DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
M.A. 13/2023
Arising out of C.C. No.227/2022
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
28.02.2023 28.02.2023 25.04.2023
Complainant/s:- | Sri Deb Ranjan Tarafder, S/o. Late Phani Bhusan Tarafder, 16F Road, Anandapuri Kolkata, P.O. N.C. Pukur, P.S. Titagarh, Dist- North 24 Parganas, Pin-700122. = Vs |
Opposite Party/s: | The Director, Nehru Memorial Techno Global Hospital, A unit of Techno India Technologies Ltd(TITL) Regd. Corporate Office – 6, Barasat Road, Near Lalkuthi More, Barrackpore, Dist- North 24 Pgs, West Bengal, Kolkata-700120. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
This case is taken up today for hearing. Ld. Advocate for both parties are present. Perused the petition. Heard both sides and considered.
From the contests of the petition filed by the O.P for non-maintainability it is revealed that the O.P is the service provider and the complainant is the consumer as per C.P. Act.
The advocate for O.P submits that on the self-same matter. One case was filed lay the complainant before West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission (WBCERC) and the case was disposed and the opposite parties compliance the order of W.B.C.E.R.C which will reflected in the annexure of the petition filed by the opposite party as M.A. 13/2023. On the self same issue complainant cannot file any other case before this commission. The said commission directed to refund of Rs. 20452/- to the complainant. The O.P complied the same. The said commission observed that ‘we have perused the entire record. We would find, there was no contemporaneous complaint either from the patient’s son or the patient after he was cured ……’.
In this regard the Advocate for O.P relied upon two case laws 1994 I SCJ 60 Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No. 5152 of 1993 and 2017 AIR (Cal) 130.
Contd/-2
M.A. 13/2023
Arising out of C.C. No.227/2022
:: 2 ::
The Advocate for complainant submits that this complaint case is not in the same issue. The advocate for complainants submits that the annexure of M.A. 13/2023 application which relied by the O.P there is mentioned in the order sheet of Ld. Secretary, W.B.C.E.R.C that ‘However, the treatment protocol is outside our domain and the complainant has already approached the Medical Council as we find from record. Hence he would be at liberty to peruse his remedy before the appropriate Forum’. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint for gross negligence and deficiency and unfair trade practice by the opposite party. In the order of Ld. Secretary W.B.C. E. R.C gives liberty to file case appropriate Forum for treatment protocol. The said Ld. Secretary of W.B.C.E.R.Cstated treatment protocol is outside of his domain. Therefore the complaint case is in different issues. Treatment protocol and / or gross negligence and deficiency of service and unfair trade practice issues were not tried. As per liberty of said order issued by Ld. Secretary W.B.C.E.R.C the complainant filed this case.
Heard the both sides and considered all documents, petitions, complaint and annexures submitted by both the parties. We observed that the case law relied upon by the opposite parties are not relevant with this case.
This complaint case is different issues from the issues tried by Ld. Secretary W.b.C.E.R.C. In the order sheet in page No.3 it is clearly declared that the Hon’ble W.B.C.E.R.C has no jurisdiction t try the case of treatment protocol. Hence at this stage it is crystal clear that this complaint case is different issue. This complaint case is for negligence and other issues. Hence it appears that there is no question for non-maintainable this case.
It appears that there is mixed question of law and facts regarding prayer for non-maintainability which cannot be decided at this stage without further evidence. Hence the petition filed by the O.P is rejected at this stage. The issue will be decided at the time of final disposal of the case.
M.A. being No. 13/2023 is rejected without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
