AMBUJAKSHA SINHA MAHAPATRA Vs. AMALENDU BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act') against order dtd. 24/4/2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal ('State Commission') in First Appeal No. 966 of 2016. In this, the Appeal by Respondent/ Complainant was allowed, thereby setting aside the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Paschim Medinipur ('District Forum') order in CC No. 137 of 2014 dtd. 31/8/2016, wherein the Complainant's complaint was dismissed.

(2.) For convenience, the parties in the present matter are referred as per the Complaint before District Forum. Amalendu Bhattacharjee is the Complainant (Respondent herein) whereas Dr. Ambujaksha Sinha Mahapatra is referred as OP-1 (Petitioner No. 1 herein) and Medinipur Nursing Home is referred as OP-2 (Petitioner No. 2 herein).

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant (Respondent herein) suffering from abdominal pain, was admitted to OP-2 Nursing Home on 12/8/2014 under the care of OP-1 Doctor. Various blood tests and ultrasound (USG) of the abdomen were conducted, and reports were provided to OP-1 on 13/8/2014. Despite the USG report indicating a normal pancreas, OP-1 diagnosed the patient with acute pancreatitis and treated him from 12/8/2014 to 18/8/2014. On 18/8/2014, the patient was discharged and referred to a Super Speciality Medical Centre for better treatment, despite the initial USG report showing normal pancreatic conditions. Dissatisfied with the treatment, the patient was taken to the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad on 15/8/2014. A second USG held on 20/8/2014 confirmed that the pancreas was normal in size and contour, with no signs of pancreatitis. An MRCP report from LUCID Medical Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. also confirmed the normal condition of the pancreas. The Complainant alleged that the wrong diagnosis and treatment by OP-1 led to unnecessary suffering and expenses amounting to about Rs.2.00 Lakhs. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakh for deficiency in service and cost of proceeding.