IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/143/2014.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
07.10.14 02.12.14 12.04.23
Complainant: Ranjana Mukherjee (Chakraborty)
W/O- Shri Pradip Chakraborty,
C/O- Madhab Mondal,
Gorabazar, PS- Berhampore
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Sree Krishnakripa, Health Care
C/O- Dr. Indrani Saha,
117/101/09 R.N. Tagore Road
P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore, Pin- 742101
2.Dr. Indranil Saha, (Chif Pathologist)
117/101/09 R.N. Tagore Road,
PO & PS- Berhampore, Pin- 742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Pranab Kr. Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : S.S. Dhar
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Ranjana Mukherjee (Chakraborty) (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Sree Krishnakripa Health Care and Ors. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant felt some pain in her chest on 06.06.14 and she told her husband about the said pain. Thereafter the Complainant with her husband immediately went to Doctor S. Chakraborty at his chamber for consultation.
Dr. S. Chakraborty recommended for clinically examined her reticulocytes count in the blood from a pathological Lab before starting treatment and accordingly as per instruction of Doctor S. Chakraborty the Complainant along with her husband went to one of the pathological centre i.e. OP No. 1 Sree Krishna Kripa Health Care on 09.06.14 where Dr. Indranil Saha i.e. OP No. 2 is the chief pathologist of the said pathology centre to determine for the said test.
The Complainant went to the OP No. 1 and submitted the prescription of Doctor S. Chakraborty before the receptionist of the said pathological centre and deposited fees for the said test.
The said laboratory after pathological test handed over a report duly signed by OP No. 2 Dr. Indranil Saha on 09.06.14 at about 18.55 hrs who mentioned that the reticulocytes in the blood of the Complainant are 7.7% with remark ‘’ Corrected retuculocytes count Normal range 0.2 – 2.0% : 4.8%.’’
The Complainant got the said report in her hand on 09.06.14 at about 18.55 hrs and went back to Doctor S. Chakraborty. While Doctor S. Chakraborty perused the said pathological report of Dr. Indranil Saha and he became astonished and remarked in his prescription that the said report of Dr. Indranil Saha is doubtable and advised her to same test once again.
The Complainant as per instruction of Doctor S. Chakraborty, went to ‘’Laldighi Nursing Home’’ at 5/4, R.N. Tagore Road, and Ps Berhampore Dist Murshidabad for the aforesaid test where Doctor Debasis Goswami clinically examined the blood of the Complainant and after pathological test handed over a report duly signed by him mentioning reticulocytes count at the rate of 1.3% in the blood of the Complainant and he also noted that the average reticculocytes count in a Adult body are 0.5 – 2.0%.
There after the Complainant and her husband and other family member became anxious much and sustained immense mental agony and the Complainant along with her husband for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the two reports, again went to ‘’Nirnoy’’ pathological laboratory situated at 26/2 Sahid Surya Sen Road, PS Berhampore, Dist Murshidabad for determination of reticulocytes count in the blood of the Complainant on 16.06.14 and the said pathological test in respect of the reticulocytes in the blood mentioned that her reticulocytes count was 1.2%.
The Complainant was confirmed that the first report of OPs was completely baseless and the said pathology and its Doctor did not apply their medical knowledge property and the moral service was not rendered.
Dr. S. Chakraborty if only relying upon the first report of the said test of the Complainant, started her treatment, there was every possibilities of her life fall in danger. So there was gross negligence on the part of the OP No. 1 and there was deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
The Complainant prays for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 95,000/- as compensation of mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- and any other relief or reliefs if the Complainant is entitled to get for end of justice.
Defence Case
OP No. 1 is contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific case of the OP is that this OP is reputed pathological laboratory of West Bengal. The Laboratory contains modern internationally standardized machines. The Doctors and pathologists of the OP No. 1 are experienced.
The Report prepared by the OP No. 2 is correct one. There was no deficiency or latches on the part of this OP or the OP No. 2.
The application is liable to be rejected.
From the W/V filed by OP No. 1 it is found that OP No. 1 along with OP No. 2 is contesting the case.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1
The record shows that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period. Ld. Adv. for the OP submits that they have no objection regarding the question whether the Complainant is a consumer or not. However, we peruse the materials on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the OPs. This point is thus decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos.2&3
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. We have already mentioned that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period. On 23.03.23 Ld. Adv. for the OP filed the photocopy of death certificate of the OP No. 2 Dr. Indranil Saha wherefrom we find that OP No.2 Indranil Saha died on 16.05.21.
Ld. Adv. for the OP submitted before this District Commission that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period. In the instant case OP No. 2 Dr. Indranil Saha is dead and the OP No. 1 Sree Krishnakripa Health Care was represented by Dr. Indranil Saha, who is dead. He prays for dismissal of the instant case.
Keeping in mind the submission of the Ld. Adv. of the OPs and considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is not clear before this District Commission whether the right to sue survives or not. Such being the position, we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 07.10.14 and admitted on 02.12.14. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/143/2014 be and the same is dismissed under the facts and circumstances of the case against the OPs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
