JUDGMENT

Manojit Mandal, President.—This revision petition is directed against the order No. 27 dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-III (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No.CC/626/2018 thereby the Interlocutory Application being No. M.A./136/2021 filed by the revisionist / opposite party No. 3 was rejected.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 as complainants filed a complaint case against the revisionist and others under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following reliefs:—

“(i) Mental agony for Rs.5,00,000/- against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2.

(ii) Cost of treatment against all the Opposite Parties of Rs.5,00,000/-.

(iii) For the death benefit of Rs.5,00,000/- of the child against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2.

(iv) For the Compensation of the Medical Negligence of Rs.5,00,000/- against the Opposite Party No. 3, the Doctor N.R. Chakraborty for death benefit of the child.

(v) Cost of the proceeding is paid by the Opposite Parties to the Complainants.

(vi) Further and other relief or reliefs as the Complainant may be entitled to granted.”

3. Notice was duly served upon the opposite parties.

4. The revisionist / opposite party No. 3 entered appearance in this case and contesting the case. The opposite party No. 3 filed an application before the Learned District Commission praying for direction upon the opposite parties / complainant Nos. 1 & 2 to provide entire treatment sheet of the deceased child and the Officer-in-Charge of the Behala Police Station to provide the post mortem report for hearing. After hearing, the Learned District Commission below has been pleased to reject the said M.A. Application being No. M.A./136/2021 by the order impugned.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Learned District Commission below the revisionist / opposite party No. 3 has preferred this revisional application.

6. Learned Lawyer appearing for the revisionist has urged that no medical records were filed by the complainants / respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as mentioned in the paragraph no. 3 of the petition of complaint. The revisionist prayed before the Learned District Commission for direction to produce the post mortem report and other medical records available to the complainant but the said prayer was turned down and was rejected by the Learned District Commission.

7. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission below erred in not giving suitable direction to supply the post mortem report and other medical papers to the opposite party No. 3.

8. He has further urged that the said post mortem report and other medical records are essential for just and proper adjudication of the case. So, the revisional application filed by the revisionist should be allowed and the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 should be directed to produce the post mortem report and other medical records before this Commission.

9. Having heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to us that notice of the complaint case was duly served upon the opposite parties. After receiving the notice the revisionist / opposite party No. 3 entered appearance in this case and is contesting the case by filing written version. It also appears that the evidence of the complainants was closed and the opposite party No. 3 has already filed his evidence on affidavit before the Learned District Commission. After filing evidence on affidavit by the revisionist / opposite party No. 3, the revisionist / opposite party No. 3 has filed the instant application praying for direction for production of the medical records and the post mortem examination report.

10. In such a situation, the Learned District Commission has held that the revisionist / opposite party No. 3 has been a visiting surgeon at Behala Balananda Brahmachari Hospital for more than forty years and the Behala B