28.12.2016

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          Two Misc. Applications bearing Nos. MA/481/2016 and MA/705/2016, filed by the Petitioner/Complainant and Petitioners/O.Ps respectively in connection with the Complaint Case No. CC/82/2016, were taken up for order today.

          In the Misc. Application bearing No. 481/2016, the Complainant prayed for considering the claimed amount to be revised at Rs.99,10,623/- from Rs.85,15,000/-.

          Heard the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.  The Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner/Complainant submitted that on the basis of the expenditures incurred in connection with the treatment including that in Woodland Multispeciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd., paying an economic loss that the patient and his parents had to undergo incourse of the whole treatment process and the punitive damages, the total expenditure of Rs.95,10,623/- was figured out.  As further submitted, adding an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the cost of litigation to the aforesaid amount the total claim of Rs.99,10,623/- was arrived at.  The claim being very well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission and sufficient explanation justifying the claim with item wise break up being given at page 4 of the petition, there was, as submitted, no bar to admit the claim.

          The Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps objected saying the aforesaid total claim was highly exaggerated.   As contended, the unusually high claim, being not supported with adequate justification, was bereft of any merit for being considered the same as maintainable.  The Ld. Advocate, in view of the above, prayed for the MA to be dismissed with consequent dismissal of the complaint case.

          As regards Misc. Application bearing No. MA/705/2016, the Ld. Advocate for the Petitioners/O.Ps submitted that the only son of the Complainant, a diabetic person, being attacked with dengu, contacted the O.P. No. 2 and on the basis of his advice for immediate hospitalization, he was admitted to O.P. No. 1 – Nursing Home which he was attracted to seeing the advertisement published in the “Graffiti” magazine circulated with the Telegraph, a leading English daily.

          The treatment in O.P. – Nursing Home, as alleged, being far from satisfactory, the patient was taken away by the Complainant on personal risk bond leaving, as submitted, no liability on the part of the O.Ps.

          The complaint, as further submitted, itself was indicative about the fact of admitting the patient further in Woodland Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd, where actually the patient received treatment for long 13 days before passing away.

          The Ld. Advocate contended that it was peculiar that the Woodland Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. and the treating doctor of the said nursing home were not made parties to this case.  The case, accordingly, was prayed for to be dismissed allowing the MA/705/2016 since the case lacked maintainability due to non-joinder of parties. 

          The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant opposed the above contention saying that there was no point dismissing the complaint on such a ground as provision was always open for the Complainant to make the Woodland Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. and the treating doctor in the said nursing home parties to this case. 

          The Ld. Advocate, in view of the above, prayed for dismissing the Misc. Application bearing No. 705/2016. 

          Having heard the contention of the Ld. Advocates on behalf of both sides and also on perusal of papers we, since justification of the revised complaint value has been put forward with item wise break up, do not find any reason to consider that the complaint lacks maintainability.  The Misc. Application bearing No. 481 of 2016 is, therefore, allowed.

          As regards, the Misc. Application bearing No. MA/705/2016, we are of the considered view that the MA/705/2016 is having no merit to consider as there is no bar in subsequent addition of necessary parties on observance of due formalities for the ends of justice.  The MA/705/2016 is dismissed.  The Complainant, since the patient has undergone treatment in Woodland Multispeciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and since the cost of expenditure for the treatment therein is included in the total claim, is, however, directed to implead the Woodland Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. and its treating doctor in this case by filing Misc. Application.

          Both the Misc. Applications bearing Nos. MA/705/2016 and MA/481/2016 are, thus, disposed of.  Fix 14.02.2017 for hearing the Misc. Application, if any, to be filed Complainant.  The O.Ps are also directed to file requisite number of copies of the W.V. in terms of the order dated 08.06.2016 on the aforesaid date fixed.