Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Commission.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant was suffering from acute abdominal pain in 2013 and accordingly, he went to Dr. Ashok Acharya and on the basis of report, he advised to remove her right side ovary along with her uterus in the year 2018 at Suvam Hospital, Cuttack. It is also submitted that she again got pain on lower abdomen and after scanning, she was advised to remove her left kidney only to save her right side kidney. On the advice of Dr. Samir Swain, she was compelled to remove her left side kidney in the year 2018 at the Suvam Hospital, Cuttack. It is alleged further that after one year of removal of left kidney, she was suffering from acute pain in the lower part of her abdomen and again she went for CEST SCAN of abdomen at OP - diagnostic centre. He got a report from the OP which was prepared in a negligent manner. The family doctor of the complainant advised that CEST SCAN of abdomen was not correct because her right side ovary has already been removed since 2013 but the scan report shows that the uterus is normal inside, shape and outline. It is also alleged that the CEST SCAN report was clear to show that OP did not prepare the CEST SCAN of abdomen pelvis with professional skill and it is professional negligence on the part of the OP. Due to such wrong report the entire family members suffered. Thereafter, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP as set ex parte because they did not appear.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, learned District Commission passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
The complaint is allowed on ex parte against the opp.party. The opp.party is made liable for causing deficiency in service to the petitioner. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only to the petitioner for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) towards cost of litigation. The OP is further directed to refund a sum of Rs.9000/- to the complainant which he has received towards charges. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they have not received the notice and notice was not sufficient. Further, he submitted that report has been prepared without any sort of negligence and scanning cannot be said incorrect. However, he would produce his submission and matter may be remanded to the learned District Commission.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. No doubt the learned District Commission has not hear the OP of course he submitted that they have not received notice. We also find that no notice was served on the OP because no other acknowledgment or any report is made available. Since there is negligence on the part of OP alleged, we find that natural justice to be given if the OP should be given opportunity to be beard. Therefore, without giving any opinion on the merit of the case, we allow the appeal by remanding the matter to the learned District Forum to do well by calling upon the parties and by allowing the OP to file written version within statutory period and consider the evidence if any adduced by both the parties and dispose of the matter within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant on 28.11.2022 before the learned District Forum to receive further instruction from it.
The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
