This revisional application is directed against the order dated 12/4/2019 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in reference to CC no. 77/s/2017. The fact of the case in nut shell is that the respondent no. 1 of this revision Sri Uday Nath registered a consumer complaint before the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri on account of death of his father Girindra Kumar Nath, due to medical Negligence on the part of the attending doctors of Medica North Bengal Clinic. The initial consumer complaint was lodged against four (4) no of doctors. With a prayer for demand of justice, There was no separate prayers for reliefs as enunciated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said consumer complaint was registered in due course and it was admitted on merit. Thereafter, the notice of the consumer complaint was served upon the four doctors as Ops who recorded their presence before the Ld. Forum and some of them submitted the written version. Thereafter, the complainant has sought for an amendment of his consumer complaint by petition dated 17/8/2018. The said petition was placed for hearing on 12/4/2019. On that day, the OP no. 1 Dr. S Sen and Dr. A Hossain were appeared through Ld. Advocates and raised no objection against the proposed amendment. OP no. 3 and 4 through their Ld. Advocate filed for an adjournment prayer which was considered and rejected by the Ld. Forum. Ld.  forum after hearing, the contested parties delivered, the impugned order by which the petition of amendment of consumer complaint, prayed by the complainant/respondent no. 2 vide application dated 17/8/2018 was allowed. Another petition dated 17/1/2018 filed by the complainant/respondent no. 1, was also fixed for hearing on that date that is on 12/4/2019 and on that day, the complainant not pressed the said petition dated 17/1/2018 and it was rejected.

Being aggrieved with the said order, the OP no. 3 Dr. K Lahiri of the original consumer complaint case has preferred the revisional application on the ground that the said amendment petition allowed by the Ld. Forum without appraising the actual facts and circumstances of the case. The further case of the revisionist is that the conducting advocate who was entrusted to look after the case of the revisionist in the Ld. Forum was not vigil one and the revisionist being a layman, have no knowledge of law, totally relied upon Ld. conducting advocate who mislead the revisionist not contesting the said amendment petition and as such the order of Ld. Forum relating to the allow of amendment petition, should be set aside in revision.

The revisional application was admitted on merit and the complainant as well as other ops of the consumer complaint case has contested the revisional application, after receiving the notice in due time. The respondent no. 1 has contested the case personally before this Commission. Dr. S Sen and Dr. A Iqbal Hossain has contested the revisional application through Ld. Advocate Mr. B Saha. The hearing of the revisional application is conducted by Ld. Advocate Mr. P Joardar and G Rabbani on behalf of the revisionist.

Decision with reason,

After hearing both sides, this Commission find that one Girindra Kumar Nath was admitted at critical care unit of Medica North Bengal Clinic with serious health problem on 9/6/2016 and during the course of his treatment, he breathed his last there within 24 hours of admission. The son of the deceased Girindra, Sri Uday Nath registered a consumer complaint before the Ld. forum. In the contents of the consumer complaint there was no elaborate discussion or history of the treatment of Girindra Nath in the said Hospital and in prayer portion of the complaint also, there was no specific prayers for any reliefs,

Therefore, to elaborate the instant case by the proposed amendment, the consumer complainant has narrated entire process of treatment which was held in the Medica North Bengal Clinic and also categorically and emphatically described the roles of the attending doctors and their latches and negligence towards the treatment of the patient Girindra Nath.

No new case was brought by amendment and after going through the said amendment petition we find that the proposed amendment does not change the nature  and character of the allegations in the original consumer complaint. No new case has brought there by way of amendment. Rather, the revisionist have the opportunity to counter this amendment by additional written version. Ld. Advocate of the revisionist mentioned that the proposed amendment has entirely changed the nature and character of the case and this revisionist as OP no. 3 of this case had wanted to contest the said amendment petition but on the very date Ld. Advocate  of the revisionist could not prepare himself and for that reason, he sought an adjournment which was wrongly rejected by the Ld. Forum. So, the impugned order under revision should be set aside and revisionist should get an opportunity to contest the said amendment petition by furnishing written objection against such amendment petition. Ld. Advocate of the respondent no. 2 and 3 in this revision submits that the proposed amendment was very formal in nature and for that reason, no objection was endorsed on the part of the respondent no.2 and 3 before the Ld. Forum and for that reason, the revisional application should be rejected. After considering all aspects of this case the commission find that the original consumer complaint which was registered in the year 2017 was very cryptic in nature as because the complainant is not a man of law profession. He himself drafted consumer complaint where he could not narrate the entire process of treatment of his father at Medica North Bengal Clinic Hospital and no specific and categorical relieves was sought for.

Therefore, when he could realise that a large part of process of treatment of his father was remained unnarrated , he elaborately by way of amendment has described the process of treatment of his father at the Hospital and elaborately narrated the role of the Doctors who had rendered the medical treatment of his father and for that reason, the Ld. Forum come to a conclusion that the petition of amendment was essential for proper adjudication of the consumer complaint and no apparent defects are brought in to the notice of this Commission for going into the merit of the said order. Rather after the amendment of the said complaint the amended copy of the complaint also has been accepted by the Ld. Forum and copy of the same are well served upon the all contesting parties and after the necessary amendment, the newly added parties was already served the notice and they were given opportunity of filing their written versions to contest the consumer complaint and at this stage any interference of this Commission over order of Ld. Forum dated 12/4/2019 would invite the further delay of process of adjudication. The only difficulty is reflected in the impugned order dated 12/4/2019 is that no liberty was given to the contesting Ops to file additional WV against the amended complaint and for that reason, the opportunity should be provided to the contesting parties to submit the additional WV, if any. they want before the Ld. Forum.

Thus, it appears that the instant revisional application devoids of any merit.

Hence, it is,

Ordered,

That the instant revisional application is hereby rejected on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. Forum dated 12/4/2019 is hereby confirmed. The contesting Ops of the instant consumer complaint case who has already filed WV, shall have the opportunity to file the additional Wv against the instant amendment which was allowed on 12/4/2019 within one month from receiving the copy of order of this Commission.

Let the order be communicated the concern DCDRF and also to be supplied to parties free of cost.