SMT. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER

      The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the Complainant No. 1 praying for deletion of the paragraph No. iv and v  in page No. 13 of the petition of complaint that “Initiate  and take appropriate action against the opposite parties for careless and negligent acts omissions and commissions on the part of his duty in his treatment with the patient through the Medical Council Act, 1956, and also through the Medical Council under the West Bengal Medical Council, Act. And Pass order/directive to the Directorate of Health Services, Govt. Of West Bengal to ban the Nursing Home/Diagnostic  Centre/Hospital/Opposite parties no. 1 & 3 for appointment of unqualified persons like Nursing  Staffs and Residential Medical Officer”.

      Ld. Advocate for the complainant No. 1 has  mentioned in the instant interlocutory  petition   that she has prayed for deletion of the lines which suffer from   technical defect. The complainant has mentioned in this instant petition that there is no need to keep this prayer in the petition of complaint since that would be suffered from technical  defect. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has also  submitted that this interlocutory petition has been filed by the erstwhile Ld. Advocate of the complainant No. 1.

      Upon submission of Ld. Advocate for the complainants and on perusal of the entire materials of record we  have observed that the  prayer  of present   interlocutory application is related to the petition of complaint filed earlier. This prayer has been mentioned  in Para 4 & 5 of the amended version of petition of complaint. The interlocutory application being No. 633/2021 was filed before this Commission on 31.07.2019 and the  amended version of petition of   complaint  was filed before this Commission on 22.09.2021. In the amended version of petition of   complaint   the prayer for deletion is related to para no. 4 & 5 in page no. 9 of the amended version of petition of complaint . Therefore, the prayer in the instant IA related to para iv & v in  page no. 13 becomes infractuous.  There is no existence of page No. 13 in the  amended version of the petition of complaint.  The amended version of the petition of complaint consists of 12 pages only and the annexure.  Since the prayer of the IA Application becomes infractuous therefore, the IA is rejected in limini.

      Thus the IA being No. IA/633/2019 is rejected and disposed of.

      B.C. to comply.

    On scrutiny  we have observed  that Ld. Advocate Mr. Abhik Kr. Das filed vakalatnama  on  behalf of the complainant no. 1  on 20.11.2019. Thereafter  on 05.02.2020, Ld. Advocate Mr. Abhisek  Sengupta  filed additional Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant no. 1 and undertook  to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the  complainants No. 2 & 3  and accordingly  12.05.2020 was fixed for filing Vakalatnama  on behalf of the complainants No. 2 & 3 and also for filing amended version of petition of complaint. Due to lockdown  the record was put up before this Commission on 16.10.2020. Thereafter, the complainant has filed  the amended version of petition of complaint on 22.09.2021 but till date complainant no. 1  has not filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainants no. 2 & 3 as per undertaking.

     To date i.e. 03.06.2022 for filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the  complainants no. 2 & 3 and also  for filing evidence  on affidavit by the complainant and awaiting report from the Expert Committee.