WA 254/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR RS GARG HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H BARUAH Heard Mr NK Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr HRA Choudhury, lear ned senior counsel for the respondent No.2. With the consent of the parties the matter is finally heard. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 25-3-2009 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagaon, Assam in Case No.CP 23/2002 (Md Ubed Ullah vs. Dr Md Safiqul Islam & Ors) had filed WP(C) No.1711/2009 submitting int er alia that the present appellant in fact was an anesthetist and as there were no allegation against the anesthetist an order could not be passed against the i nterest of the present appellant/petitioner. From the complaint (Annexure-1) it would clearly appear that the complai nant was suffering some pain in his stomach and the area around it, he went to D r Md Safiqul Islam who after examining him suggested certain pre operation tests . After the said it was directed to the original complainant that he was require d to undergo an operation because his artificial teeth has gone in his stomach c avity. It appears that thereafter operation was performed over Md Ubed Ullah, th e complainant, however, the surgeon and his assistant could not find the said te eth in the stomach cavity. It appears that thereafter the complainant suffered c ertain infections and he was thereafter taken to other hospital where he was aga in operated. In view of all his sufferings and the problems which he had undergo ne he had filed the complaint case before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties the Consumer Dispute Redres sal Forum came to the conclusion that the petitioner who was an anesthetist woul d be held liable against the claim. It accordingly directed that the Opponent No s.1, 2 and 4 should jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- to the comp lainant and the Opp Party No.4 should pay a sum of Rs.28,000/- singly to the com plainant. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had come to this cour t, the petition was disposed with a direction that the petitioner may file an ap peal alongwith a condonation application before the State Consumer Forum in acco rdance with Section 15 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said directions the pe titioner has filed this appeal. Ordinarily there would not have been any problem for us to affirm the order dated 13-5-09 passed by the learned Single Judge if there were any disputed facts. However, in absence of any dispute in relation to the role assigned to the said original non applicant No.4/petitioner/present ap pellant we take up the burden upon ourselves to examine the matter and dispose i t of finally. It is not in dispute before us that Dr Narendra Bhagabati was an anesthe tist and was so employed during the process of the operation. An anesthetist is required to control the pressure in the lungs and the breath so also pulses of a patient either by administering local anesthesia or general anesthesia. In cas e because of less dose of anesthesia the patient starts suffering pain during th e conduct of the operation, then the anesthetist could be held liable. In the al ternative if because of the over dose of anesthesia the patient develops certain complication or dies, in such a case the anesthetist could be held liable. In t he present case undoubtedly there are no allegations against the anesthetist tha t either he administered low dose of anesthesia or over dose of anesthesia. The allegations in fact are against the surgeon and other persons, named in the peti tion, and that because of their non expertise they could not find the teeth in t he stomach cavity and for such lapses the petitioner had to go to other hospital and suffer the problems. If nothing wrong has been found against the anesthetist then a direction to pay the compensation either jointly, severally or singly should not have bee n issued against him. With all humility at our command we set aside the order passed by the le arned Single Judge and for the reasons aforesaid we hereby quash the findings an d the final judgment delivered by the learned Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum a gainst the interest of the present appellant. To the extent indicated above, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As the petition itself has been finally allowed Misc Case No.2256/09 sta nds disposed of.