State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Mantu Maiti, Ex Medical Officer Of ... vs Debdulal Shyamal 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/1206/2015 ( Date of Filing : 06 Nov 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/09/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/25/2015 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. Dr. Mantu Maiti, EX Medical Officer of Blood Bank, Contai Sub Divisional Hospital. Dharindra, P.O & P.s - Tamluk, Dist - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 636. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Debdulal Shyamal S/o, Sri Sasanka Shyamal, Vill - Uttar Purusottampur, P.O - Basantia, P.S - Contai, Dist - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 442. 2. The Superintendent, Contai Sub Divisional Hospital P.O & P.S - Contai, Dist - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 401. 3. Dr. Dipak Kumar Mishra, Medical Officer, Contai Sub Divisional Hospital P.O & P.s - Contai, Dist - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 401. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA MEMBER PRESENT: Ms. Debjani Ghosal, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr. B. Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent 1 Mr. R. K. Choumal, 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 Dr. Mantu Maiti against the order dated 28/09/2015 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Abasbari, Tamluk, District Purba Medinipur ( in short the 'District Forum') in connection with the consumer case No. CC/25/2015.
The 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 Respondent No. 3 Dr. Dipak Kumar Misra on 05/11/2014. The Respondent No. 3 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. Respondent No. 3, 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 Appellant / 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.
The appellant and the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 entered appearance in this case and contested the case by filing written version separately.
After contested hearing the consumer case being No. CC/25/2015 was allowed on contest against the appellant and the opposite party No. 2/ respondent No. 3 and dismissed against the respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant has preferred this first appeal before this Commission.
Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties and perused the record including the impugned order dated 28/09/2015.
Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has urged that Learned District Forum failed to appreciate that Car Log Book and the Attendance Register for blood donation camp produced by the appellant and also the respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 shows that blood donation camp on 05/11/2014 was held under the supervision of the appellant as a medical officer and no other medical officer attended the said blood donation camp held at Gholabar, Kejuri on 05/11/2014. As such, the order complained of should be set aside. He has further submitted that Learned District Forum has failed to ascertain who was the technician of the blood bank of Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital who has tested the patient's blood for grouping, cross matching and supply of the blood to the requisitioning Doctor and also who was the medical officer in charge ( MOIC of the blood bank) during the relevant period, which the Learned District Forum should have ascertained before fixing the responsibility, as such, the order complained of should be set aside.
Learned District Forum has miserably failed to appreciate that the appellant was not connected or involved in the matter of supply or delivery of blood and determination of blood group or cross matching of the same of the patient Saraswati Shyamal in any manner. So, the impugned order should be set aside. He has further submitted that the present appeal should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the complainant / respondent No. 1 has urged that the judgment was rightly passed. So, the judgment / order should be confirmed.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the Learned Counsel as well as examined the record.
Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, we find that respondent No. 1 / complainant was given opportunity to adduce evidence to prove his case. Record also goes to show that to prove the case, the complainant did not adduce any evidence on affidavit on his behalf. It was submitted on behalf of the 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 to the consumer case by the complainant. It also appears to us that since the complainant did not adduce any evidence on affidavit and he has not been examined in this case, the opposite parties failed to cross examine the complainant about the allegation levelled against the opposite parties. Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainant has frankly submitted that complainant did not adduce any evidence on affidavit in support of his case in spite of that the consumer case was allowed by the Learned District Forum by the impugned judgment. 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 the provision of Consumer Protection Act and matter be remanded back to the 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 Redressed Forum, Abasbari, Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/25/2015 is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Forum in view of the observations recorded in the body of the order. Both the parties shall appear before 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 the 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