DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
M. A. NO-153/2018
Arising out of C.C. No. 170/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Disposal:
01.06.2018 11.09.2018
Complainant :- Dipankar Dey, Netaji Garh Colony,
Ramesh Mitra Road, P.O. Ganti, P.S. Airport,
Kolkata-700132.
=Vs=
Opposite Party :- 1. The Proprietor of E-Max Diagnostic Centre,
K.G.N Tower, 1st floor, Near Rajarhat State Bank,
91, Bus Road, Kathgola Bus Stop, P.S. Rajarhat,
Kolkata- 700135.
2. Dr. S. Sen of the said Diagnostic Centre,
K.G.N Tower, 1st floor, Near Rajarhat State Bank,
91, Bus Road, Kathgola Bus Stop, P.S. Rajarhat,
Kolkata- 700135.
3. Dr. Sukumar Chatterjee, Kaibarta Para,
Champadali More, Taxi Stand, Barasat,
N/L Banasree and Sons, P.S. Barasat, Pin-124.
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………..…..President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder ……………………………………Member.
Order
This order is arising out of the M.A. being NO. 153/2018 filed by the complainant in the C.C. No. 170/2016 praying for appointment of an expert from the expert doctor in the concerned field.
It is stated in the application that the complainant has filed this complaint alleging medical negligence as well as deficiency in service in providing proper medical treatment to the wife of the complainant as per medical norms and practice. For proper adjudication of this complaint an expert opinion from an independent expert doctor is required. The complainant has prayed for the medical opinion from an expert doctor of the
Contd/-2
M. A. No- 153/2018
:: 2 ::
SSKM Hospital or from any Government Hospital. According to the complainant if this application is not allowed he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and accordingly prayer is made by the complainant for allowing this application.
Upon receipt of the application, the O.Ps have raised vehement objection through their respective Ld. Advocates. It is submitted by the O.P. No.3 that in the petition of complaint there is some ambiguity by and between the two reports one is USG and another is C.T. Scan of the whole abdomen of the concerned patient. The USG report shows that there is cyst in the left ovary of the patient whereas the C.T. Scan report does not reflect any cyst in the left ovary of the patient concerned. Due to such ambiguity the complainant is inclined to refer those two documents i.e. report of the USG and report of the C.T. Scan to the expert doctor with a view to assess which one is correct. The Ld. Counsel for the O.P. No.3 has further submitted that as the complainant did not file any medical treatment related papers of the concerned patient, it is difficult for the expert doctor to assess as to whether there is any medical negligence on behalf of the O.Ps or not.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have made similar submission on this application. According to the O.P. Nos. 1,2 and 3 the instant application is liable to be dismissed, having no merit at all.
Upon careful perusal of the content of the application filed by the complainant, we are of the view that as the complainant did not file any treatment related papers of the concerned patient it is not possible for the expert doctor as to whether there was any medical negligence on behalf of the O.Ps or not in providing medical treatment to the wife of the complainant. Regarding ambiguity of the two opinions (USG and C.T Scan) report we are of the view as the two opinions/reports are completely different from the other the same will be adjudicated upon at the time of hearing of the argument.
Contd/-3
M. A. No-153/2018
:: 3 ::
For this reason, the prayer for appointment of an expert doctor for opinion cannot be considered at this juncture.
Hence,
it is ordered,
that M.A. 153/2018 is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.
It is pertinent to mention that the complainant is at liberty to file the treatment related paper of his wife, if required.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by
