SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 296

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sailen Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Paran Ch. Tudu & Another – Respondent
SC/19/CC/523/2019



Petitioner Advocates:Mr Sibojyoti Chakrabarti ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/19/CC/523/2019 Sailen Mandal PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Lt. Ananta Mandal, Vill. Dulki, P.O. - Dulki, P.S. - Gasaba, Dist. South

24 Pgs., Pin -743 370.,WEST BENGAL.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus Dr. Paran Ch. Tudu & Another PRESENT ADDRESS - C/o Sandhya Pathology, Vill. & P.O. - Gasaba Bazar, Durga Mandir, Dist.

South 24 Pgs., Pin -743 370.,WEST BENGAL.

Dr. Maisur Rahaman, Misba Nursing Home PRESENT ADDRESS - Sonasali Bazar, P.S. - Basanti, Dist. South 24 Pgs., Pin -743 312.,WEST BENGAL.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

Mr Sibojyoti Chakrabarti (Advocate)

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Dr. Paran Ch. Tudu & AnotherDr. Maisur Rahaman, Misba Nursing Home DATED: 09/01/2026

ORDER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT

1. This Consumer Complaint has been filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking compensation from the Opposite Parties for causing death of patient due to medical negligence and deficiency in service.

FACTS IN BRIEF :

2. One Smt. Indu Mondal, aged about 50 years visited Dr. Paran Chandra Tudu/Opposite Party No.1 herein with lower abdomen pain, at Gosaba, District South 24 Parganas for treatment.

Dr. Tudu advised for ultrasonography of the patient. The complainant went to “Sandha Photography” at Gosaba for ultrasonography of his wife. Dr. Tudu advised immediate operation of the patient.

3. Thereafter, the Complainant proceeded to Misba Nursing Home at Sonakhali Bazar, P.S. Basanti, District South 24 Partanas where Dr. Maisur Rahaman, Opposite Party No.2 herein th admitted the patient and fixed a date on 7 March, 2017 for operation by one Dr. Dulal Majumdar. On the particular date, patient was taken to operation theater but said Dr. Dulal Majumdar was not present and instead Dr. Maisur Rahaman, not being a surgeon, operated the patient for money. Immediately after operation, Dr. Rahaman informed that the condition of the patient was very serious and referred to Chittaranjan Hospital, in order to cover up his negligence.

4. Ultimately, the patient was admitted in S.S.K.M. Hospital on 09.03.2017, where patient was treated and discharged after 12/13 days. Subsequently, the patient was again admitted at S.S.K.M. Hospital on 07.06.2017 on account of her deteriorating condition. Ultimately, the patient died on 12.06.2017 at 4.30 P.M. at S.S.K.M. Hospital.

5. The complainant alleged that Dr. Paran Tudu and Dr. Maisur Rahaman both wrongly diagnosed the patient and decided to operate only for earning money. Both the opposite parties are guilty of sheer negligence.

6. The complainant lodged a written complaint with Basanti Police Station against the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and also submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Baruipur on 15.02.2018. But no action was taken by Police Authority.

7. That is why, the instant complaint has been submitted before this Commission with legal aid seeking following prayers :

a) Pay damages and compensation for deficiency in service for the treatment of the complainant’s wife and also for the payment made to the concerned doctor and nursing home to the extent and for causing early death of the patient of Rs.25,00,000/- as shown with break up in the forgoing paragraph.

b) The cost of the proceedings.

c) Any other appropriate relief or reliefs the Complainant is entitled to as this Hon’ble State Commission is entitled to.

8. From the record, it appears that all processes for issuing summons have been exhausted but none appears on behalf of the opposite parties in this case and the case was proceeded ex parte against the opposite parties.

9. EVIDENCE :

a) The Complainant himself filed evidence on Affidavit.

b) On behalf of the Complainant, few documents viz. Ultrasonography reports, Death Certificate, Written Complaints to Police Authority and few medical treatment papers have been annexed.

10. Heard the Ld. Couns

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top