NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIAPPEAL NO. No. FA/763/2007
(Against the Order dated 07/09/2007 in Complaint No. 30/2003 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. SRI TUHIN KUNDU21/2, TARAFDARPARA ROAD, P. O. ATHPUR, P. S. JAGADDAL, DISTRICT NORTH 24-PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. KOTHARI MEDICAL CENTRE8/3, ALIPUR ROAD, KOLKATA - 700027 WEST BENGAL 2. DR. ASISH MUKHERJEEC/O KOTHARI MEDICAL CENTRE, 8/3, ALIPOUR ROAD,KOLKATA - 700027WEST BENGAL
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 12 May 2010
ORDER
JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint No. 30/0/2003 by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the State Commission) vide order dated 7.9.2007, the unsuccessful complainant has filed the present appeal. 2. The complaint before the State Commission related to alleged negligence and deficiency in service in the treatment given by the opposite party No. 1-hospital and opposite party No. 2-doctor. The son of the complainant, namely, Dabottam Kundu was suffering from acute lymphatic leukemia. The hospital and the doctor contested the complaint denying any negligence and deficiency in service in the treatment of Master Debottam Kundu. Before the State Commission, Dr. P. Pyne was summoned to give expert opinion on the question as to whether there was any negligence or deficiency in service in the treatment of Master Kundu but the said doctor expressed his inability to render any opinion in the matter on the ground that he was not a specialist in that branch of medicine. The State Commission, going by the evidence and material brought on record, returned the finding that the complainant had failed to establish any negligence and deficiency in service and accordingly, dismissed the complaint. 3. We have heard Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. R. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. 4. After the matter was argued for the first time, it was noticed that the medical record of treatment of Master Kundu had not been filed before the State Commission. We, accordingly, directed the respondent No. 1-M/s Kothari Medical Centre to file the medical record of treatment of Master Kundu w.e.f. 24.6.2001 (the date of his first admission) to 16.7.2002 (the date of his discharge) at the said hospital. In response to the same, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents submits that most of the record of treatment of Master Debottam Kundu is now available with him and he can produce the same alongwith legible copy thereof. 5. On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that ideally, the entire medical record of the treatment of deceased-Debottam Kundu ought to have been brought on record of the State Commission in order to decide the complaint in an effective manner. Unfortunately, neither the complainant sought production of the said record nor the opposite party-hospital cared to produce the same before the State Commission to show that the treatment given by them was according to the established medical protocol. 6. In view of the forgoing reasons, we are of the view that it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the complaint is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law, of course, after taking on record the entire medical record of the treatment of Master Debottam Kundu as also any further evidence that the parties may like to produce in support of their respective pleas. The Commission may either permit the complainant to seek the opinion of an expert or may itself seek the opinion from a medical board having expertise in the relevant field. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside and the complaint is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh, in the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 7.6.2010 to receive further directions in the matter. Shri N. R. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to produce the entire medical record in the State Commission on that date. Since the matter has been delayed at the end of the State Commission and thereafter in this Commission, we request the State Commission to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as practicable within a period of six months. No order as to costs in these proceedings.
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER ......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
