- (1.) The petitioner is the husband of Anuradha Saha, who breathed her last on 28 May 1988, after having fallen ill while on a social visit to India. The petitioner is a medical practitioner settled in the United States of America, doing research in HIV/AIDS. The deceased wife of the petitioner had developed fever with skin rash on or about 25 April 1988 while in Kolkata on a social visit to this country. For this purpose, Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, a medical practitioner was consulted. Her condition did not improve, and had in fact deteriorated, and other doctors had also been consulted in Kolkata, where she was being treated in a private hospital. Eventually she was shifted to a hospital in Mumbai on further deterioration of her condition, where she passed away. The petitioner had instituted an action alleging medical negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, (the Commission) claiming compensation of Rs. 77,76,73,500/- with interest, impleading as respondents in the proceeding the three medical practitioners who treated her, as well as the hospital where she was treated in Kolkata. A criminal complaint was also instituted against the three medical practitioners in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Alipore by one Malay Kumar Ganguly, who it appears is a relative of the petitioner. The said criminal complaint was tried on evidence and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found two of the three medical practitioners arraigned as accused before him guilty of commission of offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The third medical practitioner was acquitted. The convicted doctors were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of which the convicted persons were directed to undergo a simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.
(2.) The doctors who were held guilty appealed against the judgment of conviction before the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore and the complainant filed a criminal revisional application for enhancement of punishment imposed on the two doctors held guilty. Another appeal questioning legality of the judgment of acquittal of one of the three doctors was filed before this Court by the complainant. The appeals against the judgment of conviction which were filed before the learned Sessions Judge were eventually heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court upon withdrawing the same from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, and these appeals were heard along with the other proceedings.
(3.) In a judgment and order passed on 19 March 2004, the appeals preferred by the two doctors were allowed and the revisional applications as also the appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant were dismissed by the respondent No. 1, who at that point of time was a Judge of this Court. The complainant appealed against this judgment and order before the Supreme Court of India. The Commission also had dismissed the complaint of the petitioner by a judgment and order dated 1 June 2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order of dismissal passed by the Commission also before the Supreme Court.;