Date of Filing: 05.08.2013. Date of Disposal: 14.03.2023
Complainant :Sri Amarnath Das, S/ O Late Bijoy Chandra Das, Resident of Palsha, P.O. Hatgobindapur. P.S. Memari, Dist. Burdwan, presently residing at Sukantanagar, Near Police Line (Pirtala), P.O. Sreepally, P.S.& Dist. Burdwan.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party :1. The Manager, Burdwan Scan Center Private Limited, 7, R. B. Ghosh Road, Khosbagan O.O. &P.S. & Dist. Burdwan-713101.
2. Dr. T. K. Saha, DMRD (Radiologist), C/O Burdwan Scan Centre Private Limited, 7, R. B. Ghosh Road, Khosbagan, P.O.& P.S. & Dist. Burdwan-713101.
3. Dr. Subhomoy Nag, M.D. (Radiologist), C/O Burdwan Scan Center Pvt. Ltd, 7, R. B. Ghosh Road, , Khosbagan, P.O.& P.S. & Dist. Burdwan-713101.
4. Dr. B. N. Sarkar, M.D. (G&O), Burdwan Fertility Clinic, 1,No. Hospital Road, (Opposite to Bhart Sevasram Sangha), Khosbagan, P.O.& P.S. & Dist. Burdwan.
5. Dr. S.K. Adhikari (Radiologist), C/O Sandhan Diagnostic Center, 39, R.B. Ghosh Road, Khosbagan,P.O. & P.S. & Dist. Burdwan-713101.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
: Mr. Atanu Kr. Dutta. - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant :Sri Mrinmoy Sinha Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5: Sri Subrata Ghosh Ld. Advocate.
FINAL ORDER
On 05.08.2013 the complainant Sri Amarnath Das, has filed this application u/S 12of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OPs.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he was the husband of the deceased Lakshmi Rani Mondal, aged 33 yrs. After having conceived, she was taken to the Chamber of the OP No.4 Dr. B. N. Sarkar, M.D. (G& O) on 26.01.2012 for primary check-up and treatment as it was the first issue of the couple, the complainant depended on the said doctor blindly to have his first issue safely and the patient was under the treatment of the OP No.4 till delivery. The OP No.4 clinically diagnosed her pregnancy and has done all investigations including U.S.G and prescribed medicines and U.S.G of lower abdomen was done on 26.01.2012 at Sandhan Diagnostic Center under OP No.5 and the doctor i.e. OP No.5 gave the report of U.S.G confirming the pregnancy of 6 weeks. OP No.5 visualized the fetal cardiac pulsation with the fetal heart rate of 162/min with adequate amniotic fluid. During the U.S.G report, OP No.5 observed the condition of the Fetus and also the existence of small intramural Fibroid. Thereafter, the OP No.4, seeing the U.S.G report, became astonished and advised to do another U.S.G. test of the lower abdomen from another diagnostic Center. Thereafter, it was done in OP No.1 on 30.01.2012. , the report of which U.S.G was signed by OP No.2 but he did not visualize any another Intramural Fibroid in posterior wall of Uterus of the patient. As per the said report, the Uterus was seen “bicornuate”. The said Radiologist observed that viable Fetus of CRL of 1.2 cm. and gestation age of 7 weeks 4 days. Yet the cardiac pulsation of the Fetus was well recorded on “M” mode and cervix was normal. But on seeing the said report, the OP No.4 again advised the patient party to do another U.S.G. test because probably the doctor was confused on seeing the findings of the said two U.S.G. reports and one another U.S.G. was done in OP No.1 on 11.4.2012 with proper charges under the direct supervision of OP No.3, another Radiologist and he mentioned that Fetus showed a normal intrauterine movement and normal regular cardiac pulsation and recorded on “M” mode with estimated gestational age of 18 weeks. No obvious foetul abnormality could be seen but the uterus of the patient as mentioned in the said U.S.G. report was ‘bicornuate’ but the OP No.3 did not visualize as well as mention a single ward in his report about the existence of Intramural Fibroid towards the right cornu of the Uterus of the patient as observed by Op No. 5.
It is further stated that being a layman in Medical Science, a common small question arose in his mind regarding the various U.S.G. tests by different Radiologists could be so different. As a result, the OP No.4 was probably confused about the existence of intramural Fibroid in the Uterus of the patient. On the basis of 2nd and 3rd U.S.G. reports, the concerned doctor i.e. Op No.4 decided to continue her treatment. Accordingly, by assuring the complainant not to be worried, yet the attending doctor did not opt for 4th opinion in regarding to the Fetus condition and the Op No.4 failed to give advice to the patient to go for a special test for that purpose or refer such type of critical case to some other expert in this field for his opinion. So, it is a case of negligence on the part of the attending doctor.
On 14.04.2012 suddenly the wife of the complainant felt abdominal pain in the evening and the complainant tried to contact with the OP No.4 for urgent treatment over telephone as the chamber of the OP No.4 remained closed on every Saturday and finding no other alternative, the complainant took his wife to Burdwan Medical College & Hospital (BMCH) for emergency treatment where she died unfortunately on 15.04.2012 about 12.30 A.M. in the said hospital and she was sent for Autopsy in Burdwan Medical College on the same day. The Autopsy Report reveals the cause of death was due to sudden rupture in the patient’s uterus due to aggravation of the Fibroid Tumor by 4 months pregnancy of the patient. It is purely a negligence and deficiency in service and careless attitude on the part of the OP No.1 to 3 as well as OP No.4 because of that reason the Radiologist with the help of scan center only with OP No.4 by adopting unfair trade practice and giving less attention towards the patient for proper diagnosis.
The OP Nos. 1 to 3 did not properly do the U.S.G. reports of the patient due to lack of experience or negligent manner and such type of unfortunate condition would never be occurred to the patient , if they took proper care and proper diagnosis for which the OP Nos. 1 to 4 caused severe mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant.
It is further stated that the complainant believe the first U.S.G report signed by Dr. S. K. Adhikari (OP No.5) in this case the existence of the Intramural Fibroid in the Uterus of the Patient has already proved to be correct. Ultimately , as per the Autopsy report given by the Burdwan Medical College & Hospital which described the cause of due to sudden rupture in the patient’s uterus due to aggravation of the Fibroid Tumor by the 4 months pregnancy of the patient.
The cause of action arose on and from 26.01. 2012 and ultimately on 15.04.2013.
Upon this background, the complainant prayed for passing an order directing the OP No.1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 18, 00,000/- only to the complainant for the damage caused upon the death of the unborn baby and its mother by the negligence and deficiency in service by them along with a direction to OP Nos. 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs;. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-
OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have contested the case by filing W/V. O P No.4 also has contested the case by filing W/V and OP No.5 also contested the case by filing W/V.
All the OPs have denied the material allegations of the complainant and stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and character and that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the complaint has been filed with mala-fide intention.
The specific case of the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 is that the Burdwan Scan Center Pvt. Ltd is a reputed and well equipped diagnostic center of Burdwan Town. That the OP Nos. 2 & 3 both are experienced and qualified Radiologists of Burdwan Town. The basis of USG diagnosis of any lesion depends on increased or decreased echogenicity of lesion with respect of surrounding echogenicity. If however they are same, diagnostic errors will be there. Further investigations will thus be required along with clinical correction. Autopsy report does not indicate any change in the fibroid. Left cornu of a bicornuate uterus will also mimick a fibroid. Hence, slides from the area are necessary to prove the observed fibroid to be definitely fibroid. Fibroid usually undergo complications before rupture but here it is not mentioned. Slides should be provided to prove any change in fibroid and it is to be reviewed by expert Pathologist. In the 1st U.S.G;. Report, the G.S. with fetus is in right cornu, subsequent reports also confirms this to be bicornuate uterus. As per Radiologists observations is concerned, there is a consistency of all the three reports. The purpose of reporting is to make aware the clinical of two known complications i.e. 1. Rupture uterus, 2. Premature delivery. Huge fibroid can be missed by USG, if it is subserous pedunculated type. Lastly, cornual pregnancy is rate entity with its imminent complication. In such cases, the autopsy report would have to be more details with reference to the cause of rupture of uterus. The present autopsy report was done to ascertain the cause of death. Hence, clinic-pathological correction has to be done based on the observations of slides taken for uterus at the area of rupture and the huge fibroid that was visualized by the autopsy conducting doctor. The Radiologists by their report had warned of the consequences of rupture of uterus which has happened in this case, leading to the premature loss of life of the said patient. Diagnostic confusion in spite of repeated USG could have been solved by M.R.I of uterus.
Upon this background they prayed for dismissal of the case.
The specific case of the OP No.4 is that this OP is a qualified and renowned Gynecologist of Burdwan Town. He examined the patient Laxmi Rani Das at his Chamber on 26.01.2012 for the first time with a complaint of menorrhea and little pan in lower abdomen. The patient was advised routine blood and USG of the lower abdomen. Her clinical findings were within normal limits. Thereafter, the wife of the complainant came with USG report intra uterine pregnancy of 6 weeks gestational age with small uterine fibroid on 26.01.2012. This OP advised the patient to continue pregnancy with medicinal support and also to do another U.SG report for confirmation. This time, USG reveals intra uterine pregnancy of 7 weeks gestational age in a bicornuate uterus. This OP confused after seeing two different USG reports. But, as there was no ground for discontinuation of pregnancy as per medical science, this OP advised the patient to continue pregnancy. Thereafter, this OP advised the complainant to do 3rd USG examination for follow up of pregnancy and to exclude or confirm associated pathology. 3rd USG repot was done on 11.04.2012 and it showed normal pregnancy of about 18 weeks gestational age in a bicornuate uterus. As the report was normal without any complication, so this OP advised the wife of the complainant to continue pregnancy. At the same time, this OP explained the wife of the complainant about the risks of associated pathology and advised her to be careful about it. On 14.04.2012, the husband of the patient informed over telephone about the suffering of the patient from pain in abdomen. This OP advised the patient party to admit the patient in Emergency, Burdwan Medical College & Hospital as this OP was out of station. After that, this OP was not communicated about the condition of the patient by her husband.
The OP No.4 further submitted that incidence of Fibroid in pregnancy is about 1 in 1000. The risk of intra mural fibroid in pregnancy is usually minimal. The risk of subserous and pedunculated fibroids unlikely cause adverse pregnancy effect. Fibroids effect on pregnancy –(i) None (ii) pressure symptom, (iii) Abortion, (iv) Mal-presentation, (v) Preterm Labour, (vi) Rupture very rare. Effects of pregnancy of fibroids; (i) Increased size; (ii) Change in position and shape-occasional-flattened; (iii) Degenerative changes, torsion and Infection. The basic principles of management of complicated pregnancy by single fibroid is not to do anything to the fibroid whenever possible. 1st USG report (26.01.2012) report was 6 weeks pregnancy; FHS=162/min with adequate amniotic fluid , Impression: “Early intra uterine pregnancy of 6 weeks , more towards (Rt) cornu with small intra fibroid ( 1.6 x 1.3 cm) in posterior wall of body of uterus. There was no mention of presence of bicornuate uterus, if any in the 1st USG test report. Thereafter, this OP advised for 2nd opinion and the 2nd U.S.G report (30.01.2012) was Uterus bicornuate and a viable fetus of CRL of 1.2 cm corresponding to gestational age of 7 weeks 4 days in right cornu of bicornuate uterus; cardiac pulsation of fetus well recorded on “M” mode and cervix was normal. Thereafter, this OP advised for 3rd opinion and 3rd USG test (on 11.04.2012) was Fetus normal intra uterine movement, normal regular cardiac pulsation with estimated gestational age 18 weeks, no obvious fetus abnormality but the uterus was bicornuate and pregnancy in right cornu. No mentioned as “intra mural fibroid as observed on 1st UG. This OP submits that he had treated the patient in accordance with the procedure of medical science and he has not fallen short of standard reasonable skillful practice. There was no negligence on the part of this OP in treating the patient and as such the case is liable to be dismissed.
The specific case of the OP No. 5 is that this OP is a reputed, experienced and qualified Radiologist at Burdwan Town and the OP had done the U.S.G in accordance with the procedure of Medical Science. There is no negligence on the part of this OP in treating the patient. As such the case is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons.
In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit. OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 , 4&5 file three sets of evidence-on-affidavit in order to disprove the case of the complainant and to prove their case.
The complainant prayed for appointment of a Medical Expert for his opinion.
OPs filed questionnaires to the complainant and the complainant filed answers to the said questionnaires. The complainant filed questionnaires to the evidence of OP No.4 and the OP No.4 filed reply to the said questionnaires.
Complainant also filed questionnaires to the evidence of OP No.5. The questionnaire filed by the complainant against the evidence of OP Nos. 1 & 3, OP No.5, filed reply to the said questionnaire. OP Nos. 1 & 3 filed reply to the questionnaires of the complainant.
Expert Report dt. 26.08.2016 has been received by the Commission and the complainant filed questionnaire to the expert doctor and the expert Dr. Prof. P.S. Chakravorty, Head of the Department , Gaynee & Obs. SSKM Hospital, Kolkata filed answers to the said questionnaire Nos. 1 to 20 filed by the complainant.
Another report dt. 02.03.2017 submitted by another expert has been received and the questionnaires filed by the complainant against this report has been answered by Prof. P.S. Chakravorty as earlier stated along with some report in the journal.
The complainant has filed Written Notes of Argument but the OPs did not file any Written Notes of Argument.
It is an admitted fact that the wife of the complainant, deceased Laxmi Rani Das, aged about 33 years was pregnant and the OP No.4 –Dr. B.N. Sarkar , M.D;. (G&O), medically treated her and the patient was under his treatment all along and according to the advice of the Op No. 4, U.S.G of the lower abdomen of the patient was done firstly by OP No.5-Dr. S. K. Adhikari, Radiologist and seeing the said report, OP No.4 thought that second opinion of another Radiologist is required and advised the patient party to do another U.S.G of the lower abdomen of the patient again. Accordingly, the 2dnd U.S.G. was done in OP No.1-Burdwan Scan Centre Pvt. Ltd. at Khosbagan and the said report of U.S.G. was signed by OP No.2. Dr. T. K. Saha, (Radiologist), attached to OP No.1 Scan Center. On seeing the said report, OP No.4-doctor again advised the complainant to do another U.S.G. report of the lower abdomen of the patient for the third opinion as because probably the treating doctor was confused about the findings of the previous two U.S.G reports. As per the advice of the OP No.4, one after another U.S.G. tests were done in Burdwan Scan Center Pvt. Ltd (OP No.1) under the direct supervision of another Radiologist, Dr. Subhomoy Nag, M.D. (Radiologist), OP No.3 and those three test reports were shown. Three impressions i.e. in the 1st U.S.G test done by OP No.5 showed “ Early Intra Uterine pregnancy of 6 weeks gestations, more towards right cornu with small intramural Fibroid” and the 2nd U.S.G test report disclosed “ Uterus of the patient was not Bicornuate and observed that a viable Fetus of CRL of 1.2 cm corresponding to gestational age of 7 weeks 4 days in the right horn of the Bicornuate Uterus of the Patient and the cardiac pulsation of the Fetus was well recorded on “M” mode and cervix was normal and the third U.S.G. test report disclosed that the Fetus showed a normal intrauterine movement and normal regular cardiac pulsation of the Fetus were well recorded on “M” mode with estimated gestation age of 18 weeks and no obvious fetus abnormality could be seen but the uterus of the patient as mentioned in the said report was bicornuate in type with the pregnancy in the right cornu.
It is alleged by the complainant that OP No.4-Dr. B.N. Sarkar probably confused about the existence of a small intramural Fibroid measuring 1.6 x 1.3 cm in posterior wall of the body of the uterus of the patient and after observing the 2nd and 3rd opinion of the said Radiologists, OP Nos. 2 & 3 that a normal intrauterine movement and normal regular cardiac pulsation of the Fetus; no obvious fetus abnormality could be seen. On the basis of the 2nd and 3rd U.S.G. reports OP No.4 decided to continue her treatment by assuring not be worried about. Therefore, the complainant himself relied on the OP No.4 in respect of treatment but when the patient died in BMCH and the Post Mortem Report disclosed that death was due to sudden rupture in the patient’s uterus due to aggravation of the Fibroid Tumor by the 4 months pregnancy of the patient which was aggravated by pregnancy and natural cause, he alleged that why OP No.4 doctor did not opt for fourth opinion in regard to the Fetus condition of the patient in spite of knowing fully well about the difference between a case of bicornuate pregnancy and an Uterine Pregnancy and he kept the patient under his treatment all along after that. It is quite natural according to the Medical Science that when a doctor advised three times for tests of U.S.G and the second and third reports are known to fatal according to him, the OP No. 4 doctor who treated the patient may continue the treatment of the patient about her pregnancy on the basis of the 2nd and 3rd U.S.G. test reports and prolonged treatment of the patient by the OP No.4 clearly indicates that he has taken due care and according to his skill and not taking the Option for fourth opinion according to the version of the complainant, cannot be projected the Medical negligence or professional negligence on the part of the OP No.4 . That apart according to the expert opinion dt. 26.08.2016 that (1) Human factors: Ultra-sound being an operator dependent procedure, inter observer variation is not uncommon and (2) Machine related factors: Technology, resolution and image quality of different ultrasound machines are different which may contribute to different interpretations and (3) Patient related factors: Thickness of sobcutaneous fat may affect the image quality and interpretation of the images considerably in some cases.
In the first USG report, there was mentioned of a small Posterior Wall Uterine fibroid with intra uterine single live pregnancy of 6 weeks + maturity but no mention about bicornuate uterus. In the second and third USG reports, there were mention of bicornuate uterus with pregnancy in Right Cornue of different gestational ages but no mention about fibroid and as the size of the fibroid detected ruing the 1st USG was small and located in posterior wall, its detection may become difficult and missed due to overlying pregnancy and distal acoustic enhancement caused by the amniotic fluid.
This opinion of the expert has not been cross-examined by any of the parties. Ultimately, according to law it can be admitted and according to this report neither of the Radiologists nor the OP No.4 is responsible for medical negligence or professional negligence. Negligence means negligence resulting from the failure on the part of a doctor who acts in accordance with medical standards in practice, which are being practiced by an ordinary and reasonably competent man practicing the same profession.
The expert report dt. 02.03.2017 disclosed that the outcome of corneal pregnancy is highly un-predictable. Though in some cases, corneal pregnancy may proceed up to term pregnancy with favourable outcome, sometimes it may rupture between 12 weeks to 20 weeks of gestation and the chance of rupture is more common when the pregnancy occurs in the rudimentary horn. With the advancement of pregnancy there is more vascular supply of the uterus, so when rupture occurs in advanced stages of pregnancy, there is more probability of maternal death due to massive and brisk hemorrhage.
Presence of fibroid may be reasonable for miscarriage and preterm labour, but presence of fibroid is in no way responsible for rupture of uterus.
Diagnosis of fibroid in pregnancy by USG depends upon the site and size of the fibroid. A small fibroid in the posterior wall of uterus may be missed during USG screening due to overlapping of fetal shadow.
Lastly, the expert opinion that could not found in properly mentioned on the part of the contending doctors in absence of conclusive evidence. From this report, it is very much clear that the OPs and the OP No.4 who treated the patient are not responsible for committing any medical negligence or professional negligence.
The complainant has crossed the opinion dt. 02.03.2017 and Prof.(Dr.) P.S. Chakraborty has given answers to those questions and the answers to question No. 10 shows that the first USG report and the 2nd U.S.G. report are more or less similar and reflect more or less similar findings. The 3rd U.S.G report (11.04.2012) shows expected changes due to further advancement of pregnancy. However, the basic findings regarding presence, duration and site of pregnancy in all the reports were corroborative.
In answer to the Question No.19, he answered that he humbly beg to differ on the point. MRI of lower abdomen is seldom ad vised to diagnose cervical incompetence. UG is the commonly used diagnostic investigation for this purpose. ( He could not understand the relevance of this question as this case is in no way related to Cervical incompetence). Therefore, on cross-examination to this expert, the complainant could not shake the opinion of the expert as evidence.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued in his Written Notes of Argument pointed out the cause of death as per the Autopsy Report that it is purely negligence and deficiency in service and careless attitude on the part of the OP Nos. 1 to 3 as well as OP No.4 for giving less attention upon the patient.
OP No.1 is the Burdwan Scan Centre Pvt. Ltd. which is a Juristic Person and there is no allegation in the complaint that the infrastructure of the OP No.1 was very week at that time of doing U.S.G by the OP Nos. 2 & 3. Accordingly, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and regarding the allegations against OPNo.2 & 3 , we have already discussed the evidence as well as the expert evidence which goes against the complainant and in favour of the OP Nos. 2 & 3. There is no iota of evidence to show that the OP Nos. 4 did not take any due care an caused damaged to the patient at the time of treatment.
A doctor when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties viz. duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case , a duty of care in administration of that patient. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. But, here in this case, no specific allegation that the OP No. 4 violated the duty of care in deciding what treatment to give and a duty of care in the administration of that treatment according to his skill of care required by a medical practitioner, he treated the patient. In an action for negligence against a doctor, the complainant has to prove three things viz. (i) that the doctor was under a duty to take reasonable care towards the patient, to avoid the damage complained of or not cause damage to the patient by failure to use reasonable care; (ii) that there was breach of such duty on the part of the doctor, and , (iii) that such breach of duty was the real cause of the damage complained of, and such damage was reasonable foreseeable.
Therefore, no such evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the complainant against the OP No.4 which have already discussed in the body of the final order in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC I] , the Apex Court held: The test of determining medical negligence laid down in Bolam Case holds good in its applicability in India. “Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of the professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course of method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow a resort to that practice which the accuse followed.
A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite sill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession . It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or sills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.”
Therefore, in the instant case, this principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is fully applicable.
Even after adopting all medical procedures as prescribed, a qualified doctor may commit an error. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Supreme Court have held in several decisions, that a doctor is not liable for negligence or medical deficiency, if some wrong is caused in her/his treatment or in his/her diagnosis if she/he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical professionals skilled in that particular art, though the result may be wrong. In various kinds of medical and surgical treatment, the likelihood or an accident leading to death cannot be rules out. It is implied that a patient willingly takes such a risk as part of the doctor-patient relationship and the attendant mutual trust.
Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the case especially medical negligence, professional negligence committed by the OPs.
Hence, the case must fail.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the Consumer Complaint NO. 170/2013 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs but without cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.
Member Member President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C, Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.
