KAKALI CHOWDHURY Vs. BHASKAR CHATTERJEE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against order dated 02.07.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (in short 'the State Commission').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 14.04.2010 the complainant Kakali Chowdhury, received a fractured injury on her right forearm and upon receiving a fractured injury she went to the opposite party's nursing home for treatment. She was admitted in the opposite party No.3, nursing home and underwent operation on 14.04.2010 under supervision of the Dr. Bhaskar Chatterjee, opposite party no.1. On 17.04.2010, the complainant Kakali Chowdhury was discharged from opposite party's nursing home. On 26.04.2010 & 30.04.2010, the complainant as per advice of the O.P. No.1 went to his chamber on 26.04.2010 where some of the stitches were removed and again she went to the nursing home on 30.04.2010 for removal of other stitches. On 04.05.2010, the complainant feeling severe pain on the operated area again visited the same doctor on 04.05.2010 who assured that the healing was in progress. The complainant feeling further aggravation of pain again visited him on 18.05.2010. Opposite Party No.1 treated her and advised her to revisit after four weeks but the patient started feeling unbearable pain. On 27.7.2010, the complainant consulted Dr. H.A. Saha, an orthopedic Surgeon, who opined that the operation was faulty and the infection already started in the operated area. During 25.08.2010 to 30.08.2010, the complainant was admitted in Christian Medical College, Vallore. The doctor examined the complainant and diagnosed that there has been Infective Nonunion Both Bone right Forearm with Implant Insitu. On 13.07.2011, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah, West Bengal (in short 'the District Forum') for harassment, pain and mental agony and damagecaused to her during medical treatment. The District Forum vide its order dated 10.07.2012 allowed the complaint as under:-

(3.) Aggrieved with the order dated 10.07.2012 of the District Forum, OP No.1/ respondent No.1 and OP No.2/respondent No.2 preferred the appeals no. 474/2012 and 473/2012 respectively before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 02.07.2013 accepted both the appeals and set aside the order dated 10.07.2012 of the District Forum.