IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 05th day of October, 2018.
Filed on 04-06-2015
Present
- Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sheela Jacob, B.com,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.169/2015
between
Complainants:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Babu 1. Dr.K.P. Mathews
S/o Vijayan, Opthalmologist
Sajaya Bhavan, Nooranadu Village, St.Thomas Mission Hospital
Mavelikara, Alappuzha-690 504 Pallickal. P.O, Kattanam
(Adv. K.N.V. Paniker) Pin. 690 503
2. St. Thomas Mission Hospital
Pallickal.P.o, Kattanam-690503
Rept. by its Director
Rev. Johnson Mathew
O R D E R
SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM (PRESIDENT)
This case is based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The averments in the complaint short are as follows:-
Complainant is a mason by profession and he has been aking his lively hood out of the income derived from that calling.Complainant felt feeble sight to his right eye and therefore he visited the 2nd opposite party hospital where the 1st opposite party has been working as Ophthalmologist and consulted the1st opposite party who examined the complainant and informed him the feeble sight of the right eye is due to cataract disease and also advised to undergo cataract surgery of the right eye of the complainant and also advised that the lens to be replaced. He also informed that there is a package for Rs. 10,200/- covering the cost of lens and the operation charges and all other incidental expenses.Accordingly the petitioner agreed for the said package for the surgery and agreed to pay the amount.Consequently as instructed by the 1st opposite party, the petitioner visited the 2nd opposite party hospital on three days for various tests and after examination the 1st opposite party advised and tests which were conducted in the Hospital. Thereafter as directed by the 1st opposite party the petitioner attended at the 2nd opposite party hospital on 02-03-2015 and 1st opposite party done all the tests and examinations and convinced of the status of the disease of the petitioner and he admitted the complainant in the Hospital and conducted surgery on the right eye of the complainant in the operation theater of 2nd opposite party Hospital. On that day and on the next day(03-03-2015)morning on the advice of the 1st opposite party various medicines applied in the operated eye of the petitioner and on 03-03-15 as advised by the 1st opposite party the petitioner remitted Rs. 10,200/- in the Hospital and obtained receipt.Then the first opposite party informed the complainant and his relatives that the operation conducted on the complainant is successful and prescribed and given various medicines and discharged the complainant from the hospital on the same day.The 1st opposite party also advised the complainant to come to the hospital for review on 05/03/2015 or as and when required.Accordingly the petitioner left the hospital by about 11.30 am. Then the complainant applied the medicine as per the instruction given by the 1st opposite party. But at about 2 pm on the same day the petitioner felt severe pain on his right eye and it was swollen and started oozing water from the eyes and when such ailments increased, the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party hospital at about 3 pm.The person in the hospital informed the complainant that the 1st opposite party is at his residence and the complainant shall go and meet him at his residence.Accordingly the complainant along with his wife went to the house of the 1st opposite party situated at “Pathamkutty” and the 1st opposite party examined the complainant and advised to go to the 2nd opposite party hospital and get admitted.As per that instruction the complainant got admitted in the hospital.But the 1st opposite party came to the hospital only on the next day (04/03/2015), and examined the complainant and informed him that an infection occurred to his right eye and hence he shall immediately rush to the “Giridhar Eye Institute” at Ernakulam and for the 1st opposite party gave him a reference letter to that hospital at Ernakulam.In pursuance to that reference letter the complainant went to the“Giridhar Eye Institute” on the same day itself and got admitted in that hospital.The doctor who treated at that hospital conducted various tests and treated him till 07/03/2015.When the complainant was referred and got admitted at “Giridhar Eye Institute” on 04/03/2015 itself.After conducting scanning and other tests they informed the complainant that his right eye is severely infected and that resuming eyesight to that eye is very difficult and remote.The complainant was discharged from that hospital on 07/03/2015 by stating that there is no more treatment to be given to the complainant except the eye drops to be applied who was prescribed by them and that the same can be done at complainant’s residence itself.They specifically said that there is no chance for regaining eye sight to the right eye of the complainant.Thereafter and even now the complainant is continuing his treatment at “Giridhar Eye Institute” as an outpatient.According to the complainant is due to the gross negligence and callous disregard and due to the professional deficiency in service which is to be exercised like any other professional in this field and faculty of the 1st opposite party, the complainant lost his eye sight of right eye when the cataract operation was conducted by the 1st opposite party on the right eye of the complainant.The 1st opposite party should have exercised due care and caution that is expected to be exercised by any other doctor of his caliber.On 03/03/ 2015 1st opposite party has conducted on eye operation the complainant, and on the same day the 1st opposite party doctor hasconducted very same operation in some other patients in the same hospital and the complainant reliably understand that a few among them also experienced the various difficulties and ailments like what happened to the complainant and the same has happened as a result of negligence and deficiency in service of the 1st opposite party and also due to the absence ofcleanliness and infectious condition of the operation theater of the 2nd opposite party hospital.By fully knowing the said bad condition and absence of cleanness in the operation theater the 1st opposite party conducted the operation amounts to further negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party.The above said negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties happened when they rendered service after accepting consideration from the complainant. The complainant sustained irreparable injury loss and hardships due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and 2.
The complainant is a mason by calling and he had work on all days in a month and he was of robust health and he was fetching an income of Rs. 850/- per day.Moreover he used to work on all Sundays also on special request of employers and on such occasion he used to get Rs 1000/- per days as his labour charges.The complainant and his family were leading their life out of the income derived by the complainant. But because of gross and severe negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties the complainant lost hissight to his right eye completely and consequently the complainant is not able to go for his job of mason and he is now without any income for himself and his family.The above said plight of the complainant is due to the negligence and deficiency of the opposite parties. The damage sustained to the complainant is immeasurable, but still the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant jointly and severally by giving at least Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh).
2. The complainant on 29/4/2015 issued lawyers notice to the opposite parties by narrating the above facts and demanding the above said compensation.The opposite parties accepted the said notice on 02-05-2015 and issued separate reply notices incorporating very false and untenable contentions.In the above circumstances the complainant is entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-from the opposite parties and their assets with future interest @ 12% per annum. Hence the complaint.
3. opposite parties 1 and 2 resisted the complaint by filing separate versions by raising more or less same contentions which in short are as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in low or on facts. There is no negligence or deficiency in services on the part of 1st or 2nd opposite party as alleged by the complainant. However the first opposite party would admit that the complainant came to the 2nd OP hospital to consult the first opposite party in the OP on 05/02/2015 with history of defective vision in right eye. Examination under Slit Lamp Microscope showed mature cataract right eye and he was advised cataract surgery. The complainant came prepared for cataract surgery on 02.03.2015 and admitted at the second opposite party hospital and underwent all necessary pre-operative investigations and pre-anaesthetic evaluation. It is further contended that the first opposite party had informed and explained the pros and cons of cataract surgery namely small incision cataract surgery under local anesthesia and the complications involved in the procedure such as the chance of infection, bleeding, nerve injury, allergic reactions etc. After fully conversant with the pros and cons of the cataract surgery under topical anesthesia, the complainant voluntarily agreed and consented for cataract surgery. Under all aseptic care and precaution, the first opposite party had conducted right eye SICS under topical anesthesia in strict sterile condition. The first opposite party used standard and approved materials, solutions and medicines for ocular use for the procedure with due diligence and care. Intra operatively the procedure was uneventful and post operatively he was examined under Slit Lamp Microscope and the cornea was clear and intra ocular lens in the capsular bag and hence the complainant was discharged on the next day morning with specific post operative instructions for keeping the eye with care and observing cleanliness to avoid chance of infection.
It is further contended that the first opposite party had attended and treated the complainant with due diligent and care in strict regard to accepted medical practice and protocol expected from a qualified and experienced Ophthalmologist to be followed in the cataract surgery. The surgery was done in strict sterile condition in a well fumigated operation theater with sterilized instruments and used irrigating fluid after vulture and sensitivity. After the complainant reported with signs of post operative infection, all other patient underwent cataract surgery on the same day was called for review but no other patient had any visual deficit. Endophthalmitis can occur post operatively due to infection from many sources from the materials used by the complainant like handkerchiefs and unhygienic surroundings and from fingers etc. The fact that no other patients underwent surgery on the same day in the same operation theater contacted infection unequivocally proves that the complainant contacted infection from other sources after discharge from the hospital. In the light of the above stated facts there was absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in attending and treating the complainant and he is not liable to compensate the complainant. The averments stated in para 1 of the complaint regarding occupation of the complainant is not known to the first opposite party and hence not admitted. The complainant reported at the residence of the first opposite party at 07.00 pm on 03.03.2015 with complaints of redness, watering and blurred vision and clinical symptoms were suggestive of exaggerated uveitis and advised admission and started proper treatment. As the patient developed signs of endopthalmitis on 04.03.2015 he was referred to higher centre. The first opposite party had exercised due diligence and care as expected from a prudent medical practitioner and he cannot be held liable for the consequence of development after discharging the complainant from the hospital. The first opposite party is having qualification of MBBS and DOMS with experience of 27 years as a consultant Ophthalmologist.
-
to the experts, failures in cataract surgery might occur due to the condition of the patient, bad hygienic habits of the patients and refusal on the part of the patient purposely or otherwise to comply with the directions of the ophthalmologist who performs cataract surgery.There is absolutely no negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party while performing the cataract surgery on the complainant in this case.Being a skilled surgeon the 1st opposite party performed the cataract surgery on the complainant in the most efficient manner adopting all standard of care and caution that an ophthalmologist should have observed.The 1st opposite party cannot be blamed of negligence deficiency of service and lack of care and caution.St Thomas Mission Hospital, Kattanam is a well equipped hospital.There is absolutely no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Neither the 1st opposite party nor the 2nd opposite party committed any negligence while performing cataract surgery on the complainant.The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation either from the 1st opposite party or from the 2nd opposite party the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in services or negligence in treating the
Complainant by the 1st opposite party doctor at the 2nd opposite party
hospital.
(2) Whether the complainant is entitle to get the compensation, if so what
would be quantum of compensation to be awarded?
(3) Reliefs and costs?
5. Evidence on the side of the complainant consist of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, Ext.A1 to A11 series none of the opposite parties has adduced any oral evidence. However the opposite parties got marked as Ext.B1 and B2 treatment records and Ext.X1 and X2 answers to interrogatories by both parties.
The learned council appearing for both sides have filed notes of arguments. Heard both sides.
6. Points 1 and 2:-
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together. The complaint would allege medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party 1 and 2 and would claim compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- from the opposite parties jointly and severally There is no dispute with regard to the fact that 1st opposite party is the ophthalmologist working at 2nd OP hospital and the complainant has under gone treatment at that hospital and the 1st OP has treated the complainant and diagnosed cataract disease on his right eye and advised him to undergo a cataract surgery. Accordingly the complainant got admitted at the 2nd OP hospital on 2/3/2015 and on the next day the 1st OP has conducted cataract surgery on the right eye of the complainant and also discharged on the same day also prescribed medicines and advised for review on 5/3/2015 or as and when required. Ext.A1 bill would indicated that complainant on 3/3/2015 has paid Rs. 10,200/- as directed by the hospital authorities. In view of the above materials on record it is crystal clear that complainant is a consumer as defined under section 2(1) (d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
PW1 is the complainant himself he has deposed before the Forum that at the time of discharge the 1st opposite party doctor informed the complainant and his relatives that operation conducted is successful and given various medicines. It is also brought out in evidence that the complainant applied the medicine as per the instruction of the 1st opposite party but at about 2 pm on the same day the complainant felt severe pain on his right eye and right eye was swollen and started oozing water from eyes. Immediately PW1 rushed to the 2nd opposite party hospital and as directed from the 2nd opposite party hospital the complainant (PW1) and his wife (PW2) approached and consulted the 1st opposite party at his residence. There upon the 1st opposite party examined the complainant and advised to go to the 2nd opposite party hospital and get admitted. Accordingly the complainant got admitted at the 2nd opposite party hospital at about 8 pm on that day which is evident from Ext.B2 inpatient record. PW1 has further deposed that the 1st opposite party doctor came to the 2nd opposite party hospital only at 10.am on the next day 4/3/2015 and examined the complainant and informed that infection is affected to his right eye and also referred the complainant to Giridhar Eye Institute Ernakulam by issuing Ext.A2 reference letter to that hospital. The above version of PW1 stands corroborated by Ext.B1 and B2 treatment records. PW1 went to that hospital on the same day itself and under gone various tests at that hospital. The oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.A4 to A7 documents that PW1 has under gone treatment at that hospital till 7/3/2015. After obtaining scanning report and other test report the doctor at Giridhar hospital informed PW1 that his right eye has been severely infected and resuming eye sight to that eye is very difficult and remote. According to PW1 it was due to the gross negligence and callous disregard and due to the professional deficiency in service. Complainant lost his sight of right eye when the cataract operation was conducted by the 1st OP on his right eye. According to the PW1 the 1st opposite party should have exercised due care and caution that is expected to be exercised by any other doctor of his calibre and due to the negligence and carelessness the complainant has lost sight of his right eye. According PW1 there is absence of cleanliness at the operation theater of the 2nd opposite party hospital and hence infection affected and by fully knowing that infection condition of the operation theater the 1st OP doctor has conducted the operation which amounts to negligence on the part of the opposite party. According to PW1 he has sustained irreparable injury loss and hardships apart from monetary loss due to the loss of the sight of his right eye.
It is also deposed by PW1 that he is a mason by calling and he used to work on all days in the month and was obtaining an income of Rs. 850/- per days that by using that income himself and his family was leading a happy life. But due to the gross and severe negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties the complainant lost the sight of his right eye and hence not able to go for mason work and now he is without an income for his lively hood. Therefore according to the PW1 both opposite parties are equally bound to compensate him by paying compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. Though PW1was subjected to severe cross examination by the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd opposite party nothing materials has been brought out to disbelieve the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 documents . However it is brought out in evidence during cross examination of PW1 that he was a diabetic patient even prior to the date of operation. But the 1st opposite party doctor has made the complainant aware of the consequences of the cataract operation if made on diabetic patient. As the complainant is a diabetic patient the 1st opposite party doctor has to guard against the possibility of effecting infection especially when the complainant rushed to the 1st Op on the evening of 3/5/18
In view of the oral evidence of PW1 it is clear that the complainant has under gone surgery for his right eye, and removed cataract at the 2nd opposite party hospital and the 1st opposite party doctor has discharged the complainant on the same day by prescribing medicine and also giving instruction to use the medicines and with a direction to appear for review on 5/3/2015 or on any time. However on the same day evening the complainant felt bad on his operated right eye and he rushed to the 2nd OP hospital. There upon 1st Op was not available at that hospital, hence as instructed by the hospital authorities PW1 rushed to the residence of the said doctor and told regarding the bad condition of his right eye which was operated. Though 1st op has instructed to admit the PW1 at 2nd op hospital the doctor has not went to the hospital and properly examined the operated eye nor given proper treatment on that day or till 10.am on the next day which worsened the condition of the operated eye of the complainant. It is also clear from the available materials that 1st op came over at the 2nd OP hospital only on the next day at 10.am and on verification of the operated eye of the complainant at that time the same was found to be was unmanageable by him. Hence the 1st Op referred PW1 to Giridhar hospital Ernakulam. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that as the complainant is a diabetic patient, and the conduction of the operated eye has worsened etc are known to 1st opposite party In the circumstances the doctor could have visited the patient immediately after the 2nd admission given proper treatment or ought to have been referred to Giridhar Eye hospital or any other institution for a better management, and the 1st op doctor has done the same the condition of operated eye of the complainant would not have versioned and therefore according to the learned counsel for the complainant. Hence there is culpable negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party. In the circumstances of this case we find force in the above argument.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that complainant has miserably failed to observe the hygienic conditions which is highly required in a case of eye operation and as there is negligence on the part of the complainant and his wife in affecting infection on the operated eye and there is absolutely no negligence or liability on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief . But in view of the materials available on records we find little force in the above contention. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the complainant has administered medicine in an unhygienic manner and the wife of the complainant might to have touched nobe of the bottle containing medicine administrated on the operated eye and the towel used to rub the operated eye might be unhygienic from which also bacteria might have transmitted to the right eye which resulted in infection. But PW1 has denied the chance of causing the infection of bacteria on the operated eye of the complainant from the nobe or from the towel.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued before the forum that the 1st OP is a qualified ophthalmologist who used to conduct cataract surgery at the 2nd OP hospital every day but nobody other than the complainant has affected infection before this incident. Hence it is to be presumed that the qualification experience or hygienic conditions of the operation theater etc are not the reason for affecting infection on the operated eye. Nobody has any dispute regarding the qualification or experience of the doctor. However even according to the ops the 1st Op has referred the patient on 4/5/15 to a better hospital at Ernakulam for proper management of the operated eye of the complainant and after conducting various tests it was reported that the operated right eye of the complainant has been affected with infection and sight of that eye has been lost forever. The oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.C1 disability certificate would substantiate that fact.
It is to be pointed out that Ext.C1 disability issued by the Medical Board it is stated that there is disability 30%. Thought the opposite party would content that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party doctor the 1st OP has not mounted the box and given evidence to that affect. However the learned counsel appearing for the ops has caused to send interrogatories to Dr. Mahesh who issued Ext.A8 certificate and obtained Ext.X2 answers. The complainant has also caused to send another set of interrogatories and obtained Ext.X1 answers from the said doctor. By relying on Ext.X2 answer the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the contention of the Ops that they have adopted standard procedure in treating PW1 and hence there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that X2 answer to the interrogatories are not acceptable and reliable in evidence since it is not answered by any expert doctor. We find force in the above argument. Ext.X2 is seen answered not by any doctor but has been answered and signed by the administrator of the Giridhar Eye Hospital. It is seen from the Ext.X2 that the said administrator is not even having any qualification in ophthalmology nor even having any basic MBBS degree. Furthermore order X1 CPC enables the parties to the suit to furnish interrogatories with the sanction of the court to the opposite party/parties and not to any expert or ordinary witness. The learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on the dictum laid down in Dr. J.J, Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi reported in 200(2) K.H.C. 1328(SC) to substantiate that the opposite parties are entitled to obtain answers to the interrogatories supplied to expert witness like doctors. But we are unable to agree with the above argument. A mere rending of the decision sited above would indicate that it relates not to interrogatories stated under Order .XI CPC but relating to the examination of expert witness who filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. As per the dictum cross examination of the expert who files affidavit is also necessary. In the circumstances we are not inclined to accept or act upon Ext.X1 and X2 answer to interrogatories.
The learned counsel for the 1st opposite parties has argued that 1st opposite party doctor has treated the complainant with due care and caution and by observing standard procedure and protocol and hence there is no negligence on the part of OP1 doctor and OP2 hospital. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant by relying the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported 1999 Supreme Court 1441 has argued that the party to the suit does not appear and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by other side a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct and can draw adverse inference against him. I find force in the above argument. Here in this case the 1st op has not mounted the box and given evidence in support of his contention. The answer to Ext.X2 obtained from the administrator of a hospital would not substitute oral evidence especially when the rules’ regarding interrogatories has not been complied with while obtaining Ext.X1 and X2. On evaluating the entire materials on record we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant who has under gone surgery at the 2nd op hospital has lost his eye sight and has effected with 30% disability and he is unable to engage in mason work complainant has also succeeds in establishing that there is culpable negligence and deficiency in service on the side of the 1st OP. It is settled law that if there is negligence on the part of the doctor who treated the patient, the hospital which engaged the doctor is vicariously liable. Hence Op1 doctor and Op2 hospital are liable to pay compensation for the loss of sight of the right eye operated.
Now we shall consider the quantum of compensation to be awarded. The fact that complainant is a mason by calling is not seriously disputed in this case. The complainant has admittedly sustained 30% disability during the beginning of the year 2015. According to PW1 he was getting Rs. 850/- as wages and as a mason and used to go for work on ever day in a week including holidays and Sundays he used to get more wage to the tune of Rs. 1000/-. When he work on Sundays No person could be able to work on all days in a month. However there is no reliable evidence expect the oral evidence of PW1 that he used to do work on all days in a month and used to get Rs. 850/- per day and also sued to get extra wages on holidays. Usually a mason will get work at the most least for 25 days in a month and as on those days the salary of a mason was Rs. 800/- per day. If it is considered that the complainant being a mason will get work at least 25 days and his wages per day was Rs.800/- the monthly income of the complainant as on those days was 800 x 25= 20,000/-
It is clear from the available materials that complainant was at the age of 57 as on the date of undergoing surgery. A skilled person is expected to carry out mason work at least till the age of 65 years . if that be so the complainant has lost the remuneration for 8 years work as a mason. It is clear from Ext.C1 disability certificate that the complainant has sustained 30% of disability. However PW1 has deposed that he is unable to continue his work as a mason and he has not been doing that work or any other work. But as the complainant has sustained only 30% disability the loss of income of the complainant can be calculated as follows:- 20,000 x 12 x 8 x 30/100 = 5, 76,000/-
It is also brought out in evidence that as the complainant has affected infection of his right eye he has suffered pain and mental agony apart from the loss of job as a mason. Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation for pain and mental agony apart from loss of earnings. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- will be reasonable and sufficient. In the circumstances of this case the complainant is also entitled to get cost of proceedings the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The points answered accordingly.
Point No. 3
In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.5,76,000 ( Five lakh seventy six thousand only ) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint till realization for the loss of employment. OP1&2 are also directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint till realization as compensation for the pain and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the opposite parties.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay the above amount of Rs.6,76,000/-(Six lakh seventy six thousand only) along with interest and costs of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs.6,76,000/-(Rupees Six lakh Seventy six thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with costs Rs. 10,000/- from the date of order till realization from Op 1 &2 jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 05th day of October, 2018.
Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Sd/-Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Babu (Witness)
PW2 - Wife of Babu(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Discharge Bill
Ext.A2 - Discharge card
Ext.A3 - Reference Letter
Ext.A4 - Discharge summary
Ext.A5 series - Giridhar eye Institute Medicine details.
Ext.A6 - Acknowledgement Card
Ext.A7 - Acknowledgement Card
Ext.A8 - Giridhar Eye Institute letter pad.
Ext.A9 - Postal Receipt
Ex.A10 series - Giridhar Eyes Institute Drug Bills
Ext.A11series - Taxi Bills -
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Out patient Record
Ext.B2 - In patient Record
Ext.C1 - Medical Board Certificate.
Ext.X1&X2 - Affidavit
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
