IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST 2020
Present: - Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.10/2017
Anija Kumar : Complainant
Kandathil veedu
Sakthikulangara P.O
Kollam.
[By Adv.A.R.Ayyappan Pillai]
V/s
- Dr.Ageesh : Opposite parties
Urologist,
Bishop Benzigar Hospital
Beach Road
Kollam-691001.
[By Adv.A.Sudheer Bose]
- Director
Bishop Benzigar Hospital
Beach Road
Kollam-691001.
[By Adv.S.Riyas]
- Director
Metro Scans & Laboratory
Kailas Arcade
District Hospital Road,
Chamakada, Kollam.
[By adv.K.Somasekharan Pillai]
ORDER
Sri. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LLM,President
1. This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant is a business man conducting fancy store and having the age of 45 years. The 1st opposite party is a senior Urologist at Bishop Benziger Hospital, Kollam. The 2nd opposite party is the director of the said hospital who is the employer of the 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party is a famous scanning centre at Kollam. On 19.8.2016 the complainant consulted with Dr.Baby Mathew, Urologist of Urology Clinic at Polayathode, Kollam in connection with complainant’s kidney stone trouble . As directed by the said Urologist the complainant has taken a scan of abdomen on 20.08.2016 from the 3rd opposite party Metro Scan centre and met Dr.Baby Mathew with the said scan report. By seeing the report he advised to have a consultation with Neuro and Orthopaedic specialist because as per the report the calculus of left Kidney is measured only 3 mm. As per the said report there is no chance of having severe pain of stone and the same can be easily treated with medicine. The complainant met with Dr.Madhu, Sakthikulangara and as per his advise he had taken the X-ray from the 3rd opposite party Metro Scan centre which showed no symptoms of deformity to spine or vertebra. Subsequently due to severe pain on 24.08.2016 the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party Bishop Benzigar Hospital where the 1st opposite party was working as Urologist and got admitted in the causality of that hospital. All tests conducted including the CT scan of abdomen showed 12.8 mm calculus of left kidney which should be urgently crushed and hence the complainant was admitted. On 25.08.16 the complainant was taken to operation theatre and given Anesthesia for crushing the stone and after the operation the complainant was shifted to ICU on 26.08.16 and for observation kept the complainant for 5 days in the room.
3. However after 15 days of discharge the complainant was suffering severe pain and so X-ray was again taken which showed that stone was not crushed hence the matter was referred to the 1st opposite party Urologist, who explained that the crushing machinery is very small in size and so the better result could not be expected and only remedy is to have one more surgery or have a consultation with Dr.Venugopal, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. On 19.09.2016 the complainant lodged a complaint before the 2nd opposite party Director, but he has not responded till the date of complaint. The complainant has spent more than Rs.50,000/- as medical expense in the 2nd opposite party Hospital.
4. On 24.09.2016 the complainant met with Dr.Baby Mathew at his urology clinic at Polayathode with his X-ray and has undergone another surgery which has taken only one hour duration. The complainant has remitted Rs.20,000/- as fees of surgery and other expense for medicines. During the first operation conducted on 25.08.2016 at the 2nd opposite party Hospital Anaesthesia was applied in the Vertebra for surgery. The complainant was a healthy person. But due to the deficiency in service and failure of the 1st opposite party the complainant has suffered great pain and much mental agony and due to prolonged treatment much financial loss and liabilities occurred to the complainant. As a result of the treatment at the 2nd opposite party hospital the complainant has became very weak and now he is suffering from worse healthy situation and disablement to his body and mind. The deficiency in service, negligence and defective operation by the 1st opposite party is the reason for his ill health and mental agony. Being a business man the complainant could not travel and concentrate in the business which is to be compensated adequately. The complainant had to spent Rs.50,000/- in the 2nd opposite party Hospital and Rs.21,000/- in the Urology Clinic, Polayathode, Kollam. The 2nd opposite party is the employer of the 1st opposite party. The loss, ill health, disability and mental agony suffered by the complainant is the result of the defective operation and deficiency of service and failure on the part of the 1st opposite party who is the employee of the 2nd opposite party hospital. The complainant further prays to find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party doctor in conducting operation on the complainant and also to find that the 2nd opposite party being the employer is vicariously liable for the deficiency in service committed by the 1st opposite party. The complainant also prays to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1&2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation with interest @ 12% p.a along with costs.
5. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 resisted the complaint by filing separate version. The contentions of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are more or less same which in short are as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no negligence on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in treating the complainant and the complaint has been filed by presuming negligence on the assumption that expected result from the procedure adopted by the 1st opposite party is not derived to the complainant. However it is admitted that the complainant came to the causality in the 2nd opposite party hospital on 24.08.2016 with a complaint of left sides abdominal pain of 5 days duration. On the basis of clinical history and examination findings, the 1st opposite party advised investigations and ultra sound scan abdomen with CT screening and based on the scan report he diagnosed to have upper ureteric calculus of size 12.8 mm obstructing upper ureter and causing pain. The diagnosed diseased condition as per scanning was well explained to the complainant and his bystanders and got admitted on the same day for its treatment. The complainant was advised Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy(ESWL) and ureteric stenting. The pros and cons of the said procedure including probable risk and complications and the need for repeated procedures for stone fragmentation in case fragmentation could not be completed with one sitting were discussed in detail with complainant and his relative and they signed the written informed consent. The complainant underwent necessary pre-operative investigations and anaesthetic evaluation and surgery was scheduled to 25.08.2016. Under all aseptic care and precautions the 1st opposite party conducted ureteric stenting followed by Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy under epidural anaesthesia on that day. ESWL is a procedure by which the kidney stone is fragmented using shock waves without any incision or injury to the body of the patient. This is the least invasive procedure for removal of renal stone and it is the widely accepted scientific procedure. The procedure was uneventful and he was observed in post-operative ICU and later shifted to ward on 26.08.2016. Post operatively the complainant was symptomatically better with pain relief. The complainant was informed the plan for further evaluation with X-ray kidney-ureter-bladder(KUB) and for further intervention if necessary based on the X-ray findings later after 2 weeks. He was explained that the cause of pain was due to the obstructing stone was harder and complete fragmentation could not be assured with single ESWL in any circumstance and that he might have required multiple ESWL. The complainant was discharged on 28.08.2016 with an advice for review after 2 weeks for further evaluation. The complainant came up for review on 10.09.2016 and as per X-ray KUB evaluation calculus was noted in upper ureter with DJ stent in situ. On the basis of the said finding the complainant was advised for re-ESWL but he was not willing for the same. He prescribed medicines and asked to come up for review after 2 weeks or else advised reference to Medical College Hospital for further management since he was unwilling for repeat ESWL.
6. The 1st opposite party had properly diagnosed the complainant’s disease condition on the basis of CT scan evaluation and treated him as per accepted medical practice with due diligence and care. The 1st opposite party had used Intercardio Electro Hydrentio ESWL device which is widely acceptable and used in many centres in Kerala for stone fragmentation. DJ stenting was done as per protocol in the treatment of obstructing stone and for the stone size of 12x8 mm ESWL being least invasive treatment is an accepted treatment of choice nevertheless in 20% to 30% cases, the hardness of stone may pose difficulty in fragmentation or due to partial fragmentation repeat ESWL may require for complete cure. The requirement of repeat ESWL was well explained to the complainant and it was specifically noted in the written informed consent. The mere fact that the complainant required repeat ESWL itself cannot be a pointer of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party had exercised reasonable skill and care in the treatment of the complainant he is not liable to compensate the complainant either jointly or severally. The 1st opposite party had diagnosed left side hydronephrosis with proximal ureteric calculus measuring 12x8 mm as per ultra sound abdomen with CT screening dated 24.08.2016 done in the scan centre attached to the 2nd opposite party hospital. The complainant was discharged on the 3rdpost operative day since he was symptomatically better and with an advice for review after 2 weeks for X-ray KUB for further evaluation. The statement that on the date of review the 1st opposite party explained that the crushing machinery was very small in size and better result could not be expected is false and highly ill motivated and hence denied. ESWL device used for stone fragmentation for the complainant was a standard device with size and specification well accepted and has been widely used in many centres in Kerala. The repeated sitting of ESML in stone fragmentation is an accepted medical fact and it is neither related to the technique or device used for ESWL nor because of any negligence or deficiency on the part of the operating urologist. The 1st opposite party is unaware of the complaint allegedly given to the Director of the hospital. The complainant did not make any complaint before the 1st opposite party regarding his treatment at any point of time. The ESWL was done under epidural anaesthesia which is the standard mode of anaesthesia for the procedure and the complainant did not develop any problem related to anaesthesia. The statement that the complainant could not travel and concentrate in his business and entitled for compensation is unfounded and unsustainable and hence denied. A patient undergoing ESWL procedure is not likely to suffer from any physical disability or discomfort for the obvious reason that no incision or injury is caused to the patient during this procedure. The procedure is done under the technique of passing shock waves through the kidney and hence there is no injury or damage to the patient during the surgery. This procedure can be done by way of OP procedure also. The procedure undergone by the patient is the least suffering and there is no chance of any post operative complication or developments. The patient was also discharged on the 3rd day itself and he was completely fit for the same.
7. The allegation of the complainant that he had been suffering from worse healthy situation is denied. According to the 1st opposite party the complainant was treated with utmost care and caution and no damage or difficulty has been caused to the complainant by the treatment at the 2nd opposite party hospital. There was no deficiency, negligence or defeat in the operation conducted by the 1stopposite party at the 2nd opposite party hospital and the complainant is not entitled for treatment expenses as shown in the complaint. According to the 1st opposite party the amount of compensation quantified on the pretended head of disability, ill health, mental agony and trouble is unfounded besides being exaggerated, exorbitant and without any rationale behind it and in any case he cannot be held liable for the same.
8. It is also contended by 1st opposite party that Medical science has not reached a stage where the adoption of a particular treatment, medical or surgical would produce definite positive result in all case of illness or disease. The outcome of treatment would greatly depend on a variety of facts such as the severity of the condition treated, co-existence of other disease, immunological status of the individual, limitation of the treatment involved, sensitivity of the individual to the drugs, resistance of the organism to the drugs, patient’s compliance etc., many which are not under the control of the treating doctors or the hospital. Hence merely because a patient is not relieved from pain or has not received the relief, one cannot say that no proper treatment was given. When the doctor exercised reasonable standard of care and caution in handling a case and acted in accordance with the accepted medical practice and ethics, there is no negligence on the part of the treating doctor. Imposing of liability on hospital and doctors for everything that happens to the patient was held to mean doing disservice even to the community at large, and that the conditions in which hospitals and doctors have to work cannot be completely lost sight off. The profession of medicine perhaps is the field where results are not expected to be or could be guaranteed since a great deal of medical treatment, even if administered with all skill and care involves some degrees of risk and on occasion the medical treatment involves making a choice between competing risks.
9. The complainant has no cause of action against the 1st opposite party as stated in the complaint. The 1st opposite party is a qualified urologist having post graduate qualification of MS(General Surgery) and Super Specialty qualification of Mch in Urology obtained in the year 2011 from the Medical College, Kottayam and thereafter the 1st opposite party has been practicing as a Consultant Urologist in the 2nd opposite party hospital. The 1st opposite party has professional experience of total 17 years as a qualified doctor as of now.
10. The 2nd opposite party would admit that the 1st opposite party is the Urologist working in the 2nd opposite party hospital and also admits the facts that the complainant got admitted at the 1st opposite party hospital on 24.08.2016 and on the next day underwent left ureteric stenting Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy under epidural anaesthesia. According to the 2nd opposite party the treatment given was the least invasive and first choice treatment. In the said case of ESWL the success rate is 70% to 80% and the remaining 20% to 30% need multiple ESWL sittings. The probability of multiple sittings was well agreed by the patient. Being so non fragmental or partially fragmental will require multiple sittings of ESWL depending on situations. In the 2nd opposite party hospital the ESWL machine used is the Inter Cardio Electro Hydraulic which is the most commonly used machine for ESWL across the country.
11. According to the 2nd opposite party the allegation of the complainant that he spent more than 50,000/- as medical expense is absolutely false. In fact the complainant had spent only 24,000/- for that particular procedure in the 2nd opposite party hospital. Though the complainant was advised for the review after 2 weeks he did not turn up and went to another hospital at Polayathode and underwent treatment on his own choice. As far as the procedure performed on the complainant is concerned no incision is applied. Therefore the complainant did not suffer any injury or disability and he was absolutely healthy at the time of discharge. The 2ndopposite party also would contend that there is no negligence or the latches on the part of the 2nd opposite party hospital as well as the 1st opposite party doctor who treated the complainant and therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation. The 2nd opposite party further prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs and to award compensatory costs.
12. The 3rd opposite party would contend in the separate written version that the complaint against the 3rd opposite party is not maintainable and the 3rd opposite party is not a necessary or proper party to the complaint. However the 3rd opposite party would admitted that Metro Scans and Laboratory is a reputed scanning centre. It is further admited that the complainant as per the direction of the 1st opposite party urologist underwent ultrasonography(USG) of his abdomen on 20.08.2016 at the 3rd opposite party scanning centre and it was revealed in the scan that renal calculus measuring 3mm was detected in his left kidney. According to the 3rd opposite party USG is a screening modality and it has got less sensitivity and specificity compared to CT scan for detection scanning service. Later on the recommendation of the 2nd opposite party the complainant had undergone ultra sound scan and CT scan of his abdomen and pelvis at Mother Teresa Scans that on 24.08.2016 and in the tests renal calculus measuring 12.8 mm was detected in his left kidney are true. Both the USG and CT scan revealed that the complainant had renal calculus in his left kidney. Therefore the complainant underwent the crushing process of calculus at the 2nd opposite party hospital. Therefore there is no sort of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Hence the 3rd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party further prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs of Rs.10,000/-.
13. In the light of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of1st opposite party hospital , 2nd opposite party doctor who treated the complainant and 3rd opposite party Metro Scans and Laboratory as alleged in the complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed?
- Reliefs and costs
-
15. Both sides have filed notes of argument.
16. Heard both sides.
Point No.1&2
17. For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these two points are considered together. The following are admitted rather undisputed facts in this case. The complainant initially consulted Dr.Baby Mathew urologist on 19.08.2016 with complaints of Kidney stone trouble as per his advice the complainant has taken scan of abdomen on 20.08.2016. But as per the said scan report the calculus of left kidney was 3 mm only. Hence the said doctor sent him back with medicine. However when he got pain aggravated he rushed to the 2nd opposite party hospital on 24.08.2016 and met the 1st opposite party urologist working in the 2nd opposite party hospital. As advised by 1st opposite party the complainant had taken CT scan and as per Ext.P5 scan report there was calculus of 12x8 mm into the left kidney which is abnormal. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties medication is not possible and the only possible treatment is the fragmentation of the stone procedure called ESWL (Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy). It is also brought out in evidence that the diagnosed disease condition as per the scan report was explained to the complainant and bystanders and convinced that the only possible treatment is fragmentation of the stone by undergoing ESWL and got admitted on the 2nd opposite party hospital on the same day for treatment. The complainant was advised ESWL procedure and ureteric stenting. It is also clear from the available materials that the pros and corns of the procedure including probable risks and complications and the need for repeated procedure for stone fragmentation could not be completed with one sitting were discussed in detail with the complainant and his relatives and by understanding that facts the complainant signed on Ext.D1(a) written informed consent. Even the complainant when he was in the witness box as PW1 would admit that he had signed on D1(a) written informed consent and all the procedures adopted by the 1st opposite party in treating him are stated Ext.D1 (a) consent.
18. It is also clear that complete stone fragmentation may not be possible if the stone is harder and in such case re ESWL is to be done. But according to the complainant the procedure was a failure as the expected result was not obtained. Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The oral evidence of PW2 Dr.Baby Mathew would indicate that ultra sound scan report may not always be fully correct and hence CT scan has been taken and as per P5 CT scan report the size of the stone is 12x8 mm and the same cannot be cured by medication and introventional proceed is required. According to PW2 ESWL is accepted procedure for stone fragmentation and the same is a procedure by which kidney stone is fragmented using shock wave without any incision or injury to the patient and it can be done by any qualified urologist in any equipped hospital. Even according to PW2 hardness of stone may cause difficulty in fragmentation and complete fragmentation is not possible. In such case the two options available to the patient are:-
- Repeat the same procedure.
- Adopt endoscopy procedure.
19. It is clear from the oral evidence of PW2 that he has opted to repeat the process of ESWL to remove the remaining part of the kidney stone. It is clear from the oral evidence of PW2 that even if ESWL procedure is done by a qualified urologist the entire stone may not be fragmented and the same cannot be considered as negligence on the part of the doctor who done the procedure nor due to the use of any defective technique. It is also clear from the available materials that there is no incision or external injury to the patient and there is no chance for any permanent disability for adopting ESWL or due to the re-doing of the same process. PW2 is an expert even according to the complainant. The oral evidence of PW2 would indicate that simply because of the fact that there remains part of the stone after ESWL procedure it does not mean that doctor was negligent or the technique adopted was defective. It is also brought out in evidence through DW1 that as the stone was harder and larger he could not fragment the same in the 1st time and hence he suggested a second session but the complainant was not willing for a 2nd session. However during the 2nd session the stone was completely removed by Dr.Baby Mathew. On evaluating the entire evidence of PW2 it cannot be hold that there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party who treated the complainant or with regard to the procedure adopted by the 1st opposite party in treating the complainant at the 2nd opposite party hospital. It is true that the complainant has a case that 1st opposite party told him that the crushing machinery is very small in size and so a better result could not be expected. The 1st and 2nd opposite party has categorically denied the above allegation. In para 6 of the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party it is stated that the ESWL machine used in the 2nd opposite party hospital was Inter Cardio Electro Hydraulic which is the most commonly used machine for ESWL. The above contention of the 2nd opposite party remains undisputed. No evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove the above allegation.
20. It is clear from the oral evidence of PW1 and 2 that the entire stones were not fragmented as it was harder(12x8mm). Hence the next course of action open is to repeat ESWL for which the patient was not amenable for his own reasons. But he went to PW2 who has done the very same procedure. It is well settled that simply because the entire expected result was not achieved from doctor were in there is no element of negligence in treating the patient it can never be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of that doctor. It is also clear from Ex.P1(a) consent letter signed by the complainant well before the surgery that he was made fully aware of the pros and cones of the procedure. It is also brought out in evidence through DW1 that he has adopted stenting procedure to pave the way for the easy passage of the fragmented stones and to avoid obstruction in the ureter. In the circumstances it can be held that 1st opposite party doctor has done all possible care and treatment to the complainant and we find no merit in the allegation of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party doctor in treating the complainant. It is well settled that treating doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence because his treatment get unsuccessful. What is to be consider is whether he is qualified in treating the patient and whether he has followed the accepted protocol in the treating patient etc. It is an undisputed fact that 1st opposite party is a qualified Urologist having PG qualification and super specialty qualification obtained from Medical College, Kottayam and he is having experience as a consulting Urologist for the last 17 years. The qualification and experience of the 1st opposite party is not challenged by the complainant. The complainant is also having no case that opposite party has evaded from the well accepted protocol in treating the complainant. It is clear from the available materials that the 1st opposite party had properly diagnosed the complainant’s disease condition on the basis of the CT scan evaluation and treated as per accepted medical practice with due diligence. He had also used Intercardio Electro hydentio ESWL device which is widely acceptable and used in many reputed hospital for stone fragmentation. DJ stenting was also done as per protocol in the treatment. In the circumstances merely because the intending result was not fully obtained it cannot be held that 1st opposite party was negligent and there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party who treated the complainant.
21. It is true that the complainant would allege in the complaint and has also deposed when he has examined as PW1 that he was a healthy business man and due to the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party in treating him, he sustained severe pain and caused mental agony and due to prolonged treatment much financial loss and liabilities have been sustained to him and he has become very weak and now he is suffering from worse healthy condition both in body and mind. According to the complainant as a result of deficiency in service and negligent treatment of the 1st opposite party he sustained ill health and mental agony and he had spent Rs.50,000/- in the 2nd opposite party hospital and another 21,000/- in the urology clinic at Polayathode and he further prays to award compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from 1st and 2nd opposite parties. In the light of the materials available on record including the oral evidence of PW1 we find no merit in the above allegations in the complaint. We have already found that the complainant has not proved any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1st and 2nd. The complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the 3rd opposite party scan centre and no relief is also sought against the 3rd opposite party. It is brought out in evidence through DW1 that a patient undergoing ESWL procedure is not likely to suffer from any physical disability or discomfort for the obvious reason that no incision or injury is caused to the patient during this procedure as it is done by passing shock waves through the kidney. PW2 who is an experienced urologist who completely removed the kidney stone of the complainant also has deposed that since there is no incision or external injury to patient there is no chance of any permanent disability to such patient. It is further to be point out that PW1 would admit during the beginning of the cross examination that now he has been conducting a fancy store business. In the light of the above admission of PW1 and the oral evidence of PW2 and DW1 the allegation of the complainant that he sustained ill health and permanent disability due to the negligent treatment of the 1st opposite party and hence he is unable to carry out his business appears to be false and baseless.
22. It is true that the complainant has filed Ext.P6 complaint before the Director of the 2nd opposite party hospital. But even according to PW1, he has not alleged in Ext.P6 complaint any negligence or derelictions of duty on the part of the 1st opposite party who treated him. Further down PW1 would depose that SnP6 ]cm-Xn-bpsSDt±-iywF´m-Wv(Q). Fsâ km¼-¯nI _p²n-ap«v amä-Ww. (A)Further down he added that km¼-¯nI _p²n-ap«v amäpIF¶Xv am{X-aÃFsâAkpJwamäWw F¶-Xm-Wv. In view of the above specific answers brought out in evidence by the learned counsel for the 1st opposite party during cross examination of PW1 it is clear that the complainant has filed P6 complaint before the director of the 2nd opposite party and also filed the present complaint before this forum only to extract money from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties as argued by the learned advocates for 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
23. Though the complainant would claim that he had spent Rs.50,000/- as medical expense at the 2nd opposite party hospital he would admit during cross examination that he paid Rs.25,000/- only to meet all expenses at the 2nd opposite party hospital. He would also admit that his that he spent Rs.50,000/- as medical expense at the 2nd opposite party hospital is not correct. As the complainant failed to substantiate that there is medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 he is not entitled to get any compensation from them. As it is already pointed out the complainant has not sought any compensation from the 3rd opposite party scan centre nor even alleged any deficiency in service against 3rd opposite party. In view of the reasons stated above we hold that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed. The points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of September 2020.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandya rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Anija kumar
PW2 : Dr.Baby Mathew
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Receipt dated 07.11.2016
Ext.P2 : Ultrasound of abdomen dated 20.08.16
Ext.P3 : X-ray of 24.08.16
Ext.P4 : X-ray of 10.09.16
Ext.P5 : Ultrasound of abdomen with CT screening dated 24.08.16
Ext.P6 : Copy of letter dated 19.09.16
Ext.P7series: Medical bills and list
Ext.P8 : Doctor’s prescription
Ext.P9 : Medical bills
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-
DW1 : Agish.M.A
Documents marked for opposite party:-
Ext.D1series&D1(a) : Admission records
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandya rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
