National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Behala Balananda Brahmachari Hospital ... vs Nita Singh & 2 Ors. on 6 May, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3162 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 12/09/2017 in Appeal No. 58/2016 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. BEHALA BALANANDA BRAHMACHARI HOSPITAL RESEARCH CENTRE & ANR. 151 & 153, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S. Behala, Kolkata - 700 034 2. SUPERINTENDENT, BEHALA BALANANDA BRAHMACHARI HOSPITAL RESEARCH CENTRE 151 & 153, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S. Behala, Kolkata - 700 034 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NITA SINGH & 2 ORS. D/o. Kedar Nath Singh, 54/A, Natun Pally, Silpara, P.S. Thakurpukur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata - 700 008 2. DR. SASHI KUMAR, BEHALA BALANANDA BRAHMACHARI HOSPITAL RESEARCH CENTRE 151 & 153, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S. Behala, Kolkata - 700 034 3. DR. DILIP DHAR, BEHALA BALANANDA BRAHMACHARI HOSPITAL RESEARCH CENTRE 151 & 153, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S. Behala, Kolkata - 700 034 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. G. Goyal, proxy counsel For the Respondent : For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Surajit Khara, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Rabin Majumder, Advocate Dated : 06 May 2019 ORDER Learned proxy counsel is present for the revision petitioners.
Perused the material on record.
The complaint before the District Forum is of alleged medical negligence resulting in the death of the patient. A minor son of the deceased patient (mother) is living with his deceased mother's younger sister. It is admitted that the father of the minor son has also expired. That is, the minor son is an orphan, due to the death of his father, and due to the alleged medical negligence resulting in the death of his mother (which alleged medical negligence has as yet to be adjudicated on merit by the forum of original jurisdiction, the District Forum). The complaint has been filed by the deceased mother's younger sister (with whom the minor orphan son is living), alleging medical negligence resulting in the death of her elder sister i.e. the mother of the minor orphan son. We note that a preliminary objection was raised before the District Forum on the mother's younger sister filing the complaint. The District Forum vide its Order dated 14.03.2016 had dismissed the objection. The opposite party no. 1 - hospital had gone in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its Order dated 12.09.2017 had dismissed the appeal. This instant revision has been filed before this Commission against the said Order dated 12.09.2017 of the State Commission by the opposite party no. 1-hospital.
When this case was taken up on first call in the forenoon session, learned proxy counsel for the revision petitioner sought an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is not available. We perused the record as well as the previous daily Orders dated 30.10.2017, 05.01.2018, 26.04.2018, 26.06.2018 and 19.09.2018. The event of alleged medical negligence is of 2013. The complaint before the District Forum was filed in 2015. The preliminary objection was dismissed in 2016. The appeal re the preliminary objection in the State Commission was dismissed in 2017. The revision petition before this Commission was filed in 2017. We are now in 2019. The alleged medical negligence has as yet to be adjudicated on merit in the forum of original jurisdiction, i.e. the District Forum. In the above facts and specificities, the request for adjournment was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party no. 1 - hospital within two weeks from today.
In the afternoon session, learned proxy counsel for the revision petitioners again came before us and, on instructions, submitted that the revision petitioners want to withdraw their revision petition.
The revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without the option to file it again before this Commission on the same issue, and subject to, now, (reduced) cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party no.1 - revisionists - hospital within two weeks of this Order. The afore - mentioned cost shall be paid directly to the complainant, the younger sister of the deceased patient, directly in her name by way of 'payee's a/c only' demand draft within two weeks of this Order. It shall be the responsibility of the revision petitioners - opposite party no. 1 - hospital to send a responsible functionary to courteously and politely hand over the 'payee's a/c only' demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant at reasonable time with her prior permission at her residence or place of work (if any) within the said period of two weeks from today.
Needless to say that the stay on the proceedings before the District Forum, ordered by this Commission vide its earlier Order dated 05.01.2018, does not survive.
Parties to appear before the District Forum on 09-07-2019.
The principal onus of informing all the parties of this Order and of the date before the District Forum shall be on the revision petitioners - opposite party no. 1 - hospital.
The Registry is also directed to send a copy each of this Order to all parties including the complainant and to the District Forum.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER