KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 610/2003 JUDGMENT DATED:03..06..2010. PRESENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Anandavally, W/o Chenthamarakshan, ‘Rohini Sadanam’, Kaitharam.P.O, : APPELLANT North Parur. Vs. 1. Chaithanya Nursing Home, North Parur, Ernakulam Dist., Pin – 683 513. 2. Dr.N.Madhu, : RESPONDENTS Director, Chaithanya Nursing Home, North Parur, Ernakulam Dist., Pin – 683 513. (By Adv:Sri.M.K.George) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the complainant and respondents were the opposite parties in OP:65/2000 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party/Dr.N.Madhu in treating the complainant. It was alleged that due to the negligence of the 2nd opposite party and the other members of the staff attached to the 1st opposite party Chaitanya Nursing Home, North Parur the complainant suffered mental agony, inconvenience and discomfort. Thus, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.4.lakhs from the 2nd opposite party and to make the 1st opposite party vicariously liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a joint written version denying the alleged negligence and deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. It was further contended that the traction machine developed mechanical problem all of a sudden and all the necessary steps were taken to avoid inconvenience or discomfort to the complainant and that there was no sort of negligence in treating the complainant. It was also contended that the 1st opposite party is not a proprietary concern and that it is a partnership firm and submitted that the complaint as framed is bad for non jointer of necessary party. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and 3 more witness were examined as PWs 2 to 4. The 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts.A1 to A7 marked on the side of the complainant and B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties. The case sheet produced with respect to the treatment of the complainant Anandavally produced from Indo American Hospital, Brain and Spine Centre was marked as Ext.C1. But Ext.C1 document is not available in the lower court records. There is also no discussion in the impugned order with respect to C1 case sheet. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:3rd April 2003 in OP:65/2000 dismissing the complaint in OP:65/2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant therein. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He relied on the documentary as well as oral evidence available on record and submitted that the evidence on record would establish the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party Dr.N.Madhu and also on the part of the other doctors and staff attached to the 1st opposite party hospital in treating the complainant with the traction machine. It is also argued for the position that the opposite parties permitted an unqualified and inexperienced staff to handle the traction machine and had resulted in causing inconvenience and discomfort to the complainant who was treated as an inpatient in the 1st opposite party hospital. He pointed out the admission made by PW3 that she is not a qualified Physiotherapist and that the 2nd opposite party permitted an unqualified and inexperienced person to handle the traction machine. He also taken us to A1 document issued by PW2 based on the case sheet maintained in the 1st opposite party hospital. It is submitted that the Forum below failed to analyse and appreciate the evidence available on record especially the admission in A1 reference letter regarding the mechanical failure of the traction machine while it was in operation on 2/4/1999 when the complainant was subjected for cervical traction. It is further submitted that there was no qualified Physiotherapist in the 1st opposite party hospital when the complainant was given Physiotherapy and subjecting the complainant to the said traction machine. Thus, the appellant/complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow the complaint in OP:65/00. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He relied on the testimony of DW1 and that of PW4, Dr.Selva Pandyan attached to Indo American Brain and Spine Centre, Vaikom and argued for the position that there was no medical negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in treating the complainant and that all the necessary precautionary steps and measures were taken before putting the traction machine in operation. Thus, the respondents requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties as alleged by the appellant/complainant? 2. Whether the appellant/complainant had suffered any discomfort or inconvenience, physical or mental pain on account of the alleged negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? 3. Whether the Forum below can be justified in passing the impugned order dated:3/4/2003 in OP:65/2000 by dismissing the complaint therein? 4. Reliefs and costs? 5. Opposite parties (respondents 1 and 2) before the Forum below contended that the complaint in OP:65/00 is bad for non joinder of necessary party and also bad for misjoinder . It was contended that the 1st opposite party Chaitanya Nursing Home, North Paravur is not a proprietary concern; but it is a partnership firm and that the managing partner of the said firm is a necessary party. On the basis of the aforesaid contention the complainant in OP:65/00 (appellant herein) filed I.A.309/00 seeking amendment of the complaint in OP:65/00 so as to delete the word proprietor and insert the word managing partner in that place. By the said petition (I.A.309/00) the complainant sought for the amendment that the 1st opposite party Chaitanya Nursing Home, North Paravur North Parur is represented by its Managing Partner. The aforesaid petition was also allowed by the Forum below on 2/6/2000; but unfortunately the aforesaid amendment or correction was not incorporated in the complaint filed in OP:65/00. Thus, in effect the 1st opposite party/ Chaitanya Nursing Home, North Parur is represented by its managing partner. It is further to be noted that the 1st opposite party along with the 2nd opposite party filed joint written version and the said version is signed by the managing partner of the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party Dr.N.Madhu. Thus, in fact the complaint in OP:65/00 is not bad for non jointer of necessary party or bad for mis joinder of parties. 6. Points 1 to 3:- There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant approached the 2nd opposite party, Dr.N.Madhu at the 1st opposite party Hospital with the complaint of back pain and shoulder pain and that the appellant/complainant was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital as an inpatient on 15/3/1999. Ext.B1 case record would show the treatment of the complainant Anandavally at the 1st opposite party/ Chaitanya Nursing Home, North Parur as an out-patient on 6/3/1999 and thereafter on 8/3/1999 and that she had medical investigations in that hospital and at the instance of the 2nd opposite party she was admitted as an inpatient on 15/3/1999. B1 case sheet would also show that the illness of the complainant was diagnosed as cervical spondylosis; that she was treated with cervical traction and lumbar traction (CT + LT). B1 case sheet would further show that the complainant was put on Short Wave Diathermy (SWD). It is to be noted that the appellant/complainant had no complaint regarding treatment given to her from the 1st opposite party/hospital from 15/3/1999 to 2/4/1999. 7. The alleged instance or incident of negligence and deficiency of service occurred on 2/4/1999. It is the case of the complainant that on 2/4/1999 she was put on cervical traction with the aid of traction machine and while the traction machine was functioning, the said traction machine developed mechanical problem and that the said mechanical problem developed just after 4 or 5 minutes of the operation of the traction machine and it resulted in not releasing the traction on the neck with the weight of 6 Kg. According to the complainant as a result of that mechanical defect developed in the traction machine the belt put on the neck of the complainant tightened causing suffocation, pain and other difficulties. It is the further case of the complainant that there was nobody present near the complainant while the traction machine was operational. It is the case of the complainant that she screamed and on hearing her screaming, the nurses rushed to the place and released the belt on her neck. It is also stated that the belt was released from her neck with much effort. It is the definite case of the complainant that the aforesaid incident occurred due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the staff working under their control. 8. The opposite parties admitted the fact that there occurred mechanical failure of the traction machine on 2/4/1999, while the complainant was put on cervical traction with the aid of the traction machine. According to the opposite parties the traction machine went out of order unexpectedly and it so happened and the same was not under the control of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have got a case that the said traction machine is a new one and there was no defect in the said traction machine. They relied on B2 invoice dated:4/11/1997 issued by the Remedi Systems and Services, Vadapalani, Chennai. Ext.B2 is the invoice for Rs.11500/- of Lifetrac five-Electronic intermittent traction with traction force of 5-90 Kgs. with all standard accessories. B2 invoice was issued in the name of the Dr.N.Madhu, Chaitanya Nursing Home, North Parur B2 document would give an indication that the one traction machine was purchased by the 2nd opposite party on 4/11/1997. This would show that the traction machine used in the 1st opposite party hospital was 2 year old one. The opposite parties have got a case that they periodically checked and maintained the traction machine and there was no defect noticed in the said traction machine. But the opposite parties have not produced any acceptable evidence to show that the said traction machine was subjected for periodical testing and maintenance. Had there been any such periodical maintenance of the said traction machine, definitely there would be documents evidencing the aforesaid testing and maintenance done by the concerned technical expert. But no such document is forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties to substantiate their case that the traction machine was well maintained. Non production of any such document evidencing proper maintenance of the traction machine would give an indication that the opposite parties failed to maintain the traction machine properly and that is why the traction machine went out of order while in operation and it resulted in causing inconvenience and difficulties to the complainant as patient. Thus, it can be inferred that the opposite parties were negligent in properly maintaining the traction machine. 9. The opposite parties have got a case that there was a qualified Therapist to handle the traction machine. The written version filed by the opposite parties would show that a qualified Therapist by name Anitha was employed to handle the traction machine and that the aforesaid staff by name Anitha was standing near the complainant as the Therapist on duty. The so called Therapist, Anitha referred to in the written version has been examined as PW3. But the name of PW3 is not Anitha but Anila. PW3 Anila has deposed that she has been handling the traction machine in the 1st opposite party hospital. The evidence of PW3 would show that she joined the 1st opposite party hospital in the year 1997 and she has been working as Physiotherapy Assistant; that she is not working as a nurse. But PW3 categorically admitted the fact that she has not attended any Physiotherapy course and that she is not having any knowledge or experience in Physiotherapy. PW3 has also admitted that she has only passed lab technician course in the year 1987. The course certificate which PW3 obtained for lab technician course has not been produced. It is too much to say that the person who passed lab technician course was competent to work as Physiotherapy Assistant. It is too much on the part of the opposite parties to consider PW3 as a Therapist or Physiotherapist. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the traction machine was operated by an unqualified and inexperienced staff. No other document is forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties to show that there was any other qualified and experienced Therapist or Physiotherapist in the 1st opposite party hospital. The action on the part of the opposite parties in permitting to handle the traction machine by unqualified and inexperienced person would amount to negligence and deficiency of service. 10. PW3, Anila, the so called Therapist developed a case that there was Physiotherapist by name Dr.Vinaya Shenoy working in the 1st opposite party hospital and that PW3 was working as Physiotherapy Assistant under the direction of the doctor Vinaya Shenoy Physiotherapist. Respondents/opposite parties have also developed such a case regarding appointment of Dr.Vinaya Shenoy as Physiotherapist in the 1st opposite party hospital. The 2nd opposite party as DW1 has also deposed to that effect. It is to be noted that no such case for the opposite parties in their written version or in the proof affidavit regarding the appointment of Dr.Vinaya Shenoy in the 1st opposite party hospital. There is no whisper in the written version or in the proof affidavit regarding the engagement of Dr.Vinaya Shenoy as a Physiotherapist in the 1sty opposite party hospital. DW1, the 2nd opposite party was cross-examined on this aspect. But the opposite parties could not produce any document to substantiate their case that Dr.Vinaya Shenoy was appointed as a Physiotherapist in the 1st opposite party hospital. 11. Ext.A1 reference letter was issued by PW2 Dr.Shinil K.B who is attached to 1st opposite party hospital. A1 reference letter is written on the letter head of the 1st opposite party Chaitanya Nursing Home, North Parur. On the left margin of A1 letter head names of the doctors attached to the 1st opposite party hospital are mentioned. But the name of Dr.Vinaya Shenoy is not shown in the letter head of the 1st opposite party hospital. This would give an indication that no such doctor was appointed as Physiotherapist in the 1st opposite party hospital. Had there been such a Physiotherapist appointed in the 1st opposite party hospital, her name would have been found in B1 case sheet or in any of the documents maintained in the 1st opposite party hospital. It is also to be noted that the complainant Anandavally was involved in the incident which occurred on 2/4/1999 and in the said incident the traction machine was in use and during course of operation it developed mechanical problem. It is the case of PW3 and DW1 that Physiotherapist Dr.Vinaya Shenoy was present at the time of putting the cervical traction on the complainant. PW3 has categorically deposed that Dr.Vinaya Shenoy was standing on the side of the patient while the traction machine was in operation. If that be the case, the aforesaid Physiotherapist should come to the rescue of the complainant when the machine went out of order due to mechanical problem. There is no whisper in the written version or in the affidavit about the physical presence of doctor Vinaya Shenoy on the side of the complainant/patient. There is also no case for the opposite parties that Dr.Vinaya Shenoy was present at the time of the incident or that the said Dr.Vinaya Shenoy examined the patient when she was trapped in the traction machine due to the mechanical problem developed by the said machine. On the other hand, it is stated in the written version that duty doctor Smt.Jagadeswary examined the complainant and gave anxiolytics and reassured the patient. Thus, it can be concluded that the case of the opposite parties regarding the appointment of a Physiotherapist Dr.Vinaya Shenoy and that the traction machine was employed under the instruction of Physiotherapist are only a cooked up story. It was the result of an after thought of the opposite parties. That is why there is no whisper in the written version or in the proof affidavit about the presence of Physiotherapist Dr.Vinaya Shenoy. There is also nothing on record to support the case of the opposite parties that Dr.Vinaya Shenoy was appointed in the 1st opposite party hospital during the relevant time. It is also to be noted that from the side of the opposite parties the aforesaid Physiotherapist Dr.Vinaya Shenoy has not been examined. DW1 has deposed that he is the Director of the 1st opposite party hospital and all appointments in the said hospital are being made by him. If that is the position, the 2nd opposite party (DW1) will be in a position to know about the appointment of Physiotherapist Dr.Vinaya Shenoy. Then, why that fact is not mentioned in the written version and the proof affidavit filed by the 2nd opposite party. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the 2nd opposite party Dr.N.Madhu filed the proof affidavit on 28th October 2002. But there is no mention about the involvement of Dr.Vinaya Shenoy as a Physiotherapist in the 1st opposite party hospital and in treating the complainant. Thus, in all respects it can be concluded that there was no Physiotherapist employed in the 1st opposite party hospital and without the assistant or guidance of a qualified and experienced Physiotherapist, the traction machine has been used for putting the patient on cervical traction. This action on the part of the opposite parties can be considered as negligence amounting to deficiency of service. 12. The 2nd opposite party as DW1 has admitted that his qualification is MBBS, MS and he has been working as a General Surgeon in the 1st opposite party hospital. DW1 categorically admitted that the complainant was treated in the 1st opposite party hospital by applying cervical and lumbar tractions and with Short Wave Diathermy. He further admitted that the aforesaid methods or procedures are part of Physiotherapy treatment. It is also admitted that he is not having any qualification in Physiotherapy and that he is only a general surgeon. The evidence of DW1 would make it crystal clear that the complainant as patient was treated by DW1 and the Physiotherapy treatment was also given to the complainant under his direction and treatment. This evidence would establish the fact that the complainant was treated for cervical spondylosis and Neuralgia by a not qualified and inexperienced doctor. This would also strengthen the case of the complainant that at the relevant time (2/4/1999) there was no qualified Physiotherapist attached to the 1st opposite party hospital and without a qualified Physiotherapist, Physiotherapy treatment was given to the complainant by employing traction machine. Thus, the evidence on record would establish the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 13. PW2, Dr.Shinil K.B attached to the 1st opposite party hospital has admitted the fact that for Physiotherapy there is a course by name BPT having a duration of 4 ½ years. She has also deposed that the 2nd opposite party doctor N.Madhu does not have BPT degree. Thus, the evidence on record would show that the 2nd opposite party doctor, Madhu was dare enough to give Phyisotherapy treatment without necessary qualification and experience. The available evidence on record would also give an indication that the 2nd opposite party doctor N.Madhu has been treating the patients by administering Physiotherapy treatment with the aid of traction machine. Thus, the 2nd opposite party was negligent in giving Physiotherapy treatment to the patients including the complainant. DW1, the 2nd opposite party, Dr.N.Madhu who treated the complainant at the 1st opposite party hospital has admitted the fact the traction machine went out of order due to mechanical defect and as a result of the said mechanical defect developed in the traction machine, the belt which was put on the neck of the complainant was tightened. There is also reference to the mechanical failure of the traction machine on 2/4/1999 in A1 reference letter. DW1 has also admitted that the contents of A1 are true. It is further deposed by DW1 that immediately after that incident the complainant had sudden rise of BP and it was 210/120 at 12.30pm. DW1 in his re-examination has deposed “[?Opa AWLW*UB8W[*Tta *TC_ATB ?WuUAWeWtT*W*BUDc” . The aforesaid vertion in the re-examination itself would make it clear that there was the possibility of causing difficulties to the patient on account of tightening of the belt of the traction machine. 14. PW1 the complainant has deposed about the pain, discomfort and difficulties faced by her on 2/4/1999 due to the failure of the traction machine. The evidence of PW1 is strengthened by the testimony of PW2, the doctor who issued A1 reference letter dated:5/4/1999. PW2, Dr.Shinil.K.B has deposed that A1 reference letter was issued based on the entries in the case sheet. In A1 reference letter it is stated that on 2/4/1999, while on intermittent cervical traction with 6Kg. after 4-5 minutes the machine had mechanical failure and was not releasing. She (complainant/ Anandavally) felt some discomfort. She went to the room and after one hour, when the bystanders came, she complained of some discomfort. She developed symptoms of hyper ventilation syndrome with carpo pedal spasom and anxiety neurosis. She was then treated with anxiolytics and re-assurance. She had complained of weakness of the body and giddiness. “Patient not co-operating for proper examination referring her for further investigation and management at request”. The aforesaid recitals in A1 reference letter would make it clear that the patient suffered discomfort and difficulties on account of the failure of the traction machine on 2/4/1999 and as a result of the said mechanical failure the belt of the traction machine was not releasing. It is to be noted that the belt of the traction machine was put on the neck of the complainant. The symptoms developed by the complainant after the aforesaid incident of 2/4/1999 would make it crystal clear that the patient was frightened by tightening of the traction belt around her neck and it was due to the non releasing of the traction machine as a result of the mechanical failure. 15. PW2 has also admitted the fact that immediately after the incident the BP of the patient (complainant) was 210/120. It is also deposed by PW2 that the complainant developed hyper ventilation syndrome and carpo pedal spasom and anxiety neurosis. She categorically deposed that the traction belt was tightened on the complainant’s neck because of the machine was not releasing; It is true that PW2 has also deposed that the traction machine released only 6 kg weight. Thus, the evidence of PW2 and A1 reference letter would support the case of the complainant as PW1. 16. PW3 Anila, the unqualified and inexperienced staff engaged for operating the traction machine has also deposed that due to the non releasing of the traction machine, the belt around the neck was tightened and 6Kg weight was applied on the neck. She also admitted the fact that the traction machine went out of order and as a result the belt of the traction machine was tightened around the neck of the complainant/patient. 17. B1 case record maintained by the 1st opposite party hospital with respect to the treatment of the complainant at that hospital would also make it clear that the traction machine used for cervical traction went out of order and it resulted discomfort and other problems for the complainant. It would also show after the said incident there was fluctuations in the BP of the complainant and the said fluctuation continued up to 5/4/1999. It would also show that the complainant as patient developed hyper ventilation syndrome with crop pedal spasom and anxiety neurosis. She was also treated with medicines for relieving her anxiety and other problems. It would also show that the patient was not co-operating for proper examination. That itself would show that the complainant/patient was having some mental problems or psychological problems. There can be no doubt that the aforesaid problems were developed only because of the failure of the traction machine while the same was put on the complainant. 18. Ext.A2 is case summary and discharge record issued to the complainant from brain and spine centre. This case summary would show that the complainant had treatment in another hospital with traction and the traction stopped because of mechanical problem. It would further show that from that incident onwards the patient became anxious complaining of generalised weakness, Anorexia, Hesitancy in micturition. It would also show that the patient was un co-operative. Ext.A3 is also the case summary and discharge record issued from Indo American hospital, Brain and Spine Centre with respect to the treatment of the complainant, Anandavally. A3 discharge record is dated:13/4/99 and the same is issued by Dr.Surya Raghavayya of that hospital. In A3 discharge record it is stated that the patient was managed with cervical traction at a local hospital. Due to mechanical problem traction was discontinued, the patient presented with acute deterioration in neurological status, difficulty in breathing. Clinically the patient was tense and anxious and hence detailed neurological examination could not be done immediately. The patient was discharged from that hospital with the advice to continue Physiotherapy. Ext.A2 case summary and discharge card issued from Indo American Hospital, Brain and Spine Centre would show that the complainant as patient was admitted in that hospital on 5/4/1999 and discharged on 13/4/1999 and that she was referred by 1st opposite party Hospital. 19. Ext.A2 and A3 documents would give an indication that PW4 Dr.Selva Pandyan who treated the complainant at Indo American Hospital, brain and spine centre was reluctant to speak truth before the Forum below. It is deposed by PW4, Dr.Selva Pandyan that the complainant was not referred from any hospital and that she might have come on her own accord. But A2 case summary and discharge card issued from the Indo American Hospital, brain and spine centre would make it clear that the complainant was referred by 1st opposite party hospital, Viz; Chaitanya Nursing Home, North Parur. PW4 had also pretended ignorance about the tightening of the cervical traction belt around the neck of the patient due to the mechanical problems of the traction machine. It is deposed by PW4 that he was not familiar with such a traction machine. Ext.A4 letter was also issued by PW4 stating the clerical error crept into the discharge summary issued from the hospital. Thus, the medical records issued from the Indo American Hospital, brain and spine centre would also show that the complainant had treatment from that hospital from 5/4/1999 up to 13/4/1999 and that she had some problems on account of the incident of failure of the traction machine on 2/4/99 at the 1st opposite party hospital. 20. The foregoing discussions and the findings thereon would make it clear that the 2nd opposite party, Dr.N.Madhu and the other doctors and hospital staff of the 1st opposite party hospital were negligent in treating the complainant (appellant) by adopting Physiotherapy treatment with the aid of traction machine. It is also revealed that the traction machine was employed on the complainant by an unqualified and inexperienced staff and that the Physiotherapy treatment was administered to the complainant without the advice and guidance of a qualified Physiotherapist. It would further reveal that the 2nd opposite party adopted the procedure of Physiotherapy treatment without acquiring necessary qualification and experience for adopting such a procedure. It can also be inferred that the traction machine which has been using in the 1st opposite party hospital was not periodically maintained and because of lack of maintenance the said machine developed mechanical problems while applying the same on a patient like the complainant. Thus, the evidence on record would reveal the fact that there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in treating the complainant at the 1st opposite party hospital. 21. There is a duty cast upon the doctor to be vigilant and diligent in taking decision as to whether he should undertake the treatment of the patient. The doctor is also bound to take care in deciding as to what treatment is to be administered. There should be a duty of care in administering that treatment. The breach of any of these duties will make the doctor answerable and liable for negligence. The conduct of the 2nd opposite party in treating the complainant for her illness and in adopting the procedure for the treatment would make it clear that he was negligent in treating the complainant. Unfortunately, the Forum below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and because of the said failure the Forum below dismissed the complaint in OP:65/00. This State Commission have no hesitation to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below and thereby to set aside the same. Hence we do so. These points are answered accordingly. 22. Point No:4:- The complainant (appellant) claimed compensation of Rs.4.lakhs for the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is alleged that there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is also established that the complainant suffered pain, discomfort and inconvenience due to the negligent treatment given to the complainant by the opposite parties and the complainant had also incurred expenses for her treatment in connection with the problems developed due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further established that the complainant was frightened due to the tightening of the traction machine belt around her neck and it resulted in developing so many other problems. The complainant had to face neurological and psychological problems and she had a disturbed mind. The physical condition of the complainant was also adversely affected and she had to suffer mental agony and physical strain and pain. Thus, the complainant is to be adequately compensated for the mental agony, discomfort and inconvenience and other difficulties suffered by her. 23. Exts.A6 and A7 series of medical bills would show that the complainant incurred a total of Rs.7,190/- for her treatment at the 1st opposite party hospital and the Indo American Hospital, brain and spine centre and also for her further ayurvedic treatment. The complainant has got a case that she is continuing treatment in connection with the incident of failure of the traction machine. But, there is no acceptable evidence to substantiate the aforesaid case of the complainant that still she is having problems due to the said incident of mechanical failure of the traction machine. The facts, circumstances and evidence on record would show that the complainant had to suffer mental agony, discomfort, inconvenience and difficulties for a short period on account of the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties can only be made liable for the actual discomfort, inconvenience and difficulties suffered by the complainant. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the claim for Rs.4.lakhs as compensation is without any basis and the said claim can be treated as exorbitant one. Considering the actual nature of the discomforts, inconvenience and difficulties suffered by the complainant, this State Commission is of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore the appellant/complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. A sum of Rs.2500/- is also awarded towards the cost of the appellant/complainant. The respondents/opposite parties are made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment failing which the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the impugned order (3/4/2003) passed by the Forum below in OP:65/00. This point is answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated:3rd April 2003 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP:65/2000 is set aside and the complaint in OP.65/00 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam is allowed as follows:-. The respondents/opposite parties are made jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant/complainant with cost of Rs.2500/-. The aforesaid compensation is to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment failing which the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the impugned order (3/4/2003) passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP:65/00. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER VL. | 
