No. 3/19.03.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 though Mr. Avik Kr. Das, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 3 through Mr. N. R. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate are present.  The Ld. Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 files separate Vokalatnama.  Heard Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Das, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate for Respondent No. 3.  The contention of the Complainant and Appellant is that though apparently the report of Respondent No. 1 indicate prima facie a wrong reporting in view of consistent finding of other two Clinics namely Kothari Medical Centre and Trivedi and Roy.  The Complainant has stated in his complaint that he suffered because of the treatment administered on wrong report of Respondent No. 1 indicating malignant malaria though the Petitioner was not suffering from malignant malaria as was reported by other two Clinics and showing he was suffering from malaria of a lesser consequence.  On perusal of the pleadings it appears that such allegation is there.  But it appears from the impugned order that at very early stage the complaint has been dismissed on a finding which cannot be arrived at before granting opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contention.  In the circumstance we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot stand and the complaint should be decided on merit in accordance with law granting opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. 

Accordingly the impugned order is set aside.  the matter is sent back on remand to the Forum for deciding the complaint on merit in accordance with law and following the observations hereinabove.  We make it clear that we have not decided any of the questions on merit.