KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. OP No. 69/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 08-01-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT COMPLAINANTS 1. A.M. Muhammed, 64 years, S/o Muhammed, Aikkaraparambil House, Udumbannur P.O., Idukki District. 2. Sainaba Muhammed, 49 years, W/o Muhammed, Aikkaraparambil House, Udumbannur P.O., Idukki District. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. A. Abdul Kharim and others) Vs OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Dr. Kunhalan Gurukkal, Changampalli House, Edakkulam, Thirunnavaya P.O., Malappuram District, Kerala. 2. Dr. Firdous Iqbal, D/o Kunhalan Gurukkal, Changampalli House, Edakkulam, Thirunnavaya P.O., Malappuram District, Kerala. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Reghu Kumar and others) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The complainants are the parents of deceased Muhammed Anaz age 23 who died on 12.04.2001. It is the case of the complainants that their son Anaz was treated at the institution run by the opposite parties who are father and daughter, by name Changampalli Vaidhya Bhavan Marmma Chikitsakendram and Herbal Research Centre at Kunuumpuram, Thirunnavaya in Tirur Taluk, Malappuram District. It is alleged that the chances of survival of their son who was suffering from cancer were lost on account of the wrong treatment administered and false assurances given. Anaz was affected by Osteogenic Sarcoma on his right femur and was being treated at Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. Dr.Geetha Narayanan who was treating him advised that his right leg has to be amputated so that the disease can be prevented from spreading to the other parts of the body and the life can be saved. The deceased was the only child of the complainants. Hence they hesitated to amputate the leg. Meanwhile, the complainants happened to read a news item published in the ‘Madhyamam daily’ on 01.05.2000 wherein the opposite parties in a press conference has stated that they are treating all sorts of tumour which could not be treated by allopathic system. The complainants approached the opposite parties on 08.05.2000. The complainants had explained the history of treatment and shown the prescriptions and advice given by the doctors. On examination of their son the opposite parties told that the condition was not serious and could be completely cured by Ayurvedic treatment. It was also assured that the deceased could be completely cured without amputating the leg. Further the first opposite party gave a written assurance sealed and signed by him in his letter head on 08.05.2000, ensuring complete cure without amputating the leg. Believing the assurance and representations of the opposite parties the allopathic treatment was discontinued and from 08.05.2000 their son was treated by the opposite parties. At the time the treatment and medicines continued as per the advice of the opposite parties and frequently the same was reviewed by the opposite parties and medicines advised. It was stated that the medicines are prepared by the opposite parties. As there was no improvement the opposite parties advised that there will be slight increase of the disease in the initial stage and that thereafter the condition will be improve and the patient will recover. On 09.09.2000 a written assurance was given that their son will be completely cured within six months. Despite the treatment spending a huge amount from 08.05.2000 to 01.11.2000 the condition became worse and worse. The complainant’s son had to use cretches for walking although at the time of initiating the treatment by the opposite parties he was normal. In addition there was increased pain and inflammation of his right leg. On 01.11.2000 the condition worsened and it was directed to take X-ray and the same was taken and it was shown to them. On seeing the X-ray it was misrepresented by the opposite parties that it is full of water inside the leg and that the same has to be extracted and was advised to take the patient to some other hospital for the above purpose as there was no facility available in the institution of the opposite parties. The complainants took their son to Excelsior Hospital, Thodupuzha. Again X-ray was taken and Dr.Geetha Narayanan of Regional Cancer Centre was consulted. She observed that the disease has spread all over the body including the lungs and that there is little chance of survival. The treatment was continued at the above hospital in consultation with the doctors of the Regional Cancer Centre. The right leg of Anaz was amputated as a palliative measure. The doctors of the Regional Cancer Centre scoled the complainants for discontinuing the allopathic treatment. They were told that if the allopathic treatment was continued the spreading of the disease could have been avoided. The opposite parties mislead and trapped by the complainants by giving false assurances. The opposite parties treated the patient fully knowing that the disease would not get cured by their treatment. It is the wrong and false treatment of the opposite parties that resulted in the untimely death of their son. The deceased was the only child of the complainants. He was very bright in studies and he had passed the S.S.L.C examination with I class and P.D.C (Ist group) in IInd class. He had completed his course in Electricals in Ist class from Government I.T.I, Ettumanur. Thereafter he was employed in Water Authority for six months. He had joined the degree course in Functional English at St.Thomas College, Pala. He was unmarried. For treatment and medicines from the opposite parties the complainants had spent more than Rs.50,000/- and for traveling and auxiliary expenses they have spent Rs.30,000. The deceased suffered much pain during the period of treatment under the opposite parties. The complainants have claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. 2. Mr.Anaz had filed an indigent O.P.at Sub Court, Tirur on 30.03.2001 as O.P.2/01. Since he died on 12.04.2001 the above O.P was dismissed. 3. The opposite party filed a joint version contending that the present complaint is not maintainable as Mr.Muhammed Anaz had filed a complainant in Forma pauperis in Sub Court, Tirur claiming Rs.4,50,000/- as damages for an identical cause of action as O.P. 2/2001 and the same was dismissed on 13.07.01 as the legal heirs did not get impleaded. The first complainant had filed a private complaint before JFMC, Tirur on 20.1.01 and the same is spending as C.C.803/01 on identical cause of action. The first opposite party has initiated criminal proceedings on 12.7.01 against the first complainant alleging that he has forged the letters obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and used the same as genuine. The above letters are being produced in present case also. As the criminal cases are pending the present complainant is not maintainable. 4. Changampally Vydya Bhavan Marmachikilthsa Kendram and Herbel Research Centre at Tirunavaya belonged to the 1st opposite party where the 2nd opposite party is working as a consulting physician. The 1st opposite party is a Medical Practitioner entitled to practice Ayurvedic system of medicine being the scion of a hereditary vydhya family of repute. He is practicing for the last 30 years. The High Court of Kerala has protected the right to practice Ayurvedic system of medicine by traditional vaidyas in various writ petitions. The drug manufacturing licence of the 1st opposite party issued by the Drugs Controller of Kerala is valid from February 2000 onwards. The deceased was suffering from Osteogenic Sarcoma which is a highly malignant bone tumour of young patients with maximum incidents between 15 and 20 years of age : reported 5 years survival rate vary, but few exceeds 15% and occurring in 1 in 7,75,000 of the population, according to Baily and Love. It is contended that apart from Dr.Geetha Narayanan of RCC the deceased was taken to several other doctors practicing in different institutions. It is untrue to say that Dr.Geetha Narayanan suggested that if the leg is amputated, further spread of the disease can be checked and cured. It is not clear as to what was the stage of disease when the complainant left the above doctor. The fact is that the patient and his parents were unwilling to undergo amputation as there was no scope for survival even after amputation. 5. It is further contented that the allegation with respect to the news item in the Madhyamam daily is misleading. Some kids affected by brain tumour happened to be treated by the opposite parties and they got relief. For the parents of the children it was a matter of extreme happiness. One of the patient’s was related to one of the editorial staff and he took the initiative to get the matter published. He invited the opposite parties to participate in the conference that he convened. The opposite party have not made any promise that they could cure any tumour. 6. It is further pointed out that when the deceased was brought to the opposite parties he was in a very pathetic condition. The opposite party examined the patient and perused the documents given by Dr. A.V. Remadevi and the doctors of the RCC. It was convinced that the disease was incurable. It was not mentioned in any of the treatment records that the disease could be cured completely by amputating his right leg. The first opposite party was told by the opposite parties as to the condition. The 1st complainant had also admitted that the doctors has stated that even after amputation of the leg complete cure cannot be guaranteed and hence they have skipped amputation. He requested to provide some treatment to sustain the deceased and to eradicate his pain. The 1st complainant wanted to admit his son in the hospital of the opposite parties. But the opposite parties refused to do so as there was no hope of saving the patient. 7. It is contended that the alleged written assurance is fabricated. It is denied that the opposite parties told after some time of treatment that there will be slight increase of the disease in the initial stage and thereafter it will subside. The allegation that on 09.09.2000 another written assurance was given that the disease would be completely cured within six months is false. In fact the first opposite party was considerate towards the patient and his father because of their unenviable plight. The 1st opposite party considered the 1st complainant as a reliable and honest person. The 1st opposite party wanted a certificate to the effect that his son is being given Ayurvedic treatment in the hospital so that it could be submitted for soliciting assistance from the Prime Minister’s Fund. The 1st complainant was aware that as his (first opposite party) handwriting was not steady the writings were being done by the second opposite party. The first complainant had brought a rough format and he told the first opposite party that he can prepare the certificate. Hence at the request of the first complainant the first opposite party handed over two prescription sheets and signed on it after it is prepared by the first opposite party. After one week the first complainant again approached stating that certificate earlier given were in the letter head in the Malayalam language and that the matter is to be type written and so he needed a set of two certificates for soliciting benefit from the Prime Minister’s Fund. The 1st opposite party told him that he can issue the certificates with the help of the 2nd opposite party and that she was not available in the hospital at the time and asked him to come on a day when both are available. But the first complainant in all humility and showing undue hurry to return home told that the certificates are very urgent and that he need it on the very next day, and he requested for two blank letter heads in English language and with signature and the official seal and that he can type the certificates on the same. The 1st opposite party in a weak moment gave him two letterheads signed and after affixing seal. The above certificates produced are the result of fabrication and fraud. 8. It is denied that a huge amount was spent for treatment. At best the complainant would have spent Rs.7,000/- for medicines for the treatment. The opposite parties have not seen the patient after 01.11.2000. It is denied that the opposite parties referred the patient to CSI Hospital, Codacal for taking X-ray and told that inside the leg is full of water and that the same has to be evacuated somewhere else. In fact the condition had much improved by the treatment of the opposite parties and the complainant had repeatedly requested the opposite parties for admitting the patient. The opposite parties have given the patient only scientific treatment as per the system practiced by the opposite parties. The complainants were willingly taking an experiment despite being dissuaded by the opposite party. The complainants are trying to cash on the misfortune. The illness was not aggregated as a result of the treatment given by the opposite parties. It is pointed out that the Xerox copies of the biopsy report, scan reports of bone, spine, chest and extremities and the case history showed that till 29.04.2000 the highly malignant tumour with involvement of bone marrow had spread into the patients skull, mandible, spine, ribs, left tibia etc and the clinical impression of the doctors who treated the patient showed that he was affected by osteogenic sarcoma almost all over the body. It is pointed out that the above documents of 08.05.2000 has not been produced. A direction was sought to get above documents ie, three scan reports, biopsy report, case history from the RCC be produced by the complainants; as well as the case sheet of Excelsior Hospital, Thodupuzha and RCC, Thiruvananthapuram and forward same to a medical body for getting expert opinion as to what was the chances of survival of the patient and whether he could have been cured by amputating the left leg on 08.05.2000 and what was the condition on 01.11.2000. 9. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs1 to 3, RW1, Exts.P1 to P12, Exts.R1 to R11; and interrogatories and replies in two in numbers from Dr.Geetha Narayanan and Dr. O.T. George. 10. The question of maintainability was considered in detail and disposed of vide order in IA 985/05 dated 24-03-2008 (reported in 2009(1)CPR 452) 11. In support of the allegations in the complaint, PW1 the first complainant, who is the father of the deceased Anaz has testified. PW2 is Dr. Geetha Narayanan of RCC, Thiruvananthapuram who had attended the patient after he was registered on 17-04-2000 at RCC and diagnosised the illness. PW3 is Dr. O.T. George of Excelsior Hospital, Thodupuzha who referred the patient to RCC on 14-04-2000 and thereafter attended the patient on 28-11-2000 and also did the amputation of the right leg of the patient. RW1 is the second opposite party, the daughter of the first opposite party and who is a qualified Ayurvedic Physician. Ext.P1 is the certificate dated 08-05-2000 in the letterhead of the opposite parties and signed by the first opposite party and issued to the deceased. It is mentioned therein that in the traditional system of medicine there are ayurvedic medicines, which are more potent and effective than allopathic medicines and that without operation etc. illnesses such as tumor can be completely cured. It is also stated therein that the tumor on the right leg of the above person can be cured without amputation. Ext.P2 series are the prescriptions with respect to the above patient. The same are also in the letterhead of the opposite parties. Ext.P3 is another certificate dated 09-09-2000 also in the letter head of the opposite parties wherein it is mentioned that on application of Ayurvedic medicines the symptoms will come out and the disease will aggravate and that there is nothing to be frightened and that the illness will subside and will get totally cured in six months. The same is also signed by the first opposite party. Ext.P4 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 17-01-2001 sent on behalf of the deceased to the opposite parties. Ext.P5 is the reply lawyer notice to Ext.P4 notice. Ext.P6 series are the bills for purchase of medicines etc. Ext.P7 is the copy of the notice sent by the first complainant dated 27-11-2000 to the first and second opposite parties. Ext.P8 is the reply to Ext.P7 sent by the first opposite party. Ext.P9 is the certificate issued by Dr. O.T. George dated 19-12-2000 mentioning that the patient came to him at first on 28-03-2000 with pain and swelling over the lower end of the right femur and that as the clinico-radiological picture was suggestive of osteosarcoma of the thigh bone, a bone biopsy was taken on 01-04-2000 and histopathology report showed osteosarcoma lower end of right femur and that he was referred to RCC, Thiruvananthapuram for further management. It is also mentioned that in the RCC he was investigated thoroughly and he was advised for amputation of the right femur and chemotherapy but the patient went for some Ayurveda treatment (as per the records of the RCC). It is also mentioned that the patient came back to him on 28-11-2000 with a huge swelling attaching almost the lower ¾ of the right thigh. It is further mentioned that his chest X-ray showed multiple secondaries in the lungs. As a palliative measure he was amputated just below the right hip joint after getting opinion from RCC, Thiruvananthapuram. It is further mentioned that his chances of survival at present is very remote because of multiple secondaries in the lung. Ext.P10 is the copy of the SSLC certificate of the deceased which would show the date of birth as 25-03-1997 and that he obtained 374 marks out of 600. It is seen from the above document that marks in between 360 - 479 would be treated as first class. Ext.P11 is the copy of the Provisional Permit for Electrical Wireman issued to the deceased and the Certificate of Competency. Ext.P12 is the certificate issued by the Personel Manager of Michael’S Inn (P) Limited, Kumily, Thekkady mentioning that Mr. Anaz has completed his training period from 01-09-1999 to 14-10-1999 as Receptionist in the Hotel. 12. Ext.R1 is the biopsy/cytology report from Doctors Diagnostic Centre, Ernakulam dated 08-04-2000 as referred from Excelsior Hospital. The diagnosis is that a biopsy from the lower end of femur showed osteosarcoma. The nature of the specimen is mentioned as open biopsy. Ext.R2 nil dated is the report of X-ray of chest, right femur and knee joint from RCC. The report signed by the Imageologist is that; cardiac size normal; lung field clean. The sign of malignant bone tumour is the impression. Ext.R3 is the report from the Nuclear Medicine Division of RCC dated 15-04-2000 with respect to the bone scan. It is mentioned therein that high uptake noted over the lower end of right femur; multiple linear areas of uptake seen over the ribs on both sides. Intense uptake noted over the skull – frontal, parietal and right mandible; hot spots are also seen over left tibia upper end, L4, L1, D10, D9, D8. Ext.R4 is the CT scan report of Chest and Extremities dated 28-04-2000. It is mentioned in the report that the study revealed normal lung fields on either side without any evidence of parenchymal lesions or lung nodules to suggest metastases; there is no pleural effusion or pleural thickening. Trachea and bronchial tree appeared within normal limits; bony cage is normal. The result of the right femur study is also mentioned therein. The impression noted is that it is consistent with osteosarcoma right distal femur, with marrow involvement to about 14 cm above joint line. Ext.R5 is the CT Scan report of Spine dated 29-04-2000 of RCC, Tvpm. It is mentioned therein that the plain CT study of the spine revealed an irregular hypodense area with loss of trabeculation in the anterior aspect of vertebral body. The legamentum flava is hypertrophied causing minimal lumen narrowing at L5/S1 level. It is also mentioned that FNAC cannot be done as the vertebral lesion is inaccessible. An open biopsy is advised, it is mentioned. Ext.R6 is the case summary record of RCC. The date of registration is mentioned as 17-04-2000. Ext.R6 is dated 15-12-2000. The final diagnosis is osteogenic sarcoma right femur. The history is mentioned as presented with pain and swelling of right femur of two months duration; history of fibrous dysplasia present. The investigations done mentioned included biopsy, X-ray, CXR and CT chest, CT leg, bone scan. The result of bone scan is mentioned as multiple linear areas of uptake seen over ribs both sides, increased uptake over skull; hot spots left tibia, L4, L1, D10, D9, D8 which are probably due to fibrous dysphasia. It is further mentioned that the treatment option and complications were discussed with the father and they refused treatment and opted for Ayurvedic treatment. Ext.R7 is the certificate issued by Dr.O.T. George dated 06-07-2001. It is mentioned therein also that at the RCC he was advised amputation of right femur and chemotherapy but he went for some ayurvedic treatment. Subsequently he came to the above doctor on 28-11-2000. It is also mentioned that amputation was done below right hip after getting opinion from RCC, Tvpm. It is also mentioned therein that the deceased had got admitted in the particular hospital for dyspnoea and haemoptysis of different periods ie, from 27-02-2001 to 01-03-2001; 08-03-2001 to 09-03-2001; 13-03-2001 to 25-03-2001 and again he was admitted on 06-04-2001 with dyspnoea and that he expired on 12-04-2001 on account of multiple secondaries from osteosarcoma. Ext.R8 is the copy of the sworn statement of the first complainant before the JFCM in the private complaint filed against the opposite parties. 13. One of the major contentions of the opposite parties is that by the time the deceased was brought to the institution of the opposite parties, the illness had already spread to the vital parts of the body and it was practically a gone case and that they have only treated him to reduce pain etc. It is their case that they had refused to treat the diceased at first but on account of the pathetic condition and pleadings of the first complainant, the first opposite party agreed to treat him but sternly refused to admit him as an inpatient. PW2 Dr. Geetha Narayan, RCC, Tvpm who diagnosised the illness and suggested treatment options was examined as PW2. She was also served with Interrogatories to which she has answered. She was cross examined at the instance of the opposite parties. Her statements are in tune with the observations made in Ext.R6 case summary record of RCC. Of course she has stated in the answer to the interrogatory served by the Counsel for the complainant that it is difficult to pinpoint that in April 2000 when she first examined the deceased he was having osteosarcoma only at the lower end of right femur only. She has asserted that she had advised for amputation of the right femur and chemotherapy. If the same has been done the prognosis is that his condition would have been better. She has also stated that it is difficult to say as to whether the life of the patient could have been saved by amputation. The amputation done at last was for palliating the patient of the severe pain he was suffering from and to give him a better quality of life for the rest of his life. In the cross examination she has stated that the deceased was not treated at all in the RCC. She has admitted that Ext.R5 scan report is not mentioned in Ext.R6 case summary record. Ext.R5 the CT Scan of spine is seen done at RCC. (In Ext.R5 it is noted that FNAC cannot be done as the vertebral lesion is inaccessible and also open biopsy was advised. It is also noted therein that legamentum flava is hypertrophied causing minimal lumen narrowing at L5/S1 level). She has stated that she wanted to differentiate whether the lesion is fibrous dysplasia as the patient had a history of fibrous dysplasia. The above scan was done because the bone scan was positive in certain areas. She has admitted that the clinical impression as noted in Ext.R5 is osteosarcoma at L4 vertebral lesion. It is evident from her statement that she has seen Ext.R5 although it is not noted in Ext.R6. There is no suggestion in the cross examination that she has not seen Ext.R5. She has stated that the prognosis was that if the patient is given curative treatment of surgery and chemotherapy he has a chance of survival. To a specific question she has sated that she would assess as 30 to 40% chance of survival if the treatment advised by her was done. She has also stated that metastasis ie, the spreading of the disease occurs through bloodstream. She has admitted that there are findings in the bone scan report as to multiple linear areas of uptake over ribs both sides, skull and hotspots left tibia, L4, L1, D10, D9 and D8. The same are probably due to fibrous dysphasia. The same is mentioned in Ext.R6 itself. She has stated that CT chest was normal. The same is noted in Ext.R6. She has asserted that when she saw the patient in May 2000 he did not have the disease in the lungs. 14. PW3 is the Dr. O.T. George, Orthopaedic Surgeon of Excelsior Hospital, Thodupuzha who referred the patient to RCC, Thiruvananthapuram on 14-04-2000. He was also served with interrogatories by the complainant and he has replied to the same. He was also cross examined by the opposite parties. He has stated that he clinically and radiologically diagnosed that there is tumour on the lower end of right femur and hence referred to RCC. He has also stated that as per Ext.R4 CT Scan report dated 28-04-2000 from RCC, it is seen that tumour has affected even the bone marrow of right femur. He has also stated in answer to the interrogatives that the multiple shadows suggestive of secondaries are noted in X-ray chest. Ext.R7 is the certificate issued by him. He has stated that he had consulted the doctor at the RCC before he amputated the leg of the deceased. But there is no documentary evidence to establish the same. 15. We find that there is no reason as such to disbelieve PW2 Dr. Geetha Narayan of RCC who has proved Ext.R6 case summary record. Her opinion is based on investigations done. She has seen all the reports of investigations including Ext.R5 CT Scan of Spine although the same is not specifically mentioned in Ext.R6. The same is evident from her testimony. The deceased was under the treatment of the opposite parties from 08-05-2000 up to 01-11-2000 ie, about 6 months. 16. The first opposite party has not testified to substantiate his contention that Ext.P1 and P3 assurances in the letterhead are fabricated documents. The alleged circumstances can only be proved by the first opposite party. RW1 the second opposite party was not a witness with respect to the alleged handing over of blank letterheads. All the same, on a close examination of Ext.P1 there is a wide gap in between the portions wherein the assurance is typewritten and the signature and seal is seen. In Ext.P3 the difference in space is not that much. Even then we find that the evidence tendered by PW1, the complainant cannot be discarded, especially in the absence of contra evidence on the part of the 1st opposite party. 17. All the same, in the version of the opposite parties as well as in the testimony of RW1, it is admitted that the opposite parties were present at the press conference which has been allegedly reported in a vernacular newspaper wherein the opposite parties have claimed that they have successfully treated tumour affected children (The particular newspaper was not produced; and only a paper cutting of the news item is seen in the records and the same was not marked). RW1 has also claimed that certain children affected by tumor have got cured in the treatment of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not disclaimed the fact of publication in the newspaper. They have only denied their active involvement in getting the matter published. We find that the above is a circumstance that would indicate that the first complainant who was disinclined to amputate the leg of his son was attracted by the above publication. In the circumstances, the version of PW1 that the opposite parties assured cure need not be disbelieved. It appears to be still the attitude of the opposite parties that children affected by tumour in the brain were treated and cured. The first complainant evidently was in a desperate mental condition and absolutely vulnerable. Offering treatment for terminal diseases like cancer and assuring cure is manifestly unfair and amounts to exploitation of the desperate situation of the illfated patients and their parents. It is evident from the testimony of PW2 the doctor of RCC that there can be no assurance of recovery even if the leg was amputated and chemotherapy started. But she has stated that there is 30 to 40% chances of survival. The deceased and his parents did not gain anything from the treatment under the opposite parties. RW1 the second opposite party who is a qualified MBBS doctor has made no attempt to establish that there is cure or effective treatment in the Ayurvedic system for the disease of cancer. Further the opposite parties have not produced any documentary evidence to establish the qualification of the first opposite party who is described as DOCTOR in the letterheads. The circumstances would indicate that the deceased and his parents were the victims of the misleading publicity and verbal assurances of the opposite parties. Hence we find that it stands established that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service in the treatment imparted. 18. So far as the compensation is concerned, the amount claimed is Rs. 6,00,000/-. The medical bills produced only amounted to around Rs. 10,000/-. There was no IP treatment in the hospital of the opposite parties. The deceased was a young man aged 24; and a bachelor. Ofcourse, it was brought out that the first complainant has got other children also. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that there is no assurance that the deceased would have survived and upto how many years taking into consideration the nature of the particular disease, we find that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- can be treated as reasonable compensation. The opposite parties are also liable to pay interest at 7.5% from the date of complaint ie, 23-07-2001. The opposite parties are also liable to pay cost of Rs. 6,000/-. The amounts have to be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest at 12% per annum from today. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT APPENDIX Witness for the complainant PW1 A.M. Muhammed PW2 Dr. Geetha Narayan PW3 Dr. O.T. George Exts. for complainant P1 Certificate dated 08-05-2000 in the Letterhead of the opposite parties P2 series Prescriptions with respect to the patient P3 Certificate dated 09-09-2000 in the Letterhead of the opposite parties P 4 Copy of the lawyer notice dated17-01- 2001 sent on behalf of the deceased to the opposite parties. P5 Reply lawyer notice to Ext.P4 notice P6 series Bills for purchase of medicines etc. P7 Copy of the notice sent by the first complainant dated 27-11-2000 to the first and second opposite parties P8 Reply to Ext.P7 sent by the first opposite party P9 Certificate issued by Dr. O.T George dated 19-12-2000 P10 Copy of the SSLC Certificate of the deceased P11 Copy of the Provisional Permit for Electrical Wireman issued to the deceased and the Certificate of competency P12 Certificate issued by the Personel Manager of Michael’S Inn (P) Ltd., Kumily, Thekkady Witness for the opposite party RW1 C.K.J. Firdouse Exts. For opposite party R1 Biopsy/cytology report dated 08- 04-2000 from Doctors Diagnostic Centre, Ernakulam R2 Report of X-ray of chest, right femur and knee joint from RCC R3 Report from the Nuclear Medicine Division of RCC dated 15-04-2000 with respect to the bone scan R4 CT Scan report of Chest and Extremities dated 28-04-2000 R5 CT Scan report of Spine dated 29-04- 2000 of RCC, Tvpm. R6 Case summary record of RCC R7 Certificate issued by Dr.O.T. George dated 06-07-2001 R8 Copy of the sworn state of the 1st complainant before the JFCM R9 Proceedings of the JFCM Court, Malappuram R10 Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar, Travancore -Cochin Medical Council for Indian Systems of Medicine to Jannathul Firdouse R11 Certificate of renewal of licence to manufacture for sale of Ayurvedic/Siddha/or Unani Drugs issued by Deputy Drugs Controller (Ayurveda) and Licensing Authority JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT | 
