HON’BLE MR. KAMAL DE, PRESIDING MEMBER 

Order No.: 03

Date: 31.08.2022

Revisionist is present through Ld. lawyer.

OP 1 is present through her husband.

Revision being No. RP/10/2022 is taken up for hearing.

Heard both sides. Considered.

The instant Revision is assailed against the impugned order being No. 77 dated 10.05.2022 passed by Ld. District Commission, Purulia in Complaint Case No. CC/30/2018.

In filing the revision it is stated that petitioner – OP 1 in the original complaint case is attached the Rotary Service centre a charitable trust as an Eye Surgeon for a pretty long time and conducted cataract surgery of OP No. 1 – complainant on 06.11.2017.

It is alleged that the complainant – OP 1 developed complications after surgery and was treated by the petitioner - doctor on several occasions and she was also referred to higher centre. But OP 1 without obeying the instruction of the petitioner – doctor filed CC/30/2018 before the Ld. Commission below claiming huge sum with ulterior motive to harass and defame him for unlawful gain.

The complainant and her husband filed affidavit-in-chief and were cross-examined. The complainant did not examine any medical expert to prove her case. After closing the evidence of the complainant the petitioner – OP filed evidence-in-chief. A senior Eye Surgeon who also treated the complainant also filed affidavit-in-chief and accordingly vide Order No. 56 dated 07.04.2021 opportunity was given to the complainant to cross-examine the revisionist – petitioner by filing questionnaire by the next date fixed on 29.04.2021. Thereafter, six dates were fixed for filing questionnaire by the complainant successively. On 09.09.2021 complainant filed a petition wanting the present revisionist petitioner to be cross-examined on dock. Petitioner – OP 1 filed objection, Ld. District Commission on 10.05.2021 contradicting its own order dated 07.04.2021 allowed the petitioner for cross-examination on dock instead of replying to the questionnaire and passed a direction to the revisionist - petitioner to face cross-examination on dock.

The present revisionist being aggrieved and dissatisfied with Order No. 77 dated 10.05.2022 passed by Ld. Bench of DCDRC Purulia preferred the instant revision.

It is alleged that the Ld. Commission below failed to appreciate the written objection dated 25.11.2021 filed by the petitioner against the petition dated 09.09.2021 filed by OP 1/complainant.

It is alleged that Ld. Commission contradicted its own order being No. 56 dated 07.04.2021 by calling the OPWs for cross-examination on dock.

It is alleged that Ld. Commission below erred both in law and in fact and passed the impugned order erroneously.

The revisionist has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

The question that awaits for decision is whether the Ld. Bench below committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned order?

The revisionist has directed its onslaught against the impugned order being No. 77 dated 10.05.2022.

It is argued from the side of the revisionist that the Ld. Bench below in a series of previous orders fixed dates for filing questionnaire by the complainant and suddenly called the OPWs on dock to face cross-examination vide impugned order dated 10.05.2022.

We find that the Ld. Commission below did not Suo Moto call the OPWs on dock to face cross-examination from the side of the complainant.

On perusal of care record, it appears that the complainant filed a petition on 09.09.2021 wanting the present petitioners to be cross-examined on dock along with OPW 2.

Ld. Commission below in disposing the petition dated 09.09.2021 filed by the complainant observed that both the PWs (the complainant and her husband) were cross-examined on dock at the instance of the revisionist – OP and eventually was pleased to allow the prayer of the complainant for cross-examination of the OPWs on dock.

It appears OP 1 is a doctor who conducted cataract surgery of the complainant. OPW 2 is another Eye Surgeon expert who also examined and treated the complainant.

Complainant has alleged medical negligence against OP doctor Debashis Banerjee and has also alleged that she became blind for the medical negligence of OP doctor. OPW2 who is also an Eye Surgeon also treated her.

It is the allegation of the complainant that she lost vision of right eye for medical negligence primarily by the OP-doc.

It is a case of medical negligence and we think that OP – doctor and OPW2 being a medical expert can very appropriately be cross-examined on dock at the wish of the complainant and for better, appropriate and effective adjudication of the case. There is no irregularity if doctors be called on dock to face cross-examination. The question is what prevents the doctors to come on dock to face cross-examination? No ground is cited from the side of the revisionist either non-availability or paucity of time on the side of the concerned doctors who treated the patient.  If the doctors are not available for paucity of time they could be cross-examined by video conferences or asking question by arranging telephone conference but no such prayer was put forth to the Ld. Commission below. Revisionist has not also made any prayer before the Ld. Commission below for taking cross-examination by the commissioner appointed by Ld. Commission at the working place of such docs at a fixed time. Moreover, revisionist – doctor is himself a party in the case of the medical negligence pending before the Ld. Commission below. There is nothing irregular if the Ld. Commission below directs OP – doc to come on dock to face cross-examination for proper and effective adjudication of the case. Moreover, Ld. Commission below asked the docs to come on dock to face cross-examination at the instance of the complainant.

We do not find anything illegal or irregular in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Bench below.

The impugned order calls for no interference.

Hence,

                                                       ORDERED

That the instant Revision being No. RP/10/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

The impugned order being No. 77 dated 10.05.2022 is upheld.

No order as to cost.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Jt. Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. Commission below for information and necessary action at once.