State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Sankar Kumar Mitra vs Dr. Indira Jha on 22 April, 2013
DRAFT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO.CC/45/2009 (MA 162 of 2013, MA 163 of 2013, MA 164 of 2013 and MA 165 of 2013 arising out of CC Case No.45 of 2009) DATE OF FILING:19/06/09 DATE OF ORDER:
22/04/13 COMPLAINANTS : 1) Sri Sankar Kumar Mitra S/o-Late Nalinakshya Mitra
2) Sri Manas Mitra S/o-Sankar Kumar Mitra Both residing at 39/1, B. Road, Bamungachi P.O. Liluah, District-Howrah OPPOSITE PARTIES : 1) Dr. Indira Jha Senior Divisional Medical Officer B.R. Singh Railway Hospital Sealdah, Kolkata
2) Dr. Subrata Basu (Ortho) Senior Divisional Medical Officer Orthopaedic Railway Hospital Howrah
3) Dr. Sarbani Sengupta Senior Divisional Medical Officer B.R. Singh Railway Hospital Sealdah, Kolkata
4) Dr. Sarmistha Mukherjee Senior Divisional Medical Officer B.R. Singh Railway Hospital Sealdah, Kolkata
5) Dr. Angira Dasgupta Additional Divisional Medical Officer B.R. Singh Railway Hospital Sealdah, Kolkata
6) Dr. Chandan Pathak (Ortho) Senior Divisional Medical Officer ( Howrah) Orthopaedic Railway Hospital Howrah
7) Dr. Aloke Mazumdar Senior Divisional Medical Officer(Cardio) B.R. Singh Railway Hospital Sealdah, Kolkata
8) Dr. B. Ghosh Senior Divisional Medical Officer (Neuro) B.R. Singh Railway Hospital Sealdah, Kolkata
9) Dr. G. Ray Divisional Medical Officer(Gastro Entrologist) B.R. Singh Railway Hospital Sealdah, Kolkata
10) Dr. S. Ghoshal Medical Director B.R. Singh Railway Hospital Sealdah, Kolkata
11) The Chief Medical Director New K. G. Eastern Railway (13th floor), Kolkata BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Sri S. Coari HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE COMPLAINANTS :
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty Ld. Advocate Mr. Devendra Kr. Ojha Ld. Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : Mr. Subhendra Mohan Roy Ld. Advocate Mr. Avik Kr. Das Ld. Advocate Ms. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay Ld. Advocate Mr. N. R. Mukherjee Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to the miscellaneous applications bearing nos.162 of 2013, 163 of 2013, 164 of 2013 and 165 of 2013.
By MA 162 of 2013 the OP No.2 being the MA applicant has prayed for permission to adduce evidence. The Learned Counsel for the complainant/OP of the MA has filed written objection against all the miscellaneous applications. It has been contended by the complainant/OP of the MA that previously another MA bearing no.253 of 2012 was filed before this Commission contending that the OP No.2 could not come to this Commission and the evidence of OP No.2 was closed. It is contended that after hearing both sides the said MA 253 of 2012 was rejected fixing 18/10/12 for filing BNA. We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. Similar prayer was made by the OP No.2 by way of MA 253 of 2012 which was rejected. The instant application bearing no.MA 162 of 2013 on the same point has no merit and, as such, the same stands dismissed.
By filing MA 163 of 2013 the prayer was made by OP no.5 to adduce evidence. It has been stated in the application that OP No.5 was not in India and she had gone abroad on deputation approved by the Government of India. Under such circumstances, the application has been filed praying for permission to file her evidence on affidavit. This prayer has been opposed by the complainant/OP of the miscellaneous application.
By another application bearing MA 164 of 2013 the OP No.10 has made similar prayer to adduce evidence on affidavit. It has been contended that from the documents it would appear that OP No.10 was not directly associated with the treatment and, as such, necessary permission may be granted for adducing evidence on affidavit. This prayer has been opposed by the complainant/OP of the miscellaneous application.
By MA 165 of 2013 the prayer has been made by OP No.11 to adduce evidence. It has been contended that the OP No.11 was not directly associated with the treatment and, as such, necessary permission may be granted for adducing evidence on affidavit by OP No.11. This prayer also has been opposed by the complainant/OP of the miscellaneous application. We have heard the submission made by both sides. Both sides have cited decisions reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 [K. K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy]; 1994 (3) CPR 484 [I. S. Bhatia Vs. Anil Kumar Mehta & Ors.]; (2005) 6 SCC 344 [Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India]; (2011) 9 SCC 541 [Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr.].
The instant case is pending at the stage of filing BNA and hearing argument of both sides. From the record it would appear that after going through different stages the instant complaint case has been fixed for filing BNA. Since the case has reached the final stage being pending for hearing argument, we are of the considered view that there is no ground to allow the application filed by the OPs praying for permission to adduce evidence on affidavit. Since the C. P. Act provides for disposal of the complaint case within a specified time limit, the filing of such miscellaneous applications at the stage of filing BNA, cannot be entertained. The MA bearing nos. 162 of 2013, 163 of 2013, 164 of 2013 and 165 of 2013 stand dismissed. We fix 08/08/13 for hearing argument of both sides.
MEMBER(SC) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT