KRISHNA PADA KUNDU Vs. DR. R.N. GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed challenging the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 124 of 2006 whereby the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) THE case made out in the complaint, in brief, is that the complainant started facing some physical weakness in the year 2005 along with lack of concentration and he contacted Dr. Sandip Kumar Lahiri who advised complete haemogram of WBC and TC DC ESR along with test of Urea, Blood Sugar, X -ray and some other tests. As complainant was found having some problem regarding haemoglobin in the blood, he was advised immediate hospitalization and accordingly the complainant was admitted in Sri Aurobindo Seva Kendra and was receiving treatment including blood transfusion. Haemoglobin content was found improved but biopsy of bone marrow of the complainant showed infiltration by non -haemopoietic cells. In view of such report complainant decided to take an expert's opinion and accordingly visited the chamber of OP 1 for his opinion and treatment. The OP1 tested blood, stool and urine of the complainant at his own laboratory. The sample of bone marrow which was tested at Mr. Aurobindo Seva Kendra was also directed to be tested by OP 1. The blood sample was also directed to be tested at the institute of OP2.

(3.) PURSUANT to advice in the prescription dated 24.5.2005 of the OP1, the sample of bone marrow of the complainant was given to the OP2 for test and opinion and the OP3 being the pathologist there gave his conclusion that metastatic carcinoma was present in the bone marrow which leads to a conclusion that the complainant was suffering from lucomia (blood cancer). The OP1 told the complainant's son that the blood cancer of the complainant had reached the fourth stage and there was no possibility of his survival. The complainant though was advised treatment and tests by OP1, decided to go to Mumbai for his treatment of blood cancer and accordingly visited Tata Memorial Hospital at Mumbai where the same sample of bone marrow was once again tested by the pathologist of the said Tata Memorial Hospital wherefrom it was learnt that no carcinoma cells were available. Even after second test of bone marrow of the complainant on fresh sample the normal condition was shown. Alleging mental agony by reason of wrong diagnosis and treatment by OP1 and wrong diagnosis by OP2 and OP 3, the complaint was filed claiming Rs. 1,50,000 towards reimbursement of cost of treatment, Rs. 5 lacs as compensation and Rs. 25,000 as litigation cost.