No. 4/26.12.2008.

SRI A. K. RAY, MEMBER.

Revision Petitioner through Mr. P. K. Basu, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. No. 1 through Mr. Alok Ranjan Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Proforma O.P. No. 2 is absent on calls.  Heard both of them at length.  The Revision Petitioner has come to us against the order dated 10.09.2008 wherein the Forum below observed that the petition challenging maintainability of the complaint case should be decided along with final hearing of the matter.  The Petitioner submits that the concerned Medical Officer attached to Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital treated the patient at the instruction and direction of the Hospital authority, i.e., the Superintendent of the Hospital concerned without accepting any fees for the service rendered by him to the patient and accordingly he is of the opinion that the Respondent is not a consumer in relation to the O.P.  The Respondent submits that the patient was admitted to the hospital after payment of certain charges to the Hospital and accordingly the doctor in question was also involved and this apparently being a mixed question of facts and law should be decided at the time of final hearing of the case.  Moreover, the Superintendent of the Hospital is a vital party to this case regarding the fact of payment and other related issues. His opinion is, therefore, of utmost importance and his opinion in the form of an evidence on affidavit should be obtained by the Forum below and accordingly this revisional petition should not be accepted by the Commission.  In the better interest of justice and equity the Forum should be allowed to hear the matter finally to decide this point of maintainability.  We are inclined to accept this view and, therefore, the instant revisional petition fails to succeed.  The impugned order of the Forum below is affirmed.  The revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid instruction.