Order No. 33 dt. 07/11/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the husband of the complainant was admitted to hospital for removal of stones from the gall bladder and unexpectedly died due to cardiac respiratory failure. The patient was admitted to o.p. 1 nursing home for the purpose of gall bladder operation and a package of operation was fixed by the o.p. 1 which was paid by the patient party. At the time of admitting the patient in the nursing home the elder brother of the patient was given an idea that the nursing home was well equipped with all the modern facilities. On the basis of such assurance of providing best treatment to the patient the patient party paid an amount of Rs. 18,000/- for the operation. After the operation the family members of the patient party were not allowed to see the patient after operation. The elder brother of the patient was informed on 17/06/2012 over phone received from the nursing home that the condition of the patient was very serious and they had no such infrastructure to meet the emergency situation of the patient. Accordingly, for better treatment the patient was shifted to Mohan Clinic. On the selfsame day as per the direction of the o.p. no. 2 the patient was shifted to the said clinic but the patient expired there. On the basis of the said fact the complainant’s brother-in-law lodged a diary in local Police Station. The brother of the patient also wrote to different persons redressing their grievance regarding the death of the said patient. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- against the o.ps. and litigation cost of Rs. 50.000/-.
The o.ps. contested the case by filing written version and denied all the material allegations of the complainant. It was stated by the o.p.1 that this Forum is meant for summary disposal of cases and for having the proper remedy the complainant filed a civil suit before a Civil Court. The complainant’s husband was examined by the o.p.1 and found that there was stone in gall bladder and operation was required. Accordingly the patient was informed the package of the entire surgery was fixed at Rs. 18,000/-. The patient took admission on 15/06/2012 and operation was performed on 16/06/2012. After the operation the condition of the patient was stable but on 17/06/2012 the treating Doctor Dr. Vijay Kr. Jain suspected hypotension of the patient and he advised the shifting of the patient to Mohan Clinic and doctor himself accompanied the patient. The best treatment was rendered to the patient inspite of taking best care the patient expired.
The o.p. no.2 filed a w/v. and denied all the material allegations of the complainant. As per the advise of necessary steps were taken by the hospital staff and operation was conducted by the said doctor and the condition of the patient was stable but unfortunately the condition of the patient deteriorated and he was shifted to Mohan Clinic where he died. On the basis of the said fact a criminal case was started against the doctors and the police during investigation seized all the documents and he reiterated that there was no medical negligence on their part and thereby the o.p. doctor prays for dismissal of the case. The o.p.4 denied that there was any wrong treatment provided by the said nursing home and accordingly o.p.4 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
1) Whether the husband of the complainant was treated by o.ps.?
2) Whether there was any medical negligence on the part of the o.ps.?
3) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
4) Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the husband of the complainant was admitted to hospital for removal of stones from the gall bladder and unexpectedly died due to cardiac respiratory failure. The patient was admitted to o.p. 1 nursing home for the purpose of gall bladder operation and a package of operation was fixed by the o.p. 1 which was paid by the patient party. At the time of admitting the patient in the nursing home the elder brother of the patient was given an idea that the nursing home was well equipped with all the modern facilities. On the basis of such assurance of providing best treatment to the patient the patient party paid an amount of Rs. 18,000/- for the operation. After the operation the family members of the patient party were not allowed to see the patient after operation. The elder brother of the patient was informed on 17/06/2012 over phone received from the nursing home that the condition of the patient was very serious and they had no such infrastructure to meet the emergency situation of the patient. Accordingly, for better treatment the patient was shifted to Mohan Clinic. On the selfsame day as per the direction of the o.p. no. 2 the patient was shifted to the said clinic but the patient expired there. On the basis of the said fact the complainant’s brother-in-law lodged a diary in local Police Station. The brother of the patient also wrote to different persons redressing their grievance regarding the death of the said patient. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- against the o.ps. and litigation cost of Rs. 50.000/-.
Ld. Lawyer for o.ps. argued that this Forum is meant for summary disposal of cases and for having the proper remedy the complainant filed a civil suit before a Civil Court. The complainant’s husband was examined by the o.p.1 and found that there was stone in gall bladder of the patient and operation was required. Accordingly the patient was informed the package of the entire surgery was fixed at Rs. 18,000/-. The patient took admission on 15/06/2012 and operation was performed on 16/06/2012. After the operation the condition of the patient was stable but on 17/06/2012 the treating Doctor Dr. Vijay Kr. Jain suspected hypotension of the patient and he advised the shifting of the patient to Mohan Clinic and doctor himself accompanied the patient. The best treatment was rendered to the patient inspite of taking best care the patient expired.
Ld. Lawyer for the other o.ps. argued that as per the advice of the doctor of necessary steps were taken by the hospital staff and operation was conducted by the said doctor and the condition of the patient was stable but unfortunately the condition of the patient deteriorated and he was shifted to Mohan Clinic where he died. On the basis of the said fact a criminal case was started against the doctors and the police during investigation seized all the documents and he reiterated that there was no medical negligence on their part and thereby the o.p. doctor prays for dismissal of the case. The o.ps. denied that there was any wrong treatment provided by the said nursing home and accordingly o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the husband of the complainant was treated in the o.p.1 nursing home and he was under the treatment of o.p.2 who after examination detected that the patient was suffering from stone in the gall bladder for which he had acute pain. As per advice of the said doctor the operation was done by o.p. It is also an admitted fact that the condition of the patient was stable after operation. But unfortunately on the next date the condition of the patient was deteriorated for which he was shifted to Mohan Clinic o.p.4. After necessary treatment the patient expired. It is an admitted fact that the patient party made complain against the o.ps. before Police and criminal case was started. The police during investigation seized all the documents relating to the treatment of the said patient. In order to prove medical negligence the complainant could not produce any expert’s opinion regarding the wrong treatment rendered by the o.ps.
For establishing the fact regarding medical negligence we can rely on a book titling “ ‘Medical Negligence’ written by and shri S. P. Tyagi (Edition 2004) Reprint 2008, it has been mentioned at Page No. 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 regarding Medical Negligence, classification of medical negligence of mistakes.
It runs thus :-
"What is Medical negligence
The term medical negligence is nowhere defined in any Code or Act. No legislature, has so far, made any attempt to define it. Even the medico legal jurists have not come forward to provide a specific meaning to this express.
'Medical negligence' is always an outcome of doctor patient inter se conduct and relationship, which lacks uniformity. The issue of medical negligence is a complicated one as medical professionals deal with human body. They do not deal with the machine. Human body is not a mere composition of bones and flesh. It is susceptible to emotions also. Response of medicinal treatment varies from patient to patient. This phenomenon is also applicable to recovery aspect. Further recovery aspect is not solely dependent upon the appropriateness of treatment provided by the doctor. Response or recovery of a patient also depends on his individual anatomy and physiology. Possibility cannot be ruled out that a drug may be effective in case of one patient, it may not be effective in second and may cause reaction in third. Medico Legal experience also establishes that there exist inherent risk in every treatment, medicinal or surgical. Further possibility of unforeseen mishap may not be ruled out. Even the medicinal literature provides for failure rates particularly in surgery.
The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action adopted by a doctor treating a patient. Further the concept of medical negligence may be studied with reference to the extent of approach of a medical professional towards three under mentioned concepts, which generally work as guidelines to determine the factum of medical negligence or otherwise in a particular case.
- Duty of care in accepting the patient for treatment.
- Duty of care in providing appropriate treatment.
(3) Breach of duty or commission of negligence in any of them and damage cause by such breach.
In other words, medical negligence is result of some irregular conduct on the part of any member of the profession or related services in discharge of professional duties. Broadly speaking medical negligence means negligence resulting from the failure on the part of the doctor to act in accordance with medical standards in vogue, which are being practiced by an ordinary and reasonably competent man, practicing on the same branch of medicine or surgery.
Classification of medical negligence or mistakes.
Negligence in medical care may broadly be classified into four categories :-
- Medical negligence at the level of doctors / paramedical staff / hospital authorities. Liability for negligence may be fixed at individual level and / or jointly or vicariously where hospitals nursing homes are involved.
(2) Negligence at the level of patient himself or his attendants also known as contributory negligence.
- Negligence at the level of manufacturers of drugs, equipment etc. and dispensers.
- Composite negligence i.e. at more than one of the above 3 levels. Negligence of first category may further be sub-classified into two categories viz.
(i) Individual liability of a medical professional.
(ii) Vicarious liability of an individual doctor or hospital for the Medical negligence may also be classified as under :
1. Medical mistakes.
2. Clinical negligence.
3. Surgical mistakes
4. Misplaced injection."
16. In Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr Trimbak Bapu Godbole and another, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 128 (V 56 C 27), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"11. The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in
the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires : (cf. Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed. Vol. 26 p. 17). The doctor no doubt has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency..........."
17. In this context it is relevant to cite case of Kusum Sharma & ORS. Vs. Batra Hospital & Research Centre & ORS., I (2010) CPJ 29 (SC) in which the conclusions under different case laws on the subject of medical negligence have been summarized as under :-
‘Para” 90” In Jacob Mathew’s case (supra), conclusions summed up by the Court were very apt and some portions of which are reproduced hereunder :
(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which is a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh) referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: ‘duty’, ‘breach’ and ‘resulting damage’.
(2)Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
(3) The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence. Para “94’. On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries especially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.
IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which is honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances
of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.
X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.
XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.”
In Dr. Sanjay Gadekar Suprathet Hospital and Surgical Research Institute Ltd. Vs. Sangamitra @ Sandhya Khobragade, 2016 (3) CPR 270 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"11 In this context we place reliance upon few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Jacob Mathews Case (2005) 6 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as :
"When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions."
In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (1996) 2 SCC 634, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
"in the very nature of medical profession, skills differ from doctor to doctor and more than one alternative course of treatment are available, all admissible. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor, so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable, if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others (2010) 3 SCC 480; the bench comprising Hon'ble Justices Dalveer Bhandari and H.S. Bedi while dismissing the complaint held that :
"Consumer Protection Act, (CPA) should not be a "halter round the neck" of doctors to make them fearful and apprehensive of taking professional decisions at crucial moments to explore possibility of reviving patients hanging between life and death."
It further observed as, "It is a matter of common knowledge that after some unfortunate event, there is a marked tendency to look for a human factor to blame for an untoward event, a tendency which is closely linked with the desire to punish."
In Hucks v. Cole & Anr (1968) 118 New LJ 469, Lord Denning speaking for the Court, observed as under :
"a medical practitioner was not to be held liable, simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference of another. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner, in his field."
In Smt. Tilat Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. 2012 (4) CPR 565 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for removal of stones in Gall Bladder. Injury to Bile Duct during operation. CBD injury was caused and detected during Laparoscopic dissection procedure and said procedure was converted into open cholecystectomy to rectify complication. CBD injury is a well-known complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure and frequency of such complications has increased with advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Incidence of CBD injury is a well-known risk when a patient undergoes a laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure. Same cannot be correlated as act of negligence or carelessness on part of operating surgeon. Merely because laparoscopic cholecystectomy had to be converted to open cholecystectomy procedure, it cannot be said that laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure adopted by surgeon was counter indicative. Once it is shown that due medical protocol was followed, no case of medical negligence is made out against opposite parties. Complainants have failed to establish their case about medical negligence and/or deficiency in service against opposite parties."
The skill of a medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor and it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove that doctor was negligent in the line of treatment that resulted in the life of the patient.
The OPs have filed copy of consent letter dated 06.11.2015 of the complainant. In the said consent letter the name of complainant and the name of the doctor is mentioned. In the consent letter it is mentioned that risk in anaesthesia and risk of other procedures were explained to the complainant and the complainant gave his consent to the OPs for conducting operation of his daughter. In the consent letter it is specifically mentioned that “Matter in other language”.
In A.K. Vishwakarma (Dr.) Vs. Kiran Sinha & Anr. and Kiran Sinha Vs. A.K. Vishwakarma (Dr.), II (2016) CPJ 204 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
“ What constitutes medical negligence is well settled through a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC) = VI (2005) SLT 1 = 122 (2005) DLT 83 (SC) = III (2005) CCR 9 (SC) = (2005) 6 SCC 1, a three-Judge Bench decision, Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Others., III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) = 1995 (SLT Soft) 561 = (1995) 6 SCC 651. Noted from these judgments, the broad principles to determine what constitutes medical negligence, inter alia, are : (i) Whether the doctor in question possessed the medical skills expected to an ordinary skilled practitioner in the field at that point of time; and (ii) Whether the doctor adopted the practice (of clinical observation diagnosis – including diagnostic testsand treatment) in the case that is accepted as proper by a responsible body of professional practitioners in the field. In this connection, in Jacob Mathew (supra), the three-Judge Bench, elaborating on the degree of skill and care required of a medical practitioner quoted Halsbury's Laws of English (4th Edn., Vol. 30, para 35) as follows :-
"35. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operation in a different way…"
Even if for the sake of argument if it is found that there was ‘an error of judgement on the part of professional is also not negligence per se ,’ was held in the case of Dr. Mahadeb Prasad Kaushik vs. State of U.P., in criminal appeal no. 1625 of 2008. The bench headed by justices C. K. Thakker and D. K. Jain while quasing the prosecution initiated against a doctor, the bench explained, “the standard to be applied for judging whether a person charged has been negligent or not would be that often ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that person”. The court granted a breather to doctors, who, are living under the constant in threat of being dragged to course of “erroneous” treatment these days, are hounded by ambulance chasers, a category of lawyers who convinced patients who file cases against any treatment “gone wrong”.
Hon’ble Supreme Court said “medical profession often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which a doctor honestly believes as providing better chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow would depend on facts and circumstances of a given case”.
On the subject of prognosis and management of the nature of cancer sustained by the patient we can rely on few medical books namely “Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology by DeVita, Hellman and Rosenberg, Surgical Pathology by Ackerman”. Chemotherapy is warranted for all stages to be applied upon the patient. The complainant has also admitted that after the surgical operation the chemotherapy was applied. Therefore the complainant did not make any complain against the doctors who treated the patient and as such they have not been made parties to this case. The complainant did not file any medical papers to show that the advices provided by the treating doctors were not followed by the hospital, o.p. 1 as well as there was any lack of care taken by the other o.p.s during the treatment of the said patient. The principles for judging whether there was Medical Negligence in the treatment of patient have been enunciated.
“In Kusum Sharma & Others vs Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre and others, (2010) 3 SCC 480, the court observed that,
50. Medical science has conferred great benefits on mankind, but these benefits are attended by considerable risks. Every surgical operation is attended by risks. We cannot take the 25benefits without taking risks. Every advancement in technique is also attended by risks.
51. In Roe and Woolley v. Minister of Health (1954) 2 QB 66, Lord Justice Denning said : `It is so easy to be wise after the event and to condemn as negligence that which was only a misadventure. We ought to be on our guard against it, especially in cases against hospitals and doctors. Medical science has conferred great benefits on mankind but these benefits are attended by unavoidable risks. Every surgical operation is attended by risks. We cannot take the benefits without taking the risks. Every advance in technique is also attended by risks. Doctors, like the rest of us, have to learn by experience; and experience often teaches in a hard way."
17. In Jacob Mathews Case, (2005)6 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:-
“When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions.”
18. In another case Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and others versus State of Maharashtra and others (1996) 2 SCC 634 Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations
“The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession, and the Court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence.”
19. In the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs. Dr. Trimbark Babu Godbole and Anr., AIR 1969 SC 128 and A.S.Mittal v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 1570, it was laid down that certain duties of doctor which are: (a) duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, (b) duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, and (c) duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of the above duties may give a cause of action for negligence and the patient may on that basis recover damages from his doctor.”
On the basis of judgement and observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Kusum Sharma’s case that “We must not look at the 1947 accident with 1954 spectacles". But we should be doing a disservice to the community at large if we were to impose liability on hospitals and doctors for everything that happens to go wrong. Doctors would be led to think more of their own safety than of the good of their patients. Initiative would be stifled and confidence shaken. A proper sense of 26proportion requires us to have regard to the conditions in which hospitals and doctors have to work. We must insist on due care for the patient at every point, but we must not condemn as negligence that which is only a misadventure.”
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the case against the o.ps that there was any medical negligence on their part or any unfair trade practice adopted by the o.ps. Therefore we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no. CC/36/2013 is dismissed on contest against the o.p.s without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
