Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

51/2014

Mr.David Thyagaraj,M.A.B.L(Advocate) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Nagappan, M.S, Orthopedic Surgeon, - Opp.Party(s)

V.s.Venkatesh

23 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                               Complaint presented on  :  19.3.2014

                                                                   Order pronounced on  :  23.06.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 23^rd   DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

C.C.NO.51/2014

 

 

Mr. David Tyagaraj,M.A.B.L.,

Advocate,

S/O M.M.Tyagaraj,

No.38,1^st Street,

Bill Nagar,

Choolaimedu, Chennai – 94.

                                                                             ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Dr.Nagappan,

M.S., (Ortho), D.Ortho,

Orthopedic Surgeon,

4, Thirumurthy Street,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.

 

2.M/S. Bharathi Rajaa,

Hospital & Research Centre,

No.11, Madley Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.

 

3. Dr. Satish, M.S.,

No.19, 3^rd lans,

Habibullah Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.

 

 

4. Dr.C.Natesan,

M D.F.C.G.P. F.R.S.H. (London)

The Managing Director,

M/S. Bharathi Rajaa

Hospital & Research Centre,

No.11, Madley Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.

 

5. Dr.Mrs. Vasanthi Natesan,

M.B.B.S., D.G.O,

The Medical Director,

M/S. Bharathi Rajaa,

Hospital & Research Centre,

No.11, Madley Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.

 

6. The Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Divisional Office,

No.10, 36, Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                              : 19.03.2014

Counsel for Complainant                                  : V.S.Venkatesh

Counsel for 1^st, 2^nd , 4^th , 5^th 6^th opposite parties  : M/S.M.B.Gopalan

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                            : Ex parte                   

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant met with a road accident on the night of 05.01.2000 within the limits of Soonampet Police Station and he was admitted at the Government Hospital, Pondicherry. After initial treatment and investigation the Doctors advised the Complainant to go to Chennai for expert treatment. Accordingly on 06.01.2000 he came down to Chennai and consulted his family Dr. Satish /3^rd Opposite Party and admitted himself at the 2^nd Opposite Party’s  hospital. The 1^st Opposite Party orthopedic Surgeon started treatment on the Complainant. The Complainant suffered with fracture on the right thigh femur and left hip dislocated. The 4^th and the 5^th Opposite Parties’ are the directors of the 2^nd Opposite Party’s/hospital. The 1^st Opposite Party conducted treatment for the left hip closed reduction. On 09.01.2001 open reduction surgery was conducted on the right femur and internally fixing the plate and screws at the 2^nd Opposite Party hospital. The Complainant suffered with persistent pain on the left hip and an X-ray was taken on the dislocated hip and internal pin   transaction was attempted by the doctor was of  no use.  The Complainant suffered with continuous pain. Since the 2^nd Opposite Party is not having facility to take CT scan, he had taken CT scan outside which revealed that there was necrosis on the head of the femur and fracture of the acetabulacavity.  If the Opposite Parties would have taken care immediately, the necrosis would not have been formed. The Opposite Parties consulted Dr.Madhan Mohan Reddy who was working at the Apollo Specialty Hospital, Nandhanam. The said Dr.Madhan Mohan Reddy advised the Complainant to undergo total hip replacement. Hence the Complainant was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Nandhanam on 17.01.2000, wherein the total hip replacement was done by the said doctor.  At the 2^nd Opposite Party  hospital the Opposite Parties have aggravated the injuries in the hip and thereby committed medical negligence by the reduction of hip and traction which was a  miserable failure.   On 27.04.2000 when x-ray was taken and found that the external plate was bent, since the inferior quality plate was fixed. Further the surgery done on the right femur external fixation of plates which is orthopedically out model. The Complainant body weight could not withstand by external plate fixed in the operation. Dr.Madhan Mohan Reddy had attended to   fix the femur bone by external plaster. The femur bone did not unite properly, since the external plates got bent inversely prevented the reunion of the fracture of femur bone which was broken into 3 pieces.

2. After two months, the Complainant consulted Dr.Paul Ayya Kutty who had examined his left femur and found that there is a non union and bending of the plate and advised him that the femur bone will not unite unless a surgery is done. Thereafter the Complainant underwent a surgical correction operation for removal of the defective plate on 28.06.2000 which was fixed by the Opposite Parties and reduction of the femur was done through interlocking nailing which later became a success. Due to the negligent treatment of the Opposite Parties the Complainant lost his normal gait of walking which caused him permanent disability. The plate fixed to him is of inferior quality and the same are in the possession of the Complainant and the said plates and screws were charged for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. On the contrary the exact cost of the plates and screws of that particular made is only Rs.940/-. The Doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to this case. The 2^nd Opposite Party was not having required infrastructure   for conducting operation. Due gross medical negligence committed by the Opposite Parties the Complainant suffered with mental agony pain and suffering, loss of earnings and exorbitant medical expenses and also with disabilities.  Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint claiming compensation of Rs.17,21,500/- on various heads  with interest and render justice.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IS IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party is a qualified orthopedic surgeon having more than 25 years of experience. He was working in various Government Hospitals and simultaneously doing private practice and hence he is having rich experience.  The Complainant had suffered grossly, comminuted fracture in the middle 1/3 of the right femur and dislocation of left hip with fracture of acetabulam. In respect of left hip as it was a case of dislocation and more than 24 hours had elapsed. Closed reduction was performed on 06.01.2001 itself under general anesthesia taking into account that the task of a vascular necrosis setting in closed reduction was the immediate and appropriate procedure and universal method of treatment and the same was therefore performed without any delay. The Complainant was kept under observation on 07.01.2001 and 08.01.2001 to decide upon his condition and fixing the date for surgery on the right thigh. This Opposite Party had discussed the plan of treatment. The Complainant’s wife had even signed, acknowledged the same in the case sheet itself.

4. On 09.01.2000 prior to the surgery on the right thigh when the traction of the left leg was released there was shortening of the left leg, again x-rays of both hips were taken which  showed a re-dislocation of the left hip and fracture of acetabulam denoting unstable left hip.  The open reduction internal fixation with bone grafting for the right femur was done. It was found at the time of the surgery that there were three butterfly fragments. One of the fragments was found without any soft tissue attachment and was therefore removed. The bigger butterfly fragment which had a soft tissue fragment was fixed with lag screw after which the fracture was stabilized with broad dynamic compression plate and nine screws. The missing bone area due to the removal of a fragment and the gross comminuted fracture was filled up with bone grafting from right Iliac Bone. After completion of the surgery, check x –rays were taken which showed that the fracture was in good alignment after fixation.  Again x-rays were taken on 10.01.2000. It was seen that the left hip was still unstable dislocation and it is expected that after the closed reduction procedure the joints would settle down.  On 14.01.2000 Complainant underwent C.T.Scan of Left Hip joint. The Scan Report showed among other features. Fracture of the Acetabulam itself, fracture of femoral head and bony fragments in the joint space, which was responsible for re-dislocation and failure to respond to the closed Reduction Method. The treatment of closed reduction became failure. Hence Dr. Madhan Mohan Reddy of the Apollo Hospital was consulted and thereafter the Complainant was discharged from the 2^nd Opposite Party and then admitted at the Apollo Hospital. The replacement surgery on the left hip of the Complainant was conducted on 19.01.2000 at the Apollo Hospital. The closed reduction method is a universal method of treatment of a dislocation in the initial stage. The replacement of the hip is not advised as a first step itself and in the event of failure to respond to the normal approach then should go for other method. The C.T.Scan was one which revealed the possibility of the fractured femoral head or the acetabulam as well as the bone pieces. Even at the Apollo Hospital there was no difficulty to the Complainant on his right thigh. The Complainant failed to heed the advice of the 1^st Opposite Party not to walk or bear weight on the right thigh especially being of obese nature and failure to hear the advise of the 1^st Opposite Party, the right thigh plate had been required slightly further surgery.

5. After discharge from the 2^nd Opposite Party hospital, the Complainant never came to the 1^st Opposite Party. Without prejudice to the above defenses., this Opposite Party submits that he has availed professional Indemnity Insurance Policy from the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office No.10, 36, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 34 vide policy No.7367/2001 covering liability if any against claims as the present one. As such this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

6 .WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2, 4 & 5 OPPOSITE PARTIES IS IN BRIEF:

          The 1st Opposite Party filed detailed written version with regard to various allegations made in the Complaint. These Opposite Parties adopted the written version of the 1^st Opposite Party and confirms the averments contained therein. The 4^th & 5^th Opposite Parties are added only to derive monetary advantage from them. The claim made in the Complaint exaggerated and baseless and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          7. Though on behalf of the 6^th Opposite Party vakalat has been filed, there is no written version filed on his behalf.

8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

       1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

        2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If it is so, to what extent?

9. POINT NO:1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant met with an road accident on the night of 05.01.2000 within the limits of Soonampet Police Station and thereafter he was admitted in the Government Hospital Pondicherry and initial treatment was given and thereafter he was discharged at his request of the Complainant as per Ex.A1 discharge slip and thereafter the Complainant admitted in the 2^nd Opposite Party hospital at Chennai. On 06.01.2000 and the Dr.Madhan Mohan Reddy/1^st Opposite Party who attended the Complainant advised him to undergo test and based on the test and x-ray taken, he found that the Complainant  suffered with fracture in the middle 1//3  of right femur bone and dislocation on the hip with fracture of acetabulam. Similarly, it is not disputed that on 06.01.2000 itself under general anesthesia taking into account the risk of a vascular necrosis setting in and hence he conducted closed reduction and after 2 days on 09.01.2000 for the right femur fracture the open reduction internal fixation with bone grafting for the right femur was done and at that time of surgery he found three butterfly fracture and one of the fragment was found without any soft tissue attachment and hence the same was removed. The bigger butterfly fragment which had a soft tissue was fixed with screw and the fracture was stabilized with dynamic compassion plate and 9 screws and after completion of surgery check x-ray was taken which showed that the fracture was in good alignment and however the hip was still   unstable and hence after consulting Dr.Madhan Mohan Reddy at Apollo Hospital, the Opposite Parties have discharged the Complainant and where he had undergone hip replacement surgery on 19.01.2000.

          10. Admittedly that the 1^st Opposite Party has conducted closed reduction initially on 06.01.2000 for the left hip dislocation of the Complainant and then he conducted surgery on 09.01.2000 on the right femur by fixing plates and screws for the fracture. The 1^st Opposite Party himself pleaded in the written version that the x-ray was taken on 10.01.2000 revealed that the left hip was still unstable. The Complainant also complained that he is suffering with unbearable pain on his left hip. Hence the 1^st Opposite Party had discussed the case with a senior orthopedic surgeon Dr.Madhan Mohan Reddy at Apollo Hospital, Nandhanam and in furtherance of such consultation, the 1^st Opposite Party discharged him on 16.01.2000 at the 2^nd Opposite Party’s hospital and the Complainant admitted at Apollo Hospital on 17.01.2000 and undergone hip replacement surgery on 19.01.2000. It is crystal clear that the 1^st Opposite Party only discussed the case of the Complainant that Dr.Madhan Mohan Reddy for   further treatment of the Complainant at the Apollo Hospital.

          11. The Complainant contended that the 1^st Opposite Party is not an efficient doctor in the orthopedic and that is why he referred him to Dr.Madhan Mohan Reddy  and further after arrival  from the Pondicherry Hospital the 1^st Opposite Party ought to have conducted all the test including CT Scan for his  left hip and then only proceeded for the treatment but the 1^st Opposite Party has failed to diagnose properly for giving further treatment and therefore the act done by the 1^st Opposite Party leads to  the other Opposite Parties’ are also vicariously liable. Now we have to find out whether the closed reduction treatment for the dislocation of hip is a universal method and the same has to be adopted in the first instance before   conducting the entire replacement of left hip.

          12 .The literature in respect of hip dislocation authored by Rockwood and greens  (Six Edition) Fractures in adults and camp bells operative orthopedics (Eleventh Edition) says that initially for hip dislocation treatment of closed reduction has to be done first and in case it fails then open reduction has to resorted. This is the case of the 1^st Opposite Party also. Hence the 1^st Opposite Party is well aware that when the closed reduction fails, he has to resort for open reduction treatment. In the case in hand, closed reduction treatment on the left hip of the Complainant admittedly failed and the Complainant suffering with severe pain. However the 1^st Opposite Party doctor without resorting to the treatment of open reduction on the Complainant, he consulted Dr.Madhan Mohan Reddy attached with Apollo Multi Specialty Hospital and sent the Complainant for hip replacement and accordingly an artificial hip was replaced on the Complainant in his left hip. But there is no explanation from the 1^st Opposite Party by sending the patient to the some other doctor to continue further treatment. It  only establishes that the 1^st Opposite Party doctor has no knowledge of treatment of hip replacement and the 2^nd Opposite Party’s hospital is not having sufficient infrastructure for conducting such surgery with them. The 1^st Opposite Party also admitted that CT scan facility not available in the hospital. According to the 1^st Opposite Party having served in various Government Hospitals and also very well knew that if the closed reduction fails then the hip replacement (Open Reduction) has to be done. In this case also the closed reduction admittedly failed. If it is so, he ought to have resorting himself to go for hip replacement. But per contra the 1^st Opposite Party has  consulted and referred to another  doctor at Apollo Hospital without assigning any reason in the discharge summary for not performing the hip replacement by him which  leads to an irresistible conclusion that the 1^st Opposite Party is not having any adequate knowledge to conduct the hip replacement and thereby referring to another doctor for such a treatment clearly amounts for  Deficiency in Service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party is not having sufficient infrastructure to conduct such surgery which would also come under deficiency. 

          13. The 1^st Opposite Party conducted surgery on the right femur of the Complainant on 09.01.2000 and the doctor found during surgery that there were three butterfly fragments and one was without soft tissue attachment, hence it was removed and the bigger butterfly fragment which had soft tissue attachment was attached to proximal fragment with a bag screw and another the distil fragment was aligned with the proximal fragment and then fixed with abroad DC Plate and with 9 screws.  According to the 1^st Opposite Party’s version that after such surgery when the Complainant was discharged after the said surgery from the 2^nd Opposite Party’s hospital, for further treatment at the Apollo Hospital, the Complainant had not complained anyfault about the surgery done by the 1^st Opposite Party on the right femur and hence the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any fault while conducting surgery on the right femur.

          14. It is further contended by the Complainant that the plate fixed by the 1^st Opposite Party got bent and hence he was forced to undergo another surgery with another doctor which  establishes that the 1^st Opposite Party put an inferior quality of plate and therefore he has committed Deficiency in Service. The reply for this argument of the Opposite Parties are that he had not heeded the advice given by the doctor not to walk till the bone joins together and without permission of the doctor he put on weight on the plate by walking and the plate got bent and therefore the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any fault.

          15. The 1^st Opposite Party conducted surgery on the right femur on 09.01.2000 and he was discharged on 16.01.2000 for further treatment of the left hip at Apollo hospital he has issued Ex.A4 discharge summary. In the said discharge summary, the 1^st Opposite Party had not specifically written anything about the fact that he should not lift any weight or walk , after duly informed by the doctor only he should walk.  No post care advise was given in Ex.A4 discharge summary in respect of the surgery done at the right femur. The Opposite Party produced literature JB & JS Failure in performance of surgical implants, it has been stated at page 66 and 67 of the typed set under the heading investigation of failure that surgeon should record his operative findings carefully in respect of  

1. The details of the condition for which the device was originally inserted, including dates, place of operation, operative procedure, and so forth.
2. The details of postoperative treatment and, in particular, any episode, such as premature weight-bearing or undue loading, which directly preceded the failure.

The above literature clearly shows that the surgeon should not only record the aperture findings but also post operation care to be followed by the patient. In the case in hand the 1^st Opposite Party doctor had not given any advice in Ex.A4 discharge summary that he should not walk or any other thing. Failure to record post operative care of the patient by the 1^st Opposite Party establishes deficiencies on his part.

          16. Admittedly the plate put up by the 1^st Opposite Party doctor on the right femur of the Complainant by way of surgery got bent and to correct the same he had undergone another surgery at Aysha Hospital and the procedure done to him plate removal and interlocking nail right femur which is evidenced under Ex.A4 discharge summary. Since the plate put up by the 1^st Opposite Party got bent, primafacie establishes that the plate used by him is of inferior quality. The 1^st Opposite Party contended that it is the Complainant to prove that the plate used on his right femur is of inferior quality. It is the 1^st Opposite Party doctor who has fixed the plate and he only knows the quality of the plate. Therefore the burden shift on the doctor to prove that he had not used inferior quality of the plate. No such evidence on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party adduced that the plate used is not an inferior quality. Therefore we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party used only inferior quality of plate and thereby committed deficiency.

          17. The Complainant contended that though he was admitted in the 2^nd Opposite Party’s hospital on 06.01.2000 and attended by the 1^st Opposite Party doctor he had not given any treatment for the fracture right femur bone for 3 days and that it proves his deficiencies. The 1^st Opposite Party pleaded in his written version that the Complainant  was kept under observation on 07.01.2000 and 08.01.2000 to decide upon his condition and fixing the date for surgery on the right thigh and he was assessed not only by him and also by the cardiologist and diabetologist and  then  the surgery was fixed on 09.01.2000. Absolutely there is no document available on 07.01.2000 and 08.01.2000 that the Cardiologist and Diabetologist observed him. No reports for undergoing any test on those days were filed. Therefore waiting for 2 or 3 days to undertake the surgery on 09.01.2000 is a clear case of delay as contended by the Complainant. In this respect also the 1^st Opposite Party has committed Deficiency in Service. Therefore as discussed above in all respects the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service in respect of conducting surgery on the fragments of right femur of the Complainant.

          18. It is held as above that the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service while conducting treatment or surgery on the Complainant at the 2^nd Opposite Party hospital. The 4^th and 5^th Opposite Party are the directors of the 2^nd Opposite Party hospital and therefore the 2^nd ,4^th and 5^th Opposite Parties are vicariously liable for the acts committed by the 1^st Opposite Party and therefore we hold that the 2^nd 4^th and 5^th Opposite Parties have also committed Deficiency in Service.

          19. The 1^st Opposite Party pleaded in his written version that he has availed professional Indemnity Insurance Policy from the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd and vide policy no.77367/2001 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- The policy taken by the 1^st Opposite Party has  been filed in Ex.B1series. As per Ex.B1 series he had taken policy in the year 2000 and hence the policy is in force on the date of surgery   period i.e., 06.01.2000 to 15.01.2000. Therefore the treatment period covered in the policy. Therefore, it is held that the 6^th Opposite Party being the insurer is also liable for the Deficiency in Service committed by the 1^st Opposite Party.

          20. As for as 3^rd Opposite Party is concerned, he has only suggested the 1^st Opposite Party/ doctor. More suggestion will not amount to Deficiency in Service. Therefore we hold that the 3^rd Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service

21. POINT NO :2

           In point No.1, it is found that Opposite Parties 1,2,4,5&6 committed Deficiency in Service and hence the Complainant suffered with pain and mental agony is acceptable. For such suffering it would be appropriate to order a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- would be justifiable. Further the Complainant spent for treatment a sum of Rs.­­­57,823/- towards medicines and doctors fees at the 2^nd Opposite Party hospital under Ex.A2 &18, also spent a sum of Rs.5,22,676/- towards medicines and doctor fees at Appollo Hospital Ex.A6  and also spent a sum of Rs. 38,308/- towards medicines and doctor fees at Aysha Hospital under Ex.A13 & 18 and totally the Complainant incurred expenditure on medicines and doctor fees a sum of Rs.6,18,807/- and  he is entitled for the same. However, there is no pleading in respect of the bills filed  in the type set of documents that the Complainant had taken treatment in respect of the same. Therefore in respect of such bills the Complainant is not entitled for the amount  therein.

22. The Complainant claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of earning. The Complainant is an advocate. There is no pleading that how long the Complainant stopped his practice due to his ailment. The Complainant admitted in the hospital on 06.01.2000 and discharged at the Aysha Hospital on 03.07.2000. Nearly for 6 months the Complainant had taken treatment intermittently and after discharge nearly for 6 months he may not have attended his profession and thus totally the Complainant suffered loss earning for a period of one year.  Further, to determine the loss of income the monthly income of the Complainant is not known. Considering that the Complainant is an advocate, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income. The Complainant claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards permanent disability. However, there is no disability certificate filed by the Complainant and therefore the Complainant is not entitled for any relief on the head of permanent disability.  The case is filed in the year 2001 before the State Commission and then transferred to this Forum in the year 2014 and the same is pending nearly 15 years and considering the same it would be reasonable to order a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses. Thus the Complainant is entitled for the relief as indicated above from the Opposite Parties 1,2,4,5 &6 and the Complaint in respect of the 3^rd Opposite Party and other reliefs are liable to be dismissed.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The  opposite parties 1,2,4,5 & 6  jointly or severally  are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for pain and suffering and mental agony to the Complainant,  also to pay a sum of Rs. 6,18,807/-(Rupees six lakhs eighteen thousand eight hundred and seven only)   towards  medical expenses incurred by the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) towards loss of income, besides a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The complaint in respect of the other relief sought for and also the complaint against the 3^rd opposite party are dismissed.  

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd   day of June 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 06.01.2000	Discharge slip from Govt. General Hospital, Pondicherry
Ex.A2 dated 06.01.2000 to                      17.01.2000	Serial of Bills along with prescriptions at Bharathi  Raja Hospital
Ex.A3 dated 06.01.2000 to                     15.01.2000	Prescriptions at Shankar Clinical Laboratory
Ex.A4 dated 16.01.2000	Discharge summary of Bharathi Raja Hospital
Ex.A5 dated 15.01.2000	Bills received from Dr. Nagappan
Ex.A6 dated 17.01.2000 to                     29.01.2000	Bills, Prescriptions from Appollo Speciality Hospital
Ex.A7 dated 28.01.2000	Discharge summary of Apollo Speciality Hospital
Ex.A8 dated 02.03.2000 to                     27.06.2000	Serial of bills at Sai Poly Clinic
Ex.A9 dated 05.05.2000 to                     15.05.2000	Arul Clinic & Nursing Home Dr.Britto Chezhiah’s bill
Ex.A10 dated 16.06.2000	Estimate bill of test bone plate
Ex.A11 dated 27.06.2000	Hameatology test from IRFAN X – Ray and labs
Ex.A12 dated 29.06.2000	Serology test from IRFAN X  - Ray and labs
Ex.A13 dated 27.06.2000 to                       03.07.2000	Serial of bills at Aysha Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.,
Ex.A14 dated 03.07.2000	Discharge summary of Aysha Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.,
Ex.A15 dated 27.04.2000	X-ray
Ex.A16 dated 07.05.2000	Photos and negatives o f the plate and screws
Ex.A17 dated 01.06.2001	Bill for Photo developed
Ex.A18 dated NIL	Medical Bills
Ex.A19 dated NIL	Travelling Bills
Ex.A20 dated 16.03.2000 to                       01.04.2001	Physiotherapy Bills
Ex.A21 dated 29.01.2000 to                       20.03.2001	Miscellaneous Bills
Ex.A22 dated 18.04.2001	Legal notice caused by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A23 dated 05.04.2001	Acknowledgement Card
Ex.A24 Dated 08.04.2001	Corrigendum Notice
Ex.A25 dated 02.05.2001	Acknowledgement Card
Ex.A26 dated 16.06.2001	Reply notice sent by third Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.A27 dated 04.07.2001	Rejoinder reply notice sent by Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex.A28 dated 07.07.2001	Returned cover by the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A29 dated 18.07.2001	Telegram sent by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex. A30 dated NIL	First Information Report

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated 31.04.2002                         Letter from O.P.1  to O.P. Oriental Insurance

                                                      Co.Ltd. with enclosures    

 

                            

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT