Ranabir Bhowmick vs Ahmed Nawaz

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-Heard the Counsel for the parties.

RESPONDENT/Complainant''s father was under treatment with the Petitioner doctor who was the opposite party before the District Forum. The patient was taken to the petitioner on 21.9.2000 for treatment of peptic ulcer. Respondent prescribed some medicines but after taking those medicines, the condition of the patient started deteriorating and the patient was again taken to OP on 27.9.2000 for further examination. Petitioner prescribed certain pathological tests. After getting the tests done patient reported to the Petitioner on 30.9.2000 and the Petitioner after going through the reports diagnosed the disease to be tuberculosis and prescribed certain medicines. By taking the medicines, the condition of patient further deteriorated. The relatives of the patient lost faith in the Petitioner and took him to Dr. Aziz Hassan on 3.10.2000 who prescribed certain tests and after getting said tests done, the patient was taken to Dr. Hassan but before Dr. Hassan could examine him the patient died. The Mantoux test done at the instance of Dr. Hassan showed negative reaction to a T.B. patient.

BEING aggrieved the respondent filed a Complaint before the District Forum. In response to the notice issued the Petitioner put an appearance and filed his written statement. Respondent led his evidence but the Petitioner did not lead any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the Respondent. The District Forum allowed the Complaint in part and directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,99,700 to the Respondent on account of deficiency in service on his part.

AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission by the impugned order has dismissed the Appeal.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

IT is not disputed before us that the respondent did not produce any expert evidence. Petitioner also did not rebut the evidence which had been led by the respondent. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court we set aside the orders passed by the forums below and remand the case to the District Forum for a fresh decision. Petitioner/Opposite Party shall be at liberty to file affidavit to counter the evidence led by the Respondent/Complainant. The District Forum shall also permit the parties to lead expert evidence and if need be get an opinion from an independent expert. The parties are also put at liberty to lead any evidence which they want to lead in support of their respective case. Petitioner has agreed to pay Rs. 50,000 to the Respondent by way of costs as the demand is being made at his request,

PARTIES and their Counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 22.3.2010. As it is an old case, we direct the District Forum to dispose of the Complaint within a period of six months from the first date of hearing. The costs of Rs. 50,000 be paid to the respondent on or before the first date of hearing before the District Forum. The deposit made by the Petitioner in pursuance to the Order dated 29.1.2008 passed by this Commission be returned to the Petitioner along with accrued interest.