1 prescribed some medicines. On 05.12.2012 the complainant was discharged from the Nursing Home, Discharge Certificate attached (Annexure –B). That after discharge from the Nursing Home, the petitioner consumed some medicines and applied eye-drops as prescribed by the Op No.1. But the complainant felt un-easy and his left eye became reddish and condition of the eye deteriorated and the complainant contracted with the OP No.1 on 04.08.2013. The OP No.1 Doctor examined him and referred to Dr. D.D. Chakrabory at Disha Eye Hospital where he advised his prescription dt. 14.08.2013 (Annexure-C). on 13.08.2013 the complainant had been at the Disha Eye Hospital , after examining the complainant and the doctor advised some medicines but after taking medicines as prescribed by Disha Eye Hospital P.v.t, the complainant’s eye condition has not been normal. On 19.01.2014 the complainant again came to the Chamber of OP No.1 who examined and advised him to admit at Sevasadan Nursing Home for removal of the Foldable IOL from his left eye and as per advice of OP No.1, complainant was admitted at Sevasadan Nursing Home on 19.01.2014 and the OP No.1 removed the Foldable IOL from the left eye of the complainant and advised some clinical examinations. On 19.01.2014 the complainant was discharged from the Nursing Home. Clinical examination was done from Micron Diagnostic, Katwa, on 20.01.2014 and again the complainant had been at the Chamber of OP No.1 for proper relief but no relief has been given by the OP No.1 and thus the left eye of the complainant was totally damaged. That taking no other alternative, the complainant had been in the hospital of Sankara Nethralaya , 147, Mukundapur, E.M. Bypass. Doctor of Sankara Nethralaya examined the patient and advised some clinical examinations dt. 7.03.2014. and as per advice of Sankara Nethralaya the complainant entered into a clinical test guided by Dr. K.S. and obtained report dt. 07.03.2014 and consulted with doctors of Sankara Nethralaya and came to know from that report that “ Lens echo not noted, Total retinal detachment with narrow funnel configuration noted 360 degree shallow serous choroidal noted ONH shadow appear normal. Doctor opined that left eye of the petitioner is totally damaged and no chance for repair. That only remedy is eye trans-plant.”
That the complainant lost his left eye by wrong treatment done by OP No.1 which is an unfair trade practice of OP Nos. 1 & 2 and that complainant has no financial capacity for eye transplant as suggested by Dr. K. Sourav of Sankara Nethralaya, as such to get better treatment from Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai is not possible for him at this juncture. This apathetic and apparently deceitful attitude of the OPs reflects its indifference to the complainant’s plight. As such he stands on very firm legal ground in claiming total amount of Rs. 19,10,000/- .
Upon this background, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs. 24,000/- which is mentioned in relief 1 (a) to (j) and Rs. 7,50,000/- for further treatment and transplant of eye along with Rs. 26,000/- for T.A & D.A. to go and get better treatment from Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai. He also prayed for directing to the OPs to pay Rs. 11,00,000/- for unfair act, harassment , mental agony and financial loss and cost of ligation of Rs.10,000/- .
The OP Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 have filed separate Written Versions to contest the case denying all the material allegations.
OP No.1 contended that there was no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and character and the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the complaint has been filed with mala-fide intentions and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The specific case of the OP No.1 is that Anupam Sengupta came to the OP No.1 at Preeti Optics on 25.11.2012 for the first time with cataract in the left eye. On 05.12.2012 operation was done diligently, prudently with due care and caution. On 09.12.2012 patient came for follow up. The vision was 6/9 in left eye. The patient was advised to continue all previously prescribed medicine and to come again after 10 days. The patient came late for the second follow up on 03.02.2013 with complaint of pain and diminution of vision (left eye). Delay of every day is important when it comes to eye illness. The patient was diligently treated with steroid and antibiotics and again advised for a follow up on 6th February or 10th Feb. Patient again came late by 2 weeks for a follow up on 17.02.2013 on that day his vision was better 6/18. The patient was advised to continue all medicines and to visit after 10 days. This time patient came late 36 days for a follow up on 26.03.2013 instead of 10 days with same previous complaints. Delay of every day is important in eye illness. After one month on 23.04.2013 the patient again appeared in OPD with complaint of sudden decrease of vision in left eye for 7 days.. Vision was reduced to hand movement close to the face. Local steroid and cycloplegic + systemic steroid were prescribed. On 07.05.2013 patients eye condition improved. Vision improved to 6/24. The patient was advised to continue all medicines. Thereafter, the patient came on 12.05.2013 on that day steroid dose was reduced and the patent was referred to Disha Care Hospital for retina opinion to Dr. D.D.C. The patient did not go to Disha Care Hospital and again came on 19.05.2013 to this OP No.1. The patient’s vision was better and was advised to continue all medicines. On 28.05.2013 wysolone was tapered. The patient came on 30.06.2013 and on 16.07.2013 for the follow up. The patient was again referred to Disha to Dr. DDC. Then patient visited to Dr. DDC on 19.09.2013 after a long gap. The patient’s vision was 6/9 P. on 24.10.2013 within one month vision dipped to 6/36. Dr. DDC advised for vitrectomy and intravitreal injection. According to text book 6th edition, page No. 358 advice given by Dr. DDC is second choice and first choice is explantation of intra ocular lens and vitrectormy, which was done diligently, prudently with utmost due care and caution by the OP No.1. On 19.01.2014 IOL explantation was done through pre-existing Phaco wound anterior vitrectomy was done diligently with vitrectomy cutter and the specimen was sent for culture. At first follow up fundus was not visible. Whether the retinal detachment is present or not was not detectable. On 02.02.2014 wysolone was stopped. On 02.03.2014 retinal detachment detected and urgently referred to Retina Surgeon. On 07.03.2014 patient visited to S.N. Kolkata and was advised for vit+ BB+ RR+ Ldfc and MPis . These are steps of retinal detachment. The patient also visited to Vasan Eye Care (Salt Lake) . They also advised for retinal detachment surgery. But the patient told them they have not decided anything about the surgery. According to the books there were very good chances of recovery of vision because RD duration was less than two months, it was only 47 days post-operative from 19.01.2014 to 07.03.2014. in this case. According to the patient as told by doctors of Sankara Nethralaya, the “only hope” of visual recovery is “eye transplant” but this is totally imaginary, only part of eye, cornea is transplanted but doctor of Sankara Netryalaya advised for detachment surgery with this false believes patient stops all treatment and gradually lost vision. Everything the OP No.1 did was done diligently, prudently with utmost due care and caution in treating the said patient. OP no.1 says that there was no negligence at least from their side.
Upon this background, the OP No.1 claims for dismissal of the case.
The specific case of the OP No.2 is that this OP No. 2 is a registered Nursing Home. This OP has R.M.O. and trained Nurses. From the documents, it would be evident that this OP has provided facilities to the patient in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the medical science and this OP has not committed any negligence on the treatment of the patient. There is no iota of evidence wherefrom it would be evident that this OP committed negligence in treating the patient. This OP has observed all necessary formalities as required under the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Act and there after it has got necessary permission from the competent authority to run the same.
Upon this background, the OP No.2 claims for dismissal of the case against him.
The specific case of the OP No.3 is that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present proceedings against him and the complaint did not disclose anything against this OP No.3. The complainant came to OP No.3 at Disha Eye Hospital on 13.08.2013 and after examination it was found that the visual acuity of the complainant was 6/18 and 6/24 in the right eye and the left eye respectively. The complainant had implantation with grate 1 vitreous calls 2 and same vitreousdebric. After clinical examination, the OP No.3 advised some medicine and asked to review after 2 weeks. On 27.08.2013 the complainant came to the OP No.3 for checkup and after examining the complainant , it was found that the complainant’s best corrected visual acuity was 6/12P in the right eye and 6/12 P in the left eye and the complainant felt mild improvement in his status. The posterior chamber intraocular lens was noted. Retina was attached and vitreious cells 2+ were present. The complainant was advised to continue with his existing medication and also advised a review after 3 weeks. On 24.10.2013 the complainant again came for further checkup after examining the complainant it was found that vision in the right eye was 6/18 but the left eye vision was 6/36. After examination the complainant was advised vitrectomy to facilitate micro-biological assessment of the viterious along with intravitreal antibiotics. But the complainant did not report to the OP No.3 anymore.
Upon this background, he claims for dismissal of the case against him.
OP No.4 stated that it is a genuine and reputed Diagnostic Center at Katwa and it has goodwill for giving good and honest service in public at large. There is no allegation except the allegation against the OP Nos. 1 & 2.
Upon this background, he prayed for dismissal of the case against him.
OP Nos. 5,6 and 7 did not come to contest the case . Accordingly, the case is heard ex parte against them. That apart there is no allegation against these OPs in the complaint at all.
Decision with Reasons.
In order to prove the case, Mr. Kishalay Sengupta, son of the complainant-Anupam Sengupta, gave evidence-on-affidavit on behalf of the complainant and Anupam Sengupta who is the complainant did not adduce evidence himself. The complainant has filed Xerox copies of documents.
The OP No.1 filed questionnaire against the said evidence and witness-Kishalay Sengupta gave answers to the said questionnaire. OP No.3 also filed questionnaire and the witness of the complainant also gave answers to the said questions.
The opinion of the expert dt. 17.01.2017 has been received in this case and the complainant filed questionnaire against the opinion of the expert. Two affidavits of Expert Witnesses and affidavit of Eye-witness has been filed in this case. The expert also filed reply against the questionnaire filed by the complainant.
In order to disprove the case, the OP No.1 has filed evidence-on-affidavit and he has also filed evidence of Dr. Atif Anwar and Dr. Gopal Bondayapadhyay as expert witnesses and affidavit of one Mrs. Mayurika Mukherjee as eye witness.
Both parties have filed Written Notes of Argument.
Now we like to discuss the evidence on record both oral and documentary as to how the complainant has been able to prove the ingredients of the medical negligence/professional negligence of OP Nos. 1 & 2 in this case.
At first the OP No.2 is a Nursing Home and as per its Written Version, the Nursing Home is a registered nursing home under the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Act and has goodwill in the locality. The complaint itself does not disclose any grave allegations against the Nursing Home (OP No.2) and as per advice of OP No.1, the complainant voluntarily admitted there for his cataract surgery. Therefore, there is no iota of evidence in the witness of the complainant that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2. Therefore, the OP No.2 is not at all liable for medical negligence.
As per oral evidence and the complaint, the main allegation for negligence and unfair trade practice is against the OP No.1 who did PHACO Surgery with installation of Foldable IOL in the left eye of the complainant. Wrong diagnostic or wrong treatment is not the criterion to be calculated negligence of a doctor. In the case of medical negligence, it should be looked into as to whether the doctor concerned did not take any due care in respect of medical treatment of the patient for which the breach of due care was caused and lastly due to such breach of duty to take care caused the damaged to the patient.
In the instant case, it is also evidenced from the witness of the complainant that after PHACO Surgery, the OP No.1 prescribed some medicines and the complainant was discharged from the Nursing Home of the OP No.2 on 05.12.2012 and he consumed and applied the eye-drop as prescribed by the OP No.1 doctor. He felt uneasy and his left eye became reddish and the condition of the left-eye became deteriorated and he contacted with the OP No.1 on 4.08.2013 but after examination, the OP No.1 doctor referred him to Dr. D.D.C at Disha Eye Hospital and the said hospital on 13.08.2013 examined him and advised him some medicines and he took those medicines as prescribed by the doctor of Disha Eye Hospital but the condition of his left eye was not normal. On 19.01.2014, he again came to the Chamber of the OP No.1, who examined the complainant and advised to admit at Sevasadan Nursing Home (OP No.2) for removing the Foldable IOL of the left eye of the complainant. The witness also stated that the OP No.1 advised some clinical examination on 19.01.2014 and he was discharged from the said Nursing Home and he was issued a certificate on 19.01.2014. The complainant on 20.01.2014 did his clinical tests from the Micron Diagnostic Center and came to the Chamber of the OP No.1 for proper relief but he did not get any relief. Accordingly his left eye had been totally damaged. Thereafter, he went to several medical institutions such as Sankara Netharalaya , Kolkata but there is no allegations against them in the complaint but only stated that Sankara Netharalaya advised him that there is no chance of repairment and only remedy is eye-transplantation.
But the OP No.1 in his evidence stated that the complainant on 25.11.2012 came to his Chamber at Preeti Optics for cataract surgery (PHACO Surgery). On 05.12.2012 operation was done diligently, prudently with utmost due care and caution. On 09.12.2012 the patient came for follow up. The vision was 6/9 in left eye and he was advised to continue all previously prescribed medicines and to come again after 10 days. The patient came late on 03.02.2013 with complaint of pain and diminution of vision (left eye). Delay of every day is important when it comes to eye illness. The patient was diligently treated with steroid and antibiotics and against advised for follow up on 6th February 2013 or 10th February, 2013. The patient again came late by 2 weeks on 17.02.2013. On that day, his vision was better 6/18. The patient was advised to continue all medicines and to visit after 10 days. This time the patient came late 36 days for a follow up on 26.03.2013 instead of 10 days with some complaints. Delay of every day is important in eye illness. After one month on 23.04.2013 patient again appeared in OPD with complaint of sudden decrease of vision in left eye for 7 days, vision was reduced to hand movement close to the face. Local steroid and cycloplegic + systemic steroid were prescribed. On 07.05.2013 patients eye condition improved. Vision improved to 6/24. The patient was advised to continue all medicines. Thereafter, the patient came on 12.05.2013 on that day steroid does was reduced and the patient was referred to Dr. Deb Dulal Chakraborty at Disha Eye Hospital for retina opinion. The patient did not go to Disha Eye Hospital and again came to OP no.1 on 19.05.2013. The vision of the patient was better and was advised to continue all medicines. On 28.05.2013 wysolone was tapered. The patient came on 30.06.2013 and on 16.07.2013 for the follow ups. The patient was again referred to Disha Eye Hospital to Dr. D.D. Chakraborty . The patient visited to Dr. D.D. Chakraborty on 19.09.2013 after a long gap. The patient’s vision was 6/9P. On 24.10.2013 within one month vision was dipped to 6/36. Dr. D.D. Chakraborty advised for vitrectomy and intravitreal injection but the patient did not follow the same. Dr. D.D. Chakraborty advised for an explantatition of intra ocular lens and vitrectomy, which was done diligently, prudently with utmost due care and caution by the OP No.1. On 19.01.2014 IOL explantation was done through pre-existing PHACO would anterior vitrectomy was done diligently with vitrectory cuter and the specimen was sent for culture. At first follow up, fundus was not visible. Whether the retinal detachment is present or not was not detectable. On 2.02.2014 wysolone was stopped. On 02.03.2014 retinal detachment detected and urgently referred to retinal surgeon. On 07.03.2014 patient visited to Sankar Nethralaya at Kolkata and was advised for vit+ BB+ RR + Ldfc and MP is these are the steps of retinal detachment. The patient visited to Vasan Eye Care (Salt Lake) . They also advised for retinal detachment surgery. But the patient told them they have not decided anything about the surgery. According to the books, there were very good chances of recovery of vision because RD duration was less than two months. , it was only 47 days post-operative from 19.01.2014 to 07.03.2014 in this case. The “only hope” of visual recovery is “eye transplant” but this is totally imaginary, only part of eye, cornea is transplanted but doctor of Sankara Netryalaya advised for detachment surgery. With this false belief, patient stopped all treatment and gradually lost vision.
From the evidence of the eye-witness of the complainant it is not clear whether the OP No.1 removed the Foldable IOL from the left eye of the complainant as because he stated that he (OP No.1) advised the patient to admit Sevasadan Nursing Home at Katwa for removing the Foldable IOL from the left eye of the complainant but nowhere stated that the OP No.1 doctor removed the Foldable IOL from the left eye of the complainant. On the other hand, from the evidence of Op No.1 , it is clear that the patient was delayed to take step in date fixed for treatment and in response to date when he came to the Chamber of the doctor (OP No.1) , he took care of treatment, prescribed actual medicine and on examination vision was better. But delay of every day is important in eye illness and the said delay has been caused by the complainant himself and this evidence of the OP No.1 has not been shaken by the complainant as the complainant did not put any questionnaire to the OP No.1 regarding his evidence . On the other hand, long after surgery when he came to the Op No.1, after examining him, he advised to continue all medicines and lastly on 12.05.2013 and 19.05.2013 steroid dose was reduced and the patient was referred to Disha Eye Hospital to Dr. D.D. Chakraborty but patient did not go to Disha Eye Hospital in time and again on 19.05.2013 he came to OP no.1. The vision of the patient was then also better and was asked to continue all medicines. Thereafter, on 30.06.2013 and 16.07.2013 the patient came for follow ups. The patient was again referred to Dr. D.D. Chakraborty of Disha Eye Hospital and lastly on 19.09.2013 after a long gap , he visited to Dr. D.D. Chakraborty of Disha Eye Hospital and the vision of the patient was 6/9P and the doctor of Disha Eye Hospital advised him for vitrectomy and intravitreal injection for treatment of the eye and Op No.1 on 19.01.2014 did IOL explantation through pre-existing PHACO wound anterior vitrectomy was done diligently with vitrectomy cutter and the specimen was sent for culture. At first follow up, funds was not visible. Whether the retinal detachment is present or not was not detectable. On 02.02.201 wysolone was stopped. On 02.03.2014 retinal detachment was detected and he was urgently referred to retina Surgeon. From this step by step treatment by the OP No. 1 given to the complainant clearly indicates that there was no breach of duty to take care in respect of the treated the patient as a skilled and prudent person. One story in this regard came into the picture that the complainant himself went to the clinical examination of the eye before a Diagnostic Laboratory in the name and style of Micron Diagnostic, Katwa Division (OP No.4) without any advice of the doctor (OP No.1). From this trend of incident as stated by the doctor and supported by the medical papers clearly indicates that the doctor took due care in respect of the treatment of the eye of the complainant but the delay in treatment has been caused by the complainant himself which is very vital in the treatment of an eye and from the clinical examination at Micron Diagnostic Centre at Katwa by the complainant himself and the evidence of the OP No.1 shows that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the complainant himself and the evidence of the OP No.1 cannot be thrown away as the complainant has not been able to shake the said evidence, rather one Dr. Atif Anwar who is an experienced eye surgeon of Vasan Eye Care Hospital , filed an affidavit as an Expert Eye-Witness stated that Dr. Sabitabrata Basu has treated diligently with due care and caution to deal with the case and he had shown proper skill, care and a great diligence in treating the patient and another Dr. Gopal Bondyopadhyay , 10 years’ experience at Vasan Eye Car & Other Hospitals also stated as an expert eye-witness in his Affidavit in the same version of Dr. Atif Anwar. One another Mrs. Mayurika Mukherjee stated as an eye-witness of Vasan Eye Care that Dr. Sabitabrata Basu, like a diligent and prudent doctor, treated the patient and had shown proper skill, care and a great diligence in treating the patient. Accordingly, they are all aware of this complaint case. But their evidence have not been put to any question by the complainant.
The expert report dt. 17.01.2017 given by Dr. Mousumi Banerjee, Professor & HOD, Department of Ophthalmology, Burdwan Medical College & Hospital, discloses the fact as stated by the OP No.1 in his evidence and from this report it is found that the complainant in every step was late for follow up his treatment and the complainant could not produce any documents regarding the claim that he was advised for eye transplantation and thre is no evidence of negligence on the part of the OP Nos. 1 & 2. The report also discloses that the complainant himself was non-compliant on several occasions and reluctant and late for his follow-up visits. Some questions were put to the Expert by the complainant which does not bring fruitful result in this case.
Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the above made discussions, we find that the complainant has failed to bring home the complaint against the OP No.1 also. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in leading case in Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab [ (2005) 6 SCC 1] made a conclusion that “Negligence is the breach of duty caused by omissions to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by those considerations, which ordinarily regulates human affairs would do something, which a prudent and reasonable person would not do those reasonable degree.
“Negligence becomes accountable on account of injury resulting in from an act or omission the negligence attributed to the present sued. The essential components of negligence are ‘”duty” “breach” and “resulting damage”. It was also concluded that the test of determining medical negligence laid down in Bolam case holds good in its applicability in India. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
In the instant case already discussed above, we find that this principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is also held good in its applicability in this case.
Hence, the case fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the Consumer Complaint No. 69/2014 be and the same hereby dismissed on contest against the OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 and ex parte against the rest of the OPs without any order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to all the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.
Member President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.
