State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Debdulal Shyamal vs The Superintendent Contai ... on 23 September, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1296/2015 ( Date of Filing : 08 Dec 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/09/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/25/2015 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. Debdulal Shyamal S/o, Sri Sasanka Shyamal, P.O - Basantia, P.S - Contai, Dist - Purba Medinipur. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Superintendent Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital P.O & P.S - Contai, Dist - Purba Medinipur. 2. Dr. Dipak Kumar Mishra, Medical Officer, Contai Sub Divisional Hospital P.O & P.S - Contai, Dist - Purba Medinipur. 3. Dr. Mantu Maity, Medical Officer Of Blood Bank, Contai Sub Divisional Hospital. P.O & P.S - Contai, Dist - Purba Medinipur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA MEMBER PRESENT: Mr. Barun Prasad, Mr. Subrata Mandal, Mr. Sovanlal Bera, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Ramesh Kr. Chowmol, Advocate for the Respondent 1 Dated : 23 Sep 2022 Final Order / Judgement
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed by the appellant Sri Debdulal Shyamal against the order dated 28/09/2015 passed by the Learned Consumer District Redressal Forum, Abasbari, Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur (in short 'the District Forum') in connection with consumer case No. 25/2015.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Debdulal Shyamal is a permanent resident of Purba Medinipur district. Smt. Saraswati Shyamal, aged about 58 years was the mother of the complainant. The mother of the complainant Saraswati Shyamal was admitted at the Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital under the Appellant Dr. Dipak Kumar Misra on 05/11/2014. Dr. Dipak Kumar Mishra, Opposite Party No. 2 in course of treatment of said Saraswati Shyamal advised four units of blood for transfusion to the patient. As per requisition slip of the treating Doctor i.e. Dr. Dipak Kumar Mishra, the blood bank of Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital supplied four units of blood for transfusion to the patient. It is alleged by the complainant, Debdulal Shyamal that the opposite party No. 3 Dr. Mantu Maiti, without cross matching the blood group of the patient supplied AB+ group blood.
It is further case of the complainant that AB+ was not the actual blood group of the patient Saraswati Shyamal but it was A+. Due to transfusion of the wrong blood, condition of the said patient allegedly deteriorated. The said patient was discharged from the Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital on 07/11/2014. Thereafter, Saraswati Shyamal was taken to NRS Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata on 21/11/2014 and after a brief stay, she was discharged therefrom on 04/12/2014. The said Hospital determined the blood group of the patient as A+ and transfused of one unit of blood of A+ group to the said patient. The said patient again got admitted at Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital on 01/03/2015 and was discharged on 04/03/2015. Terming such alleged wrong blood transfusion by the Appellant and other opposite party as an instance of gross medical negligence. Hence, the complainant prayed for an order directing the opposite parties i) to give a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- to the complainant for deteriorated condition of his mother by medical negligence of opposite parties and ii) to pay a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
All the Respondents / Opposite Parties entered appearance in this case and contested the case by filing written version separately.
After contested hearing consumer case No. C.C/25/2015 was allowed on contest against the Respondent /Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 and dismissed against the Respondent No. 1 / Opposite Party No. 1.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Appellant has preferred this appeal before this Commission.
Heard Learned Advocate of the respective parties and perused the record including the impugned order dated 28/09/2015.
Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant has urged that the impugned order is misconceived, erroneous and contrary to the law. He has further submitted that Learned District Forum, Purba Medinipur has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested by law and has acted with material irregularities and/ or illegality. He has further submitted that Learned District Forum has passed the order without proper application of mind. He has further submitted that Learned District Forum below should have considered that being the Superintendent of Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital / Respondent No. 1 is liable and responsible for the acts of the Respondent No. 2 & 3. He has further submitted that Learned District Forum has committed gross error by not considering the condition of the patient. He has further submitted that the Learned District Forum should have considered the merits of the case which is very much in favour of the Appellant. He has further argued that the impugned order is liable to be modified and compensation amount is required to be allowed as per prayer of the consumer case.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 & 3 has urged that judgment is wrong. So, the judgment and order should be set aside.
We have given a thoughtful consideration of the document / argument advanced by the Learned Counsel as well as examined the record. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the materials on record we find that the Appellant was given opportunity to adduce evidence to prove his case. Record goes to show that to prove the case the complainant / appellant did not adduce any evidence on affidavit on his behalf. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant / complainant that he will not adduce any evidence and categorically stated that he will not produce any witness on his side and no documents were also annexed with the complaint petition by the complainant. It also appears to us that since they did not adduce any evidence on affidavit and he has not been examined in this case the opposite parties / respondents failed to cross examine the complainant about the allegation levelled against the opposite parties / respondents. Learned Lawyer appearing for the Appellant has frankly submitted that the complainant did not adduce any evidence on affidavit in support of his case and in spite of that consumer case was allowed by the Learned District Forum by the impugned order. Therefore, the reasoning of the District Forum which has not exercised its jurisdiction, cannot be supported in the eyes of law.
Both the parties by joint pursis also submitted that they be given an opportunity to lead their respective evidence as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the matter be remanded back to the Learned Forum for de novo trial from the stage of receiving the evidence. We find their such request in the circumstances mentioned earlier, is proper and justified.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the Learned District Forum to decide the case afresh.
In the premises noted above, the appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 28/09/2015 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Abasbari, Tamluk, District Purba Medinipur in connection with consumer case No. CC/25/2015 is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Learned Forum in view of the observations recorded in the body of the order. Both the parties shall appear before the Learned District Forum on 13/10/2022.
The Forum, thereafter, shall give opportunity to both the parties to lead their respective evidence as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act and then settle the dispute according to law.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
The appeal is thus disposed of accordingly.
Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Learned District Forum at once for information.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER