JITENDRA NATH CHOWDHURY S/O LATE RAGHUNATH CHOWDHURY, R/O AT 195, MEHEDI BAGAN, P.O. BURDWAN BURDWAN Vs. DR. TIMIR BHATTACHRYA R/O. RANISAYER WEST, KHOSHBAGAN, P.O. & P.S. TOWN BURDWAN BURDWAN WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at West Bengal (for short "the State Commission "), in SC Case No. 42/01/2002 dated 14.01.2009, the Complainant preferred this Appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act "). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the ground that there was no negligence on behalf of the first Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the "treating doctor ") in his treatment of the Complainant's wife (hereinafter referred to as the "patient ").

(2.) For the sake of convenience, Opposite Parties 2, 3 & 4 are hereinafter referred to as the 'Nursing Home'. Succinctly put, facts material to the case are that the patient, a Graduate in the Commerce Stream, with six-months training in knitting, was registered at Employment Exchange, Burdwan and was awaiting employment. During this period, she was engaged as a Private Tutor, earning Rs. 800/ to Rs. 1,000.00 per month. It was stated that after their marriage, on 04.12.1992, the couple was blessed with a baby boy, on 24.10.1994. The Patient, once again conceived in the year 1999, and the couple approached the treating doctor, Dr. Timir Bhattacharya, a Gynaecologist, who confirmed the pregnancy, treated her at regular intervals and fixed the probable date of delivery of the baby in the first week of June, 2000.

(3.) On 04.05.2000, the treating doctor advised the patient to undergo ultrasonography which showed normal results. On 21.05.2000 at about 6.30PM the patient had unbearable pain and was taken to the treating doctor's Nursing Home and on his advice, was admitted on the same day at 7.30 p.m. and an advance of Rs. 5,000.00 was paid towards the treatment. As the patient's condition was stable, at about 11.00 p.m., the Complainant was asked to return to his residence and come again, the next morning. On 22.05.2000, at about 4.45 a.m., the Complainant was informed by the staff of the Nursing Home that the patient had undergone Caesarean Sec. under general anaesthesia, as the treating doctor suspected that the umbilical cord was twisted around the infant's neck.