TARUN KANTI SARKAR Vs. DR. MRITYUNJOY PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.12.2016 passed in miscellaneous application No. MA/668/2016 in First Appeal No. A/209/2015. The petitioner states that the State Commission erroneously gave findings on the merits of the pending appeal, therefore, such finding at interim stage would be infructuous. The petitioner herein filed miscellaneous application seeking expert opinion as the discharge summary in question does not bear signature of any doctor and does not speak about OP 1 as a treating doctor. The State Commission observed as under:

(2.) We have heard the petitioner in person and perused the miscellaneous application No. A/2009/15 filed by the complainant before the State Commission. The contention of petitioner is that Dr. Mrityunjoy Pal/OP-1 had not put any signature on the discharge summary. The discharge summary was not signed by OP 1 or any doctor. Therefore, the discharge summary in question is an important document for adjudication of medical negligence case. The discharge summary was written by some other doctor and he has also not put the signature. The complainant is seeking permission to take opinion of hand writing expert regarding the discharge summary, who wrote it whether OP 1 or any other person. In our view, there is no need to call any hand writing expert to know about the writings in the discharge summary. The discharge summary is a piece of document and it can be written by junior doctor, who is working under the treating doctor. Even otherwise, to prove the case of medical negligence, only discharge summary is not a cogent and sufficient evidence. The complainant can prove his case through available medical record of treatment given by the doctor or hospital.

(3.) Therefore, we do not find any error of perversity in the order of State Commission while dismissing the miscellaneous application. It is also pertinent to note that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is summary proceedings and if we allow such application, it will procrastinate the process of adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss this revision petition. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 31.7.2017. The State Commission is requested to expedite the proceedings and decide the matter within six months. Revision petition dismissed.