Date of Filing: 28-10-2015 Date of Final Order: 31-08-2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The sum and substance of the complaint case may be described as follows :-
One Renubala Chakraborty, since deceased, mother of the Complainant fell down on 24/08/2015 at about 7.15 a.m. at Falakata at the residence of her son Sri Dilip Kr. Chakraborty. The said Dilip Kr. Chakraborty took his mother to Dr. Balbant N.S. Laguri, an Orthopedic specialist at Cooch Behar with intimation to his sister (the Complainant). On being referred by Dr. Laguri, the patient was taken to Dr. S.C. Saha on 24/08/2015 at 12 noon by Sri Dilip Kr. Chakraborty and Smt. Rekha Chakraborty (the Complainant). The O.P. No.1 admitted the patient in the O.P. No.2 hospital on 24/08/2015 at 12.05 p.m. and started treatment from 12.10 p.m. but he did not tell about diagnosis of the ailment of the patient. At about 2.50 p.m. one junior Doctor administered one injection to the patient through I.V fluid. After that it was noticed by the Complainant and her brother that the condition of the patient was deteriorating. Thereafter, neither any medicine nor any life saving drug or support was given to the patient. Ultimately, at about 11.30 p.m. on the same day one employee of the O.P. No.2 administered ventilation support for half an hour and the patient expired at about 12.12 a.m. on 25/08/2015. After death of the patient, the O.P. No.1 for the first time told the Complainant that the patient had Myocardial infarction for which she died due to Cardio-respiratory failure in a case of M.I —Ext. Ante wall. He also issued Death Certificate to that effect. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.17,000/- to the above O.Ps, as demanded by them.
The Complainant alleged that O.P. No.1 treated the patient in negligent manner and both the O.Ps had deficiency in rendering service to the Service Recipient. The proper diagnosis was not done in pre-medication stage and no E.C.G. was done prior to application of medicines though E.C.G is not the confirmatory test for diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction. Troponin test of the patient was Negative and S.G.O.P.T of blood report was within normal range. So, the patient had no M.I. Application of Streptokinase injection is contra indicated to an elderly patient above the age of 75 years because it may cause hemorrhage in brain or other vital part of the body of such elderly patient. Some of the medicines applied to the patient had interactions with each other, which caused severe reactions. The O.P. No.1 was so negligent that he did not care to do CPK- MB test of the patient to be sure that the patient had M.I. If the ventilation support was given earlier and Streptokinase injection was not given without confirmatory test of M.I the patient might survive. After death of the patient, the Complainant and his brother demanded B.H.T, all treatment sheets, all test reports and all medical papers from the O.Ps but they refused to give those papers except Death Certificate.
As the O.P. No.1 did not deliver the medical papers to the Complainant in spite of repeated requests, the Complainant demanded the documents in writing on 22/09/2015 and she was asked to come on 28/09/2015 at 5 p.m. for taking delivery of those papers but the documents were not delivered on 28/09/2015 on the plea that it was not ready and asked the Complainant to come on 30/09/2015. On 30/09/2015 total 14 sheets of medical papers were delivered to the Complainant. The O.Ps had manufactured the medical papers during the long gap between treatment of the patient and supply of medical papers to the Complainant. The O.Ps had prepared fictitious bills in respect of the treatment of deceased Renubala Chakraborty for their illegal gain through the Complainant was compelled to pay a sum of Rs.17,000/- to the O.Ps. Thus, the O.Ps have perpetrated Unfair Trade Practice.
The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- in the following heads for medical negligence, deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practice of the O.Ps.
- charges paid for treatment - Rs.17,000/-
- for Mental sufferings - Rs.3,50,000/-
- for incidental expenses - Rs.10,000/-
- litigation cost - Rs.15,000 /-
The cause of action arose on 24/08/2015 and 25/08/2015 within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
The Complainant prays for awarding compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- against the O.Ps.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 filed W/V on 10/02/2016 inter-alia denying the material allegations made out in the complaint contending that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant is not a consumer under the C.P. Act and Dr. B.N.S. Laguri is a necessary party. The Complainant has filed this complaint with malice in order to lower the image and reputation of the O.P. No.1 and to malign the reputation of the O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1 is a renowned doctor having MD, MRCP, FRCP degree and having 40 years of experience in medical field. The O.P. No.1 is a renowned Cardiologist and a member of Cardiological Society of India.
It is the version of the O.Ps that Renubala Chakraborty, aged about 83 years, female was brought to the Dr. P.K. Saha Hospital Pvt. Ltd. on 24/08/2015 in a critical condition for treatment under the O.P. No.1 at about 11.45 a.m. at emergency OPD and after clinical check up by the O.P. No.1 emergency medication support was given to the patient and necessary investigations had been prescribed and Bio-chemical examination was started. The patient was advised for ECG, Haematological Examination, Blood Sugar Test, Troponin Test, ABG Test and those investigations were taken up forthwith after her admission. The condition of the patient was explained to the patient party viz. one Dilip Kr. Chakraborty who admitted the patient. The O.P. No.1 himself examined the patient along with his companion Doctors and the patient was forthwith transferred to life saving system with monitoring facility to observe the development of the patient. Necessary emergency tests were done and utmost care was taken from the side of the O.Ps towards treatment of the said patient. That keeping in mind the condition of the patient ultimately Streptokinase injection was given to the patient as the patient had symptoms of less than 12 Hrs. duration and ST segment elevation in ECG though Troponin test was negative.
Reperfusion therapy is a medical treatment that restores blood flow through blocked arteries typically after a heart attack (Myocardial Infarction). Reperfusion therapy causes clot busting (fibrinobytic) drug and procedures to open arteries with stucts or to graft arteries around blockage. As the patient had the symptoms of less than 12 hours duration and ST segment elevation in ECG, in such cases, injection Streptokinase was being given to sort out the chances of thrombolysis and such Streptokinase is indicated for use in the management of Acute Myocardial Infarction in adult for the lysis of intra coronary thrombi, the improvement of ventricular function and the reduction of mortality associated with AMI when administered by either intravenous or inter coronary route as well as further reduction of infarct size and congestive heart failure. Earlier administration of Streptokinase is correlated with greater clinical benefit and such drug can be administered irrespective of age of the patient. So, whatever treatment given to the patient was in accordance with medical science and there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the OP No.1. The patient was given ventilator support as and when required and she was under constant medical supervision and attended by the Doctors and Nurses and other paramedical staff of the hospital. The allegation that the patient might have survived if Streptokinase be not administered is based on surmise and conjecture. It seems that the Complainant has been ill-advised by some interested persons who might have personal grudge against the Ops. The Ops also denied allegation of refusal to hand over medical papers to the patient parties. There was no negligence, deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. The OP No.1 had taken utmost care in treating the patient, in question, tried his level best to recover the patient but the patient ultimately succumbed even after taking treatment, in which the Ops had no control. The Ops pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant either a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 or a Complainant as defined U/s 2(1)(b)(iv) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service and/or unfair Trade Practice, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant is none but the daughter of the victim Renubala Chakraborty who hired services of the Ops during her life time. It was urged that Renubala Chakraborty died on 25.08.2015 at 12.12 AM and the Complainant is one of the legal heirs of the consumer Renubala Chakraborty who hired services of the Ops on payment. He drew our attention to the definition of the Complainant as defined U/s 2(1)(b)(iv) of the CP Act, 1986. He has submitted that the Complainant has right to file the complaint as a Complainant as her mother Renubala Chakraborty, a consumer of the O.Ps died due to deficiency in service and medical negligence of the Ops. He argues that the Complaint case is quite maintainable.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the Ops submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer as she did not hire or avail of any services for consideration from the Ops.
We have gone through the complaint application, w/v, evidence adduced by both parties and also considered the submission of both parties. Admittedly, Renubala Chakraborty expired during her treatment under OP No.1 at OP No.2 Hospital on 25.08.2015. Admittedly, the Complainant is one of the the legal heirs of Renubala Chakraborty being her daughter. According to the definition of Complainant, Complainant means “in case of death of a consumer, his/her legal heir or representative who or which make a complaint”. In the present case, Rekha Chakraborty, Complainant being a legal heir of Renubala Chakraborty is entitled to lodge a complaint. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in lodging the complaint by the Complainant Rekha Chakraborty after death of her mother Renubala Chakraborty. Hence, the complaint case is quite maintainable.
Point No.2.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant has submitted that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the addresses of both the Ops are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the amount claimed as compensation is also within the pecuniary limit of this Forum.
The Ld. Agent for the Ops did not argue anything on this point.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we have found that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Point No.3 & 4
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that Renubala Chakraborty since deceased was the mother of the Complainant who died due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the Ops. It was argued that Renubala Chakraborty slipped her legs and fell down on 24.08.15 at about 7.15 AM causing pain on her chest, shoulder and hip and She was brought to the chamber of Dr, B.N.S Laguri, an Orthopedic Surgeon at Cooch Behar by one Dilip Kumar Chakraborty, brother of the Complainant with an intimation to the Complainant. He said that Dr. Laguri did not give any treatment to the patient and referred the patient to the OP No.1. and accordingly, the patient was brought to the OP No.2 Hospital at about 12 noon on 24.08.15 being accompanied by Dilip Kumar Chakraborty and the complainant and the OP No.1 admitted the patient at OP No.2 Hospital at 12.05 PM and treatment was started from 12.10 PM on 24.08.15. He submitted that the OP No.1 did not disclose regarding diagnosis of the ailment of the patient either to Dilip Kumar Chakraborty or to the Complainant and the treatment by the OP No.1 at OP No.2 Hospital was without proper diagnosis and ultimately at about 2.50 PM one Ashutosh Chakraborty who claimed himself to be a Junior Doctor administered “Streptokynase-15,00,000” injection through I.V. fluid to the patient without any direction of the OP No.1. It was urged that the OP No.1 did not turn up to the patient except once only at the verge of her death. It is contended that before administering “Streptokynase-15,00,000” injection, the condition of the patient was normal but after 3 PM, her Blood Pressure came down at a critical condition and only Systolic Pressure was 70 and Diastolic Pressure was nil which continued till death of the patient. He also submitted that neither the OP No.1 nor any other Doctor of OP No.2 hospital took care to render any treatment of life saving to the patient after 2.50 PM and ultimately, the patient expired on 25.08.15 at 12.12 AM as per record of the OP No.1 and after death of the patient, the OP No.1 told that the patient had Myocardial Infarction for which she died due to cardio respiratory failure. It is contended that after the death of her mother, the Complainant demanded BHT, all treatment sheets and all investigation and tests report relating to the treatment but the Ops refused to supply those documents and finally, she demanded the documents in writing on 22.09.15 and on 30.09.15, 14 sheets of medical papers were supplied to her though the date of supply was fixed on 28.09.15 at 5 PM. He stated that the Ops intentionally and deliberately harassed the Complainant in violation of mandatory provision of West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration & Regulation) Act and West Bengal Medical Council Code of Medical Ethics and it could not be ruled out that during long gap of time for delivering those medical papers, the Ops might have manipulated medical papers to save their skin. He argued that the Ops have charged Oxygen for 13 hours while the patient was alive for 12 hours from the time of admission and they have charged for three BS(R) tests but the last BS(R )test , as per record, was done on 25.08.15 at 7 AM which could not be possible as the patient died at 12.12 AM on 25.08.15. It was urged that the OP. No. 1 was so negligent that he did not care to advise for x-ray to ascertain whether there was any fracture or not. It is mentioned in the medical papers that the patient had symptom of 12 hour duration and S.T segment elevation in ECG but said fact did not lead to assume that the patient had Myocardial Infarction and as per medical authors there are so many reasons leading to S.T. Elevation viz. (1) Myocardial Infarction (2) Prinzmetal’s angina (3) Acute Pericarditis (4) Left Ventricular aneurysm (5) Blunt Trauma to the chest resulting in a cardiac contusion (6) Hyperkalemia (7) Acute Myocarditis (8) Pulmonary Embolism (9) Brugada Syndrom (10) Hypothermia (11) J-joint elevation (12) Early repolarisation. He submitted that Troponin test, CPKMB test, SGOT test with the ECG report are essential tests to ascertain diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction but in the present case, Troponin test and SGOT test were done and the result of Troponin test was negative and the report of SGOT test was normal. He argued that the OP No.1 could have advised CPKMB test but without CPKMB test, the OP No.1 advised “Streptokynase-15,00,000” injection which had severe reaction of causing cerebral hemorrhage and the OP Nos.1 and 2 are silent as to why no treatment was given after administering “Streptokynase-15,00,000” injection. He further argued that one Goutam gave ventilation support to the patient from 11.30 PM on 24.08.15 to 12.05 AM on 25.08.15 and the withdrawal of the ventilation support was not done in consonance with the mandate of the law governing the same. He argued that Deplatt A-75 medicine was given to the patient prior to administration of “Streptokynase-15,00,000” injection which had interaction to each other causing increased risk of hemorrhage. He submitted that the Ops were negligent to render proper and reasonable treatment and they have deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing loss and injury, both financially and mentally to the tune of Rs.3,92,000/-, He prayed for passing appropriate order against the Ops.
The Ld. Agent for the Ops submitted that one Renubala Chakraborty, aged about 83 years, female, was brought to Dr. P.K. Saha Hospital on 24.08.15 in a critical condition for treatment under OP No.1 at about 11.45 AM at Emergency OPD on being referred by Dr. Laguri, an Orthopedic Surgeon and after clinical check-up by the OP No.1 and considering the precarious condition of the patient, immediate medical support was given to the patient and necessary investigation was prescribed and bio-chemical examination was also started. He argued that the patient was forthwith transferred to life saving system with monitoring facility to observe the development of the patient. He further submitted that the patient was brought to OP No.1 with a history of fall on the ground on 24.08.15 morning and she was taken to Dr. B.N.S. Laguri for treatment first and keeping in mind the condition of the patient, ultimately, “Streptokynase” injection was given as the patient had symptoms of less than 12 hours duration and ST Segment elevation in ECG though Troponin test was negative. He submitted that Reperfusion therapy is a medical treatment that restores blood flow through blocked arteries typically after a heart attack (Myocardial Infarction) and it causes clot busting drug and procedures to open arteries or to graft arteries around blockage. It was urged that “Streptokynase” injection was given to sort out the chances of thrombolysis and such “Streptokynase” is indicated for use in the management of acute Myocardial infarction in adult for lysis of intra coronary thrombi, the improvement of ventricular function and the reduction of mortality associated with AMI, when administered by either intravenous or the inter coronary route as well as further reduction of infarct size and congestive heart failure and the said medicine can be administered irrespective of age of the patient which was in accordance with medical science and there was no negligence and carelessness on the part of the Ops. He further contended that the papers as demanded by the patient party were handed over to them and there was no negligence in supplying the documents and there is no question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops and charging for BS(R) at 7 a.m. on 25.08.15 was nothing but a human error. It was urged that the Ops tried their level best to recover the patient with due care and caution but the patient ultimately succumbed even after taking the treatment in which the Ops had no control. He has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Admittedly, one Renubala Chakraborty, aged about 83 years, was brought to OP No.1 with history of fall in the morning on 24.08.17 on being referred by Dr. Laguri, an orthopedic Surgeon. According to the medical admission sheet, the patient was admitted at OP No.2 Hospital at 12.05 PM though the Ops asserted that the patient was brought to the outdoor of OP No.2 on 24.08.15 and her treatment was started at 11.45 PM as per advice of the OP No.1. Admittedly, the patient expired on 25.08.15 at 12.12 AM as per admission sheet and death certificate. The admission sheet reveals that the patient expired due to Cardio Respiratory failure in a case of M.I.-Ext. Ante wall on 25.08.15 at 12.12 AM. The Ld. Agent for the Complainant raised a number of points to establish medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops.
The first point taken by the Complainant is that the use of “Streptokinase” in case of aged patients above 75 years is very risky because there are likely to have pre-existing cerebrovascular disease. The Ops have asserted that use of “Streptokinase” on a patient of MI is medically accepted as the patient had heart attack not more than 12 hours and ST Segment elevation in ECG was found though Troponin test was negative. No expert report was sought for to ascertain as to whether there was any medical negligence on the part of the Ops for use of “Streptokinase” on the patient. The OP No.1 is a Doctor having experience for a considerable period and according to OP No.1, the case of the patient was a case of acute Myocardial Infarction. The OP No.1 is a Cardiologist and it is also the version of the Complainant that Dr. B.N.S. Laguri, Orthopedic Surgeon referred the patient to OP No.1 in spite of the fact that the patient had history of fall in the morning on 24.08.15. It can be inferred that Dr. Laguri suspected some cardiac problems with the patient, for which he referred the patient to OP No.1, a Cardiologist. The Op No.1 also referred a report of M.W. Rich, MD, Cardiovascular Division, Washington University wherein it is stated that “the risk of stroke increased with age, the absolute excess risk of stroke in patients older than 75 years of age receiving thrombolytic treatment was < 1% and there was no age associated excess in the risk and other major bleeding complications. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the introduction of Thrombolytic Therapy revolutionized the management of patients with acute MI, especially those presenting with ST Segment elevation in multiple electro- cardiographic leads”. The Ld. Agent of the OP has also referred an Article Myocardial Infarction from Wikipedia wherein it is stated that the diagnosis Myocardial Infarction requires two out of 3 components (history, ECG and Enzymes). He has argued that the history and ECG of the patient led the OP No.1 to conclude that the patient had acute Myocardial Infarction. The Ld. Agent for the Complainant referred a decision reported in (2014) CJ 157 (NC) wherein it is held that expert opinion is not necessary in all cases where negligence and deficiency in service of the Doctor is established from the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Ld. Agent for the Ops referred a decision reported in 2014(2) CPR 340 (NC) wherein it is held that Doctor who used her best professional skill and knowledge and took due care and caution to treat the Complainant, cannot be guilty of medical negligence. He also referred another decision reported in 2015 (4) CPR 25 (NC) wherein it is stated that allegation of medical negligence must be proved by expert opinion.
In the present case, the Complainant Rekha Chakraborty is the daughter of deceased patient Renubala Chakraborty and the medical papers submitted by the Ops revealed that one Dilip Kumar Chakraborty was present at the time of admission and he took the death certificate and dead-body of his mother Renubala Chakraborty. It is the version of the OP No.1 and 2 in para 11 of the w/v dated 10.02.16 that the condition of the patient at the time of admission was precarious and it was explained to the patient party i.e. one Dilip Kumar Chakraborty who admitted the patient. The Complainant did not adduce any evidence of her brother Dilip Kumar Chakraborty to controvert the statement of the Ops regarding intimation of the precarious condition of the patient to the patient party. The principles of all the decisions referred by Ld. Agents of both parties are settled principles of law and it cannot be ignored. It is evident from the submission of the Ld. Agent for the Ops and Medical Journals relied on by both parties that the use of “Streptokinase” in a case of Myocardial Infarction is not prohibited. The OP No.1 diagnosed the patient on the basis of the history of the patient and ST Segment Elevation in ECG though Troponin test was negative. The O.P. No. 1 exercised his knowledge and experience and treated the patient not in a negligent manner. Therefore, the Forum finds nothing to hold that the OP No.1 was negligent in treating the patient by administering “Streptokinase” injection.
The second point raised by the Ld. Agent for the Complainant is that the Doctor did not take any x-ray to ascertain whether there was any fracture or not in spite of history of fall of the patient. .
The patient was brought to Dr. B.N.S. Laguri, Orthopedic Surgeon, who referred the patient to the OP No.1, a Cardiologist, probably, Dr. Laguri thought that the ailment of the patient was within the domain of a Cardiologist, for which he referred the patient to the OP No.1 for treatment. The Op No.1 thought it proper to start treatment without x-ray and the OP No.1 diagnosed the ailment of the patient as acute Myocardial Infarction. In that case, it cannot be held that the OP No.1 committed medical negligence by not advising the patient for x-ray.
The third point taken by the Complainant is that the OP No.1 and 2 charged thrice for blood sugar, twice on 24.08.15 at 11.45 AM and 10 PM and another on 25.08.15 at 7 AM. The patient Renubala Chakraborty expired at 12.12 AM on 25.08.15. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the patient was alive on 25.08.15 at 7 AM. Moreover, the respective column of Blood Sugar in Annex. 4 at p/4 is blank and it only reveals from patient’s history sheet (Annex. K) that Blood Sugar was 125. Therefore, it is clear that blood sample was taken once for blood sugar and the level was 125. There is nothing in the medical records submitted by the Ops that blood was taken thrice and the blood sugar level recorded thrice. The Ld. Agent for the Ops submitted that it is nothing but a human error. But, considering the facts and circumstances and the casual manner of recording the Indoor details of the patient, it can be safely said that the noting of taking blood sample for blood sugar(R) thrice and taking blood at 7 AM on 25.08.15 i.e. after 7 hours of the death of the patient are nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The explanation given by the Ld. Agent for the Ops is not at all reasonable and without any logic. This Forum constraints to hold that the Ops realized the charge for blood sugar thrice, only noting one blood sugar 125 once in patient history sheet but without noting in the respective column of blood sugar in Annex. M. There is no blood sugar report of the patient submitted by the Ops nor it has been asserted that blood sugar level was checked instantly by any device. There is no endorsement of any doctor regarding use of Streptokinase in the Medicine chart Annex J. The OPs prepared the medical records of the patient in a very casual and negligent manner even without signatures of the persons concerned who prepared the record or rendered service to the patient viz. Annex. A, I, J, L, M and N and such practice, specially, realizing charges for blood sugar test even after death of a patient for the purpose of treatment of the dead patient is according to our considered opinion deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The recording of indoor details (Annex. E) and Cardiac Monitoring chart (Annex. I) regarding Monitor support to the patient from 11.45 a.m. on 24.08.15 before admission of the patient as per Admission Sheet (Annex. A) is also proof of deficiency in service and unfair trade Practice on the part of the OPs.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we unanimously hold that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. We are of the view that the Ops should be directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
The Complaint Case was filed on 28.10.15 and admitted on 30.10.15. The OPs put their appearance through their Ld. Agents on 27.11.15 and filed W/V on 10.02.16. The case was fixed for argument on 25.05.16 and lastly completed on 02.08.17 and 17.08.17 was fixed for passing final order but the date of delivery of final order is deferred to 31.08.17 as the final order was not ready on 17.08.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the Complaint Case as expeditiously as possible in view of Section 13(3A) of the C.P. Act and day to day orders will speak for itself.
In the result, the CC No.98/15 succeeds in part. Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
it is Ordered
That the Complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed in part on contest against the Ops with cost of Rs10,000/-.
The Ops are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant and to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by 45 days from the date of this order.
The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to comply the order by 45 days, failing which the OPs shall pay Rs. 100/- for each day’s delay and the said accumulated amount shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules. The copy of this Final order will also be available in the following website :
confonet.nic.in
Dictated and corrected by me.
