BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT Tmt. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 56 / 1998 WEDNESDAY THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. 1. Girish G.M. Manjeshwar, S/O. Madhav Manjeshwar, 2. R.G. Nanthur, S/o. T.Govind (Late), Both are residing at No.77/504 Arjun, Vasant Vihar Pokharan Road, No.2, Thane (West) 400 001. … Complainants. - Vs – Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore Rep. by its Director, … Opposite party. . . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 30.8.2010, in the presence of Thiru. P. S.Subrahmanian, Advocate for the complainants and Thiru. S. Ramasubramanian, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. I. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The 1st complainant is the husband and the 2nd complainant is the father of Mrs. Sharmila Girish Manjeshwar. They are residents permanently at Thane (Mumbai Suburbs). Mrs. Sharmila Girish Manjeshwar was admitted into the opposite party’s hospital for treatment of the disease of acute Mycloslastic leukemia. As per the letter received from Dr.David Dennison, M.D.Associate Professor of Medicine Acting Head of Department of Haematology dated 27.3.95, prior to her admission, as per which it was disclosed that she should be given a high dose of consolidation after one or two cycles of chemotherapy and the estimated cost of the treatment was three lakhs. Dr.David Dennison had further stated in his letter that Mrs. Sharmila Girish Manjeshwar was suffering from a particular aggressive kind of leukemia for which the treatment was undoubtedly an allergenic bone morrow transplant and his recommendation would be the HLA typing performed before the first consolidation when her blood contents were normal and the step shall be towards a transplant. They also corresponded with Dr.T.Samaraj, Associate Director of the opposite party. As per their suggestion the complainants came to Vellore and admitted Mrs.Sahrmila Girish Manjeswar, in the hospital on 20.8.1995. Mrs. Sharmila had developed breathing problem of acute nature and it was too late for taking care unit (ICU) or giving antibiotics and platelet as advised by the doctors Srivastsava and Deepak who were attending on her. The complainant was shocked and filled with sorrow as Mrs.Sharmila passed away on the same day i.e. 8.10.95. 2. The complainant received the death certificate dt.9.10.95, issued by the opposite party under the “Diagnosis” column stated “Diffuse Alveclor Hemorrhage Severe Thrombi astomaenia bone morrow Transplantation Septicemia”. The opposite party did not give the autopsy report, when the complainants wanted it at the time when the deed body of Mrs. Sharmila Manjeswar was permitted to be taken from the Hospital to their place of residence at Thane. The opposite party after collecting the balance of treatment expenses gave the certificate that the body was preserved with formalin and it would be transported by air/rail/road on 5.10.95. Dr.David Dennison Associate Professor of Medicine who attended on her assured to send the autopsy report within a period of ten days. The complainants received a letter dt.24.10.95 from Dr.David Dennison stating that the autopsy report had showed “Hemorrhage in the lungs consistent with diffuse alveclar hemorrhage. He had further stated that it was an uncommon complication of bone morrow transplantations and is possibly attributed to damage to the lungs from the conditioning regimen. That diffuse alvcolar haemorrhage has a very high mortality anywhere in the world despite massive platelet transfusion support at the time of diagnosis. The 1st complainant was not satisfied with the explanation and addressed registered letters on 21.11.95, 23.12.95 and 1.12.95, requesting Dr.David Dennison M.D. to send the autopsy report along with the case sheet which will enable him and the 2nd complainant to determine the actual cause of death of Mrs.Sharmila Manjeshwar. The complainant received a letter dt.9.1.97 from Dr.David Dennison that the Medical Superintendent of the opposite party had informed him of Autopsy report, death summaries and case sheets of deceased patients will not be is used to their relatives as the Hospital Policy and hence he was unable to comply with the request. The complainants expected transparency in the procedures adopted by the Hospital of the opposite party. The opposite party sent a reply notice through its advocate on 6.3.97, containing false and reckless allegations. 3. The opposite party did not send the history case sheet, admission and discharge slips and other relevant records along with its reply. The complainants issued another notice through their lawyer dt.23.6.97 to the opposite party in which they had pointed out several defects in the autopsy report. The complainants called upon the opposite party to send the copies of the discharge certificate along with other clinical findings. The complainant received a reply on 2.7.97 from the opposite party along with a bond book containing the admission, discharge slip relating to their history case sheets for the patient Sharmila Manjeshwar. The opposite party has failed to give any explanation regarding the deficiency in service clearly pointed out in the earlier two notices. After the receipt of the copy of the autopsy report from the opposite party along with the notice dt.6.3.97 they showed the same to their Doctor with the known medical specialist in Mumbai. A perusal of the autopsy report will show that it does not give the correct facts. They did not accept the findings. This was also mentioned clearly in the opposite party’s medical staff and nursing unit had taken “great care” and proper medical treatment was given to the patient. There was deficiency in service and negligence of duty by the staff while treating Sharmila Manjeshwar. The following irrefutable facts apart from what they had furnished in their notice dt.2.2.97. a) the opposite party’s nursing staff did not monitor the blood count till the patient Sharmila Majeshwar was in the BMT Ward. b) Sharmila Manjeshwar was brought out of the BMT. Ward suddenly On a Sunday morning without informing her husband, the 1st Complainant who was always present at the Hospital. c) From the daily routine, the blood count was taken once in 2/3 days and Later once in 4/5 days. The explanation given by the hospital for this Was shortage of staff. d) Mrs. Sharmila Manjeshwar, the patient developed breathing problem About 3 days prior to her death. But the doctors were the opinion that it was because of some problem in the intestines and it could be treated with antibiotics and steroids. Only on October 8th 1995, morning the doctors of the opposite party thought of taking a chest x-ray. When the 2nd complainant had approached his superiors without Initially contacting him when the patient was brought to the ward, Dr.Deepak was not prepared to not only render any help but also Not bothered about the consequences. The 2nd complainant Immediately rushed to his Daughter’s room and found her Condition very serious. After a lapse of lot of time Dr.Srivatasava had arrived along with Dr.Deepak with the X-Ray report. After examining the X-ray Dr.Srivatsava called the complainants aside and said that it was impossible to do anything as it was too late for action. 4. The complainants apart from the amounts already paid by them during the treatment of the patient, sent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from Mumbai with a request to furnish a statement of account and refund the excess amount paid to the opposite party. As per the accounts maintained by them a sum of Rs.30,000/- is due to the complainants by the opposite party. The opposite party since then refunded only a sum of Rs.14,439/-. The opposite party has not so far given any explanation. 1) 3.10.95 an entry for Rs.2,200/- has been made. This is apparently wrong. Sharmial Manjeswar was put on oral Cyclose porin from 24.9.95 onwards. 2) On 9.10.95 operation fees Rs.8500/-. But no operation was done on that day. 3) On 9.10.95 iridium application No.20904900 Rs.8500/-. This may be clarified as no such iridium application was done on that day. The complainants were put to very great mental agony and physical torture of worst description due to the highly bad deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore the opposite party is to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical torture caused to the complainants due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to pay sum of Rs.15561/- being the balance amount withheld by the opposite party remaining unaccounted for, and to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants towards expenses incurred by the complainants during the course of the treatment of the patient, and to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- being the cost incurred prior to this complaint and to pay the sum of Rs.4000/- being the cost of earlier legal notice and other expenses and to Rs.10,000/- being the cost of this complaint. Hence the complaint. 5. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows: The complaint filed by the complainant is not capable of being decided by the Hon’ble Forum exercising the summary jurisdiction under the C.P. Act. The proceedings have been initiated by the complainants only with the motive of bypassing of filing the suit. The complaint filed by the complainants is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose for the alleged deficiency of service on 8th October 1995 and admittedly the complaint was filed on 1.6.98 as is seen in the copy of the complaint which is beyond the prescribed period of two years as prescribed in the C.P.Act. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the opposite party denies the allegations and averments in the complainant except those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof thereof. The letters exchanged between Dr.David Dennison and the complainant regarding the treatment to be given to Mrs.Sharmila Manjeshwar, only Dr.David Dennison would be in a position to comment upon the statements made by the complainants. The further correspondence they had with Dr.David Dennison and Dr.T.Samaraj, Associate Director of the opposite party and those persons are only competent persons to comment upon such statement. It is true that Mrs.Sharmila Manjeshwar was admitted in the opposite party’s Hospital on 20.8.95 for acute Myelocytic Leukumia, and during the period of treatment she was responding to the Drugs administered and there was no deficiency in service in attending the patient. Mrs. Sharmila Manjeshwar developed fever and she was treated for the same by administering proper medicine and medical care by opposite party’s Medical Staff. In spite of great care and the best of medical treatment given to Mrs.Sharmila Manjeshwar, she unfortunately expired on the 8th October 1995. On the 9th October 1995 the opposite party’s Hospital issued a detailed Certificate wherein the cause of the death was clearly mentioned. As per the Hospital Rules of the opposite party, there is no requirement to furnish the autopsy and other Hospital records. The opposite party is not aware of the alleged assurance given by Dr.Devid Dennision to the Complainants about the sending of Autopsy Report. The Autopsy Report was based on the his topathological features noted after the death in the organs of the patient and the Pathologists have reported on the autopsy. The copy of the Autopsy Report and the Hospital records even though the complainants are not entitled for as per the opposite party’s Hospital ‘Rules were sent to the complainant at their request. The opposite party sent reply through their lawyers on 6.3.97 wherein they have clearly stated the facts. It is incorrect to allege that this notice contained false and reckless allegations. They did send Autopsy findings and clinical summary to the complainant’s Advocate, even though as mentioned earlier, they were not required to give the same. The opposite party received a notice dt.23.6.97 from the complainants lawyer and the opposite party suitably sent a reply denying the various allegations contained in the said notice. 6. The opposite party denies the allegations made by the complainant that there was a very serious and gross negligence of duty on the part of the opposite party. There was no deficiency in service and negligence of duties by the staff while treating Mrs. Sharmila Manjeshwar. The opposite party denies the allegations that Mrs.Sharmila Manjeshwar was brought out of B.M.T. ward suddenly without informing her husband. The transfer took place after the family members of Mrs.Sharmila Manjeshwar were informed well in advance as is the usual practice. The opposite parties denies the allegations that blood counts were taken once in 4 or 5 days. After discharging from B.M.T. Unit blood counts were done once in 2/3 days. The opposite party denies the other allegations made by the complainant that no proper medical care and nursing were done and puts the complainant to strict proof thereof. Mrs. Sharmila Manjeshwar was given blood and protocol transfusion on 6.10.95 and her condition was better on 7.10.95. Mrs. Sharmila Manjeshwar was closely monitor on the morning of 8.10.95 and her vital parameters were normal and there was no external bleedings. The opposite party denies the allegation that the post B.M.T. care of the patient totally inadequate and insufficient when Mrs.Sharmial Manjeshwar was in the ward for two weeks after being shifted from the B.M.T. It is true that the complainant sent Rs.1 lakh from Mumbai to be adjusted to the Account of Mrs. Sharmila Manjeshwar. There is no amount of Rs.30,000/- due to the complainant. The drugs and medicines which were used by the patients were replaced by the patients relative and as such there is no amount due to the complainants. As per the account maintained by the opposite party, the complainants were due only to RS.14,439/- and the same was refunded to the complainant. They have correctly charged Rs.2200/- towards a clinical Bio-Chemistry investigation “Cyclosprine Assay” the Traiff code No.03166. As such the allegation that Mrs.Sharmila Manjeshwar was put to oral Cyclosprine” form 24.9.95 is hereby denied. As regards the complainants statement regarding the operation fees of Rs.8500/- made on 9.10.05. they have charged Rs.4125/- on 9.10.95 towards operation fees for Hickman Catheter inserted on 21.8.95. As regards item No.3, Rs.8500/- was charged on 9.10.95 for “Blood Irradiation “ for the entire period. Regarding the query raised by the complainants in item No.4, Rs.1030./- (515 x 2 ) was charged for 3 units of Rejuvenated Red Cells transfusions for the patient and the excess paid was given credit in the bill. As such the complainants statement that excess billing was done is incorrect. There is a sum of Rs.14,439.24 refundable to the complainants and the same will be sent by the opposite party. Since they have incurred expenditure of Rs.500/- for taking out photo copies of hospital records which were sent to the complainants through their letter dt.2.7.97 requesting the complainant to pay the amount to the opposite party. As such it is incorrect to allege that there was no proper explanation submitted by the opposite party to the complainants. 7. The opposite party denies the allegation that the complainants are entitled for the refund of the amount and after giving necessary credits for all eligible items the complainants were paid Rs.14,439.24 which was accepted by them. The opposite party denies the allegations that the Staff medical, para medical and other employees had conducted themselves in an irresponsible and highly negligent manner and the patient died due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that 1st complainant himself in his letter of the 1st December 1995 has clearly mentioned that “ it is not their intention to attribute negligence on the part of the Hospital Management”. As such the allegations of the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party cannot stand to any reasoning. The complaint is vexatious one and liable to be dismissed. 8. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether this complaint is barred by limitation? b) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties? c) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 9. Ex.A1 to Ex.A43 were marked on the side of the complainants and Ex.B1 & Ex.B25 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 10. POINT NO. (a): It is admitted case of the parties that the patient before admitting in the opposite party’s on 20.8.95 as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 Mrs. Sharmila Girish Manjeshwar took treatment at Bombay from 12.2.95 onwards and final Dr. M.B. Agarwal Haematologist & Haemato-Oncologist from Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Breach Candy Hospital issued a certificate stated that Mrs. Sharmial Manjeshwar is a case of acute myeloblastic leukemia and she was diagnosed to have this disease a month ago and she has achieved complete remission by induction chemotherapy during the month. He further stated that the transplant itself cost of Rs.5/- lakhs. It is desirable to do this as it increases the chance of cure significantly. Thus her total treatment is likely to cost Rupees nine to ten lakhs. Thereafter letters corresponding were made between the Dr. Devid Dennison, M.D. Associate Professor of Medicine Acting Head of Department of Hematology, C.M.C Hospital, Vellore and R.G. Nandur from Thane. Finally it is admitted fact that Mrs. Sharmial Manjeshwar was admitted in the opposite party Hospital on 20.8.95 for acute myeloblastic leukaemia and during the period of treatment she was responding to drug administered and she expired on 8.10.95. 11. The opposite party contended that this complaint is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose for the alleged deficiency in service on 8th October 1995 and admitting the complaint was filed on 1.6.98 which is beyond the prescribed period of two years has prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore on this ground alone only this complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant contended that this Forum having satisfied itself that the complaint was not barred by limitation an admitted the complaint on filed numbered in April 98 as O.P.No.56/98 and the opposite party did not raise any objection as preliminary issue for the admitting in complaint. It further contended that the opposite party’s hospital deliberately delay on sending the medical regard. The opposite party’s hospital sent the test report on 6.3.97 from this date only. The complaint was filed in time the cause of action arose from the complainant were filed this compliant within two years. Sec. 24 ( A ) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 will show that the complaint shall not be admitted “unless it is filed within two years from the date on which “cause of action has arisen”. The patient Mrs. Sharmila Manjeswar was died on 8.10.95. The complainants and the opposite parties hospital exchanged the letters from 1.12.95 to 2.2.97 for sending case sheet autopsy report, discharge summary and other medical records of deceased Sharmila Manjeswar to the complainants. Finally the opposite party has sent a legal reply notice Ex.A20, dt. 6.3.97 along with the autopsy report and other medical records. According to the complainants after perusing the medical records the complaint was filed only April 1998 and the complainant was not barred by limitation, since the wring were continuous existence the period as cause of action and the petition was filed in time. Therefore the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation as cause of action arose for deficiency in service on 8th October 1995 is not acceptable. Hence we answer this point (a) is accordingly. 12. POINT NO. (b): The complainant contended that a perusal of autopsy test report will say that the opposite party’s nursing staff did not monitor the blood count till the patient Sharmila Majeshwar was in the BMT ward. She was brought out of the BMT ward suddenly on a Sunday morning without informing her husband, the 1st complainant who was always present at the Hospital, from the daily routine, the blood count was taken once in 2/3 days and later once in 4/5 days and the patient developed breathing problem about 3 days prior to her death. But the doctors were the opinion that it was because of some problem in the intestines and it could be treated with antibiotics and steroids and thereby the opposite party committed deficiency in service and negligence of duties by the staff while treating Mrs. Sharmila Majeshwar. 13. The opposite party contended that the in spite of great care and based medical treatment given to Mrs. Sharmila Majeshwar from 20.8.95 till dt. 8.10.95. But she unfortunately expired. Further Mrs. Sharmila Majeshwar transfer from B.M.T. ward took place after the family members of the patient were informed well in advance as is the usual practice, and after discharging from B.M/t. Unit Blood counts were done nce in 2/3 days. There was no deficiency in service and negligence of duties by the staff while treating Mrs. Sharmila Majeshwar. Without any base or records the allegations made by the complainant that there was very serious and negligence of duties on the part of the opposite party is not acceptable. 14. Ex.A24 to Ex.A37 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B23 medical records for the treatment given to Mrs. Sharmila Majeshwar by the opposite party’s hospital are perused. From the perusal of Nurses daily record Ex.B14 series Page No.96 to 221 it is seen that from 20.8.95 (Sunday 6. p.m.) to till 8.10.95 at 5.p.m. opposite party’s medical staffs and nursing unit were given proper treatment to the patient and blood count was taken once in 2/3 days. From the perusal of Ex.B15 series page No.222 to 260 it is seen that the patient in taken out put and maintained by the staff of the opposite party. The complainant has not specifically proved no proper medical care and treatment done by the opposite party. 15. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that bare allegations in the complaint would not establish charge of negligence on the part of the opposite party. The burden of proof on the medical negligence lies on the complaint, but in this case, the complainant has not proved the allegation made in the complaint against the opposite parties through medical records or expert evidence. In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party is relying upon the following Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. I. (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 130 C.P. SREEKUMAR (DR.), MS (ORTHO) ..Vs.. S.RAMANUJAM Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court is held that “ As already observed in Jacob Mathew case the onus to prove medical negligence lies largely on the claimant and that this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence. A mere averment in a complaint which is denied by the other side can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainant can be said to be proved. It is the obligation of the complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as the facta probantia. In Jacob Mathew case it has been observed as under: (SCC pp.32-33, para-48) “(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused 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. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratantal 7 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 the 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 par of a medical professional. II. 2007 (2) CPR 260 (NC) N. Krishna Reddy ..Vs.. Christian Medical College and Hospital Rep. by its Medical Superintendent & Anr. Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi is held that, “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(a)(i) – and 2 (1) (g) – Complaints about medical negligence – Medical negligence must be established and not presumed. In the absence of expert evidence on behalf of the complainant, no negligence or deficiency in service could be found against the affidavits filed by Hospital and doctors. “ 16. In the present case, on the perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A37 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B23 medical records of the patient Mrs. Sharmila Majeshwar would show that the patient Mrs. Sharmila Majeshwar was treated with at most care and highest skill and care, and therefore ultimately Mrs. Sharmila Majeshwar not only on account of negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite party. 17. The nature of the medical profession is such that there are many courses of treatment in each disease. The diagnostic procedure may by vary, and the approach by each doctor will be different and the treatment given to a patient differs from man to man. It is for the doctor treating the patient to decide the best course of action and if he has done the job exercising due diligence with such standard of care that is required of him. Unless it is shown that the Doctor has failed to opt a particular precaution or failed to follow the procedure and such failure has called to the ultimate result or complication. In the present case, the staff and nurse of the opposite party’s Hospital administering proper medicine and medical care by the opposite party’s medical staff, inspite of great care and the best of medical treatment given to Mrs. Sharmila Manjeswar, she unfortunately expired. Therefore except the complaint there is no medical record or expert evidence to prove that due to gross deficiency of service and negligence by the medical staff of the opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 18. The opposite party contended that the opposite party has not given any explanation regarding an entry on 3.10.95 for Rs.2200/- has been made, on 9.10.95 operation fees Rs.8500/- collected, but no operation was done on that day and on 9.10.95 irridium application No.20904900 Rs.8500/- but no such iridium application was done on that day. Therefore the complainants were put to very great mental agony and physical torture of description due to the highly deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party contended as per the account maintained by the opposite party, the complainants were due only to Rs.14,439/- and the same was refunded to the complainant through Central Bank, Demand Draft No.047545, dt. 18.11.97 payable at Mumbai and the opposite party have correctly charged Rs.2200/- towards a clinical Bio-Chemistry investigation “Cyclosprine Assay” the Tariff code No.03166. As regards the operation fees of Rs.8500/- made on 9.10.05 the opposite party have charged Rs.4125/- on 9.10.95 towards operation fees for Hickman Catheter inserted on 21.8.95. As regards item No.3, Rs.8500/- was charged on 9.10.95 for “Blood Irradiation” for the entire period. There is a sum of Rs.14,4,39.24 refundable to the complainants and the same will be sent by the opposite party through Central Bank, Demand Draft No.047545, dt. 18.11.97 payable at Mumbai, therefore it is incorrect to allege that there was no proper explanation submitted by the opposite party to the complainants. 19. From the perusal of Memo along with the letter dt. 19.11.97 sent by the opposite party to the 1st complainant it is mentioned that there is credit balance of Rs.14,439.24. payable to him enclosing a Central Bank Demand Draft No.047545, dt. 18.11.97 payable at Mumbai for the same. The regret the inconvenience caused in the matter. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of the same. Therefore after adjusting the medical expenses the balance amounts were sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Therefore, the contention of the complainants were put to very great mental agony and physical torture description due to the highly deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not acceptable. 20. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A43 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B25, we have come to the conclusion that the complainants herein have not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (b) as against the complainants herein. 21. POINT NO : (c ) In view of our findings on points (a) & (b) , since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainants herein have not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainants are not at all entitled to any relief asked for by them, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (c ) also as against the complainant herein. 22. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 22nd day of September 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainants’ Exhibits: Ex.A1 - 12.2.95 - X-copy of the Report of Urine Examination by Pathology Laboratory of Dr.Patil and another Pathology Lab. Ex.A2 – 13.2.95 - X-copy of the Report given by Dr.M.B.Agarwal relating to Cyto-logical Examination of Blood Chemistry test relating to Sharmila Manjeshwar. Ex.A3 – 13.2.95 - X-copy of the Report of Dr.M.B.Agarwal on Bone Marrow Examination of G.M.Sharmila Manjeshwar. Ex.A4 – 10.3.95 - X-copy of the Blood Examination report of Manjeshwar given By Bombay Hospital Trust. Ex.A5 – 16.3.95 - X-copy of the Medical Search Centre of Bombay Hospital Trust, Discharge Card patient, Mrs. Sharmial Manjeshwar. Ex.A6 - 16.3.95 - X-copy of the Report on Bone Marrow examination of Sharmila Manjeshwar given by M.B.Agarwal. Ex.A7- 17.3.95 - X-copy of the Dr.M.B.Agarwal relating to patient Sharmila Manjeshwar . Ex.A8 – 27.3.95 - X-copy of the letter of Dr.David Dennison M.D. Associate Professor of Medicine and acting Head of Department of Haematology of OP. Hospital to 1st complainant. Ex.A9 – 19.4.05 - X-copy of the reply letter of late complainant to Dr.David Dennison Ex.A10- 22.4.95 - X-copy of the letter of Dr.David Dennison of opp party Hospital To the 1st complainant. Ex.A11- 9.10.95 - X-copy of the Death Certificate of Mrs.Sharmila Manjeshwar issued By opp party. Ex.A12 – 19.10.95 - X-copy of the Police Certificate issued by SI of Police, Vellore North Station, Vellore. Ex.A13- 9.10.95 - X-copy of the Certificate issued by opp party certifying the Transportation of the body of Sharmila Manjeshwar. Ex.A14- 24.10.95 - X-copy of the letter of Dr.David Dennison of the opp party Hospital to 2nd complainant. Ex.A15- 1.2.95 - X-copy of the registered letter by 2nd complainant to Dr.David Dennison of opp party Hospital with ack. Receipt. Ex.A16- 9.1.95 - X-copy of the reply of the opp party to 2nd complainant Ex.A17- 20.1.96 - X-copy of the Statement of account as on 20.1.96 of opp party Relating to Girish Sharmila Manjeshwar. Ex.A18- 20.2.96 - X-copy of the letter sent by Majeswar to the opp party. Along with copy of bill Ex.A19- 2.2.97 - X-copy of the Registered notice sent by plaintiff to the Opp party Ex.A20- 6.3.97 - X-copy of the reply notice by opp party to complainant’s Advocate With clinical summary and micro report of CMC Hospital, Vellore. Ex.A21- 25.6.97 - X-copy of the registered notice by complainants to opp party. Ex.A22- 2.7.97 - X-copy of the reply notice. Ex.A23- 22.11.97 - X-copy of the reply notice. Ex.A24 - .. - Medical Record Bound Volume Entire Book. Ex.A25 - .. - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No. 2 to 4. Ex.A26- .. - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.241 to 247. Ex.A27- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.264 to 269. Ex.A28- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.314. Ex.A29- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.348 Ex.A30- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.378. Ex.A31- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.396 Ex.A32- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.400 to 410. Ex.A33- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.413 to 417. Ex.A34- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.427 Ex.A35- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.441. Ex.A36- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.473. Ex.A37- -- - Medical Record Bound Volume Book Page No.477. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1 - -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Index Ex.B2- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.1 to 5 Ex.B3- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.6 & 7 Ex.B4- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.8 to 11. Ex.B5- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.12 to 36. Ex.B6 - -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.37 to 42. Ex.B7- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.43 & 44. Ex.B8- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.45 & 46 Ex.B9- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.47 to 50 Ex.B10- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.51 to 61 Ex.B11- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.62 to 73 Ex.B12- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.74 to 80. Ex.B13- -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.81 to 95. Ex.B14 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.96 to 201. Ex.B15 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.202 to 260 Ex.B16 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.261 to 420 Ex.B17 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.421 & 422 Ex.B18 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.423 to 429 Ex.B19 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.430 & 431. Ex.B20 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.432 & 433. Ex.B21 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.434. Ex.B22 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No435 Ex.B23 -- - Patient Record Bound Volume Book Page No.436 to 440. Ex.B24- 12.4.2010 - X-copy of payment certificate letter. Ex.A25- 8.5.10. - X-copy of Reply letter by Central Bank of India, Chennai. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
