Date of Filling      :  20.12.2010.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  : 09.08.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.01/2011

(Dated this Tuesday the 09^th day of August 2016)

M. Revathi,

W/o. Joshua Raj Mohan,

B-1, Vijay Apartment,

2^nd Main   Road,

J.B. Estates,

Avadi,

Chennai - 600 054.                                                      … Complainant.

/ Versus /

1.  Dr. Ranganathan,

     Dr. Valarmathian Nursing Home,

    No.4, 10^th Street, Kamaraj Nagar,

    Avadi,

    Chennai - 600 071.

2. Dr. Komalavalli,

    Dr. Valarmathian Nursing Home,

    No.4, 10^th Street, Kamaraj  Nagar,

    Avadi,

    Chennai - 600 071.

3. Mrs. Dr. G. Revathy,

    W/o. Dr. Udhayakumar,

    No.3-A, 3^rd Street,  Lazar Nagar,

    Kamaraj Nagar,

    Avadi, Chennai - 600 071.                                            … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 29.07.2016 in the presence of M/s. A.R. Poovannan, Counsel for the complainant, M/s. A. Ramaswamy, Counsel for the 1^st opposite party and Thiru. G. Head Weige, Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and M/s. N. C. Ravichandran, Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party and  having perused the documents and evidences of the of both sides, this Forum delivered the following,

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1 to 3 opposite parties for seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the loss, damage, pain, sufferings, mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant which leads to deficiency in service and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

During her pregnancy, the complainant was in consultation with one Dr. G. Revathy at Avadi.  The L.M.P. was on 16.02.2008 and E.D.D. was on 23.11.2008, accordingly as per the above Doctor’s advice, the complainant got admitted in the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital on 09.11.2008 and surgical incision was done at Lower segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) on 10.11.2008, wherein a live male child was begotten.  During the period of admission at the opposite party’s hospital, the complainant was not cared.  The opposite party’s hospital has not engaged a proper anesthetic and due to the gross medical negligence and deficiency of service rendered by the 1^st opposite party at the 2^nd opposite party Nursing home, during the course of pre - surgery, wherein the complainant incurred acute pain and severe nervous shock, due to improper spinal anesthesia procedure being carelessly done.  The complainant was then referred to neurologist to overlook the negligent spinal anesthetic procedure. Subsequently, the complainant was discharged with the baby on 14.11.2008, with advice to take physiotherapy treatment and tablets.

2.       The complainant incurred acute pain in the left leg even after discharged from the opposite party’s nursing home and therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party’s nursing home for  treatment but in vain.  Hence left out with no other alternative, the complainant sought for treatment elsewhere with the reputed doctors namely Dr. A.A.R. Jegathraman and Dr. S. Rajamony and spent a huge sum of above Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment and medical expenses.  Till date acute pain and tenderness is persisting in the complainant’s leg due to foot drop in left leg, which is a sheer outcome of improper spinal anesthesia procedure being carelessly done by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant is unable to walk or stand continuously for more than 10 minutes, unless with the help of an assistant or cock up spent chapels.

3.       The complainant is put to untold pain only because of the carelessness of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has not taken due care in dealing the complainant at the time of her operation.  Thus the 1^st opposite party has committed gross negligence in his part.  The 2^nd opposite party is also vicariously liable to compensate the complainant.   The complainant therefore on 09.09.2010 had issued a legal notice to the 2^nd opposite party for damage and compensation and the opposite parties replied to get their remedy from Dr. G. Revathy.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

4.       The contention of written version of the 1^st opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

The 1^st opposite party strongly denies the averments made in the complaint.  The 1^st opposite party has no knowledge about the complainant having consulted with Mrs. Dr. G. Revathy during her pregnancy and further he has no knowledge about the complainant Last Menses Period (L.M.P.) and also about her Expected date of delivery (E.D.D.).  The 1^st opposite party admits that the complainant was admitted in the 2^nd opposite party’s Hospital on 09.11.2008 and surgical incision was made to complainant on 10.11.2008       (L.S.C.S) and wherein a live male child was begotten.  But the 1^st opposite party have no knowledge about the care given to the complainant at the 2^nd opposite party’s Hospital during admission time. 

5.       It is denied that the 2^nd opposite party’s Hospital has not engaged proper anesthetic, for this allegation the complainant has to put strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party’s Hospital never engaged the 1^st opposite party as anesthetic for anesthetic services.  Mrs. Dr. G. Revathy has only engaged the 1^st opposite party giving anesthetic to the complainant.  Mrs. Dr. G. Revathy who used to practice in her private clinic after Government Hospital working hours.  On 09.11.2008 around 9:00 P.M., Mrs. Dr. G. Revathy called the 1^st opposite party from her mobile phone and informed that, she had taken the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital operation Theatre for Hiring basis for Lower Segment Caesarean Section (L.S.C.S) to her patient to be done on 10.11.2008 at around 6:00 A.M. and requested that to provide the 1^st opposite party anesthetic service at the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital.

6.       As per request of Dr. G. Revathy, the complainant arrived the 2^nd opposite party hospital on 10.11.2008 around 5:30 A.M. and after adequate pre-operative evaluation, a spinal anesthesia was given on 10.11.2008 at 6:00 A.M.  Further, the 1^st opposite party states that the surgery was done by Mrs. Dr. G. Revathy before, during and after surgery the complainant was maintaining perfect health.   The 1^st opposite party strongly denies the allegation against him that during the course of pre-surgery wherein the complainant incurred acute pain and severe nervous shock, due to improper spinal anesthesia procedure being carelessly done, for this allegation the complainant has to put strict proof of the same.  The 1^st opposite party is a qualified person for giving anesthetic service and the Government of Tamil Nadu has recognized him to provide anesthetic services in the District of Thiruvallur.

7.       The 1^st opposite party strongly denies the allegation against him that he has carelessly done a spinal anesthesia to the complainant.  It is denied that she was referred to neurologist to overlook the negligent spinal anesthetic procedure and the complainant failed to mention in her complaint that who was neurologist, who was brought in and what kind of treatment he has given and when the neurologist brought to the 2^nd opposite party’s Hospital, this averments are totally silent.  The 1^st opposite party has no knowledge about when the complainant was discharged and which doctor discharged the complainant and with that advice she was discharged from the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital. 

8.       The 1^st opposite party’s job was over on 10.11.2008 itself.   Further if any detail about, the complainant treatment has well known by Mrs. Dr. G. Revathy and she is just and necessary party to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts.  The 1^st opposite party has no knowledge about the complainant illness and treatment after discharge from the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital.  The 1^st opposite party states that Dr. A.A.R. Jegathraman is a qualified doctor, but Mr. Dr. S. Rajamony is not a qualified doctor as prescribed by the ‘Medical Council of India’.  The 1^st opposite party states that Dr. A.A.R. Jegathraman examined the complainant and found no medical negligence, hence the allegation against the opposite parties 1 & 2 is baseless.

9.       The documents produced by the complainant before this Hon’ble Forum itself shows that, the complainant health is very good and there is no bad health nature was found.  Hence the claim of compensation from the opposite parties does not arise.  The allegation against the 1^st opposite party, he had committed gross negligence in his part does not arise, since the 1^st opposite party is qualified person before, during and after surgery the complainant was maintaining perfect health.  As on date there is no legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party which itself clearly shows that, the complainant malafide intention to graph the much more from the 2^nd opposite party.   To disprove the allegation, the records produced by the complainant has to refer to Medical Board fixed by this Hon’ble Forum and get opinion from the Medical Board and decide the matter according to law.  There is no cause of action arise to complainant and there is no medical negligence was made by the 1 & 2^nd  opposite parties.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

10.     The contention of written version of the 2^nd opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

The 2^nd opposite party denies each and every allegation in the complaint filed by the complainant herein as untrue excepting those that are strictly and specially admitted herein.  The said Dr. G. Revathy being known to the 2^nd opposite party for longer time, had only taken for rent the well equipped operation theatre of the 2^nd opposite party on 09.11.2008 to operate the complainant herein.   Besides a single room in the hospital of the 2^nd opposite party for 5 days for the complainant’s stay during post operation period all on a total rent of Rs.4,000/- paid on 14.11.2008 as supported by respective receipt given by the 2^nd opposite party.  It was only the reference by Dr. G. Revathy, the complainant got admitted in the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital on 09.11.2008 in the said manner and did the said surgical incision work at the Lower Segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) on 10.11.2008 on the complainant.  It is during the period of admission at the 2^nd opposite party’s Hospital, the complainant was not cared by the 2^nd opposite party was totally denied as false and fabricated.  The 2^nd opposite party once again reiterates, that the complainant was a patient of Dr.G. Revathy, from the time of admission, during the said operation, the post operative period and to the present and the 2^nd opposite party had no role played with regards to the said admission for surgery, the surgery and post operation period, excepting her role to allow the operation theatre and room on rent basis as stated supra. 

11.     It is again wrong to state that the 2^nd opposite party engaged the anesthetist for the surgery of the complainant.  It was only referred to Dr. G. Revathy, brought the anesthetist Dr. Ranganathan along with her for the application of requisite anaesthesia to the complainant prior to the said operation and the said anesthetist was paid by Dr. G. Revathy only.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that Dr.G. Revathy only will be responsible and liable vicariously, if the complainant proves the negligence of the said anesthetist, arranged by Dr.G. Revathy during the administering of anesthesia to the complainant.

12.     The fact that the complainant was discharged by Dr. G. Revathy on 14.11.2008 from the Hospital of the 2^nd opposite party alone is admitted.  The allegations that the complainant was referred to neurologist by the 2^nd opposite party to overlook the alleged negligent spinal anaesthic procedure and that the complainant on discharge on 14.11.2008 was advised by the 2^nd opposite party to take physiotherapy treatment and tablets are all denied as false.  As the complainant was throughout the patient of the said Dr. G. Revathy, the allegations in para. no.4 of the complaint become baseless and cock and bull stories.

13.     At any stretch of imagination, the complainant cannot connect negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and therefore, the complainant cannot legally claim any amount as compensation much less the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- claimed in the complaint for the reasons stated supra from the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party had suitably replied to the legal notice of the complainant, asking her to proceed against the said Dr. G. Revathy for compensation.  There is no cause of action for the complainant at all to file this complaint against the 2^nd opposite party and this complaint is baseless with no merits both in law and in facts.  The vicarious liability cannot be attributed to the 2^nd opposite party as the 2^nd opposite party is totally a stranger to the 1^st opposite party as the 2^nd opposite party has not engaged the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party had only provided the well equipped ‘operation – worthy’ Theatre with Hi-Tech Machines, to Dr. G. Revathy purely on rent only.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

14.     The contention of written version of the 3^rd opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

The 3^rd opposite party is an unnecessary party both in the original complaint as well as in the amended complaint.  There is no allegations in the complaint against this opposite party regarding medical negligence, even in the complaint para.3 & 4 and the complainant has not pleaded about the negligence committed by the 3^rd opposite party.  No relief can be claimed against the 3^rd opposite party.  The specific case of the complainant is the 1^st opposite party alone committed the medical negligence.  Exemplary costs should be awarded as against this opposite party.  Hence this complaint may be dismissed.

15.     In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A29 were marked.   While so, on the side of the 1^st opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed  and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked, on the side of the 2^nd opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed and Ex.B6 & Ex.B7 were marked and on the side of the 3^rd opposite party the proof affidavit is filed and no documents is marked on his side.

16.    At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

17.     Written arguments filed on the side of the 3^rd opposite party and oral arguments adduced on the side of the complainant.  In spite of sufficient time given for adducing oral arguments on the side of the 1 to 3 opposite parties, they have not come forward to adduce oral arguments and hence it is closed.

18.     Point no.1:-

As per the case of the complainant is that during the course of pre-surgery, the complainant sustained pain and severe nervous shock due to improper spinal anesthesia procedure being carelessly done by the 1^st opposite party, who is engaged by the 2^nd opposite party and thereby, the complainant is having acute pain and tenderness due to the foot drop in left leg and thereby, she is unable to walk or stand continuously for more than 10 minutes, unless with the help of an assistant or cock up spent chapels and also the complainant is put to untold pain and mental agony and therefore, there is a gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

19.     On the other hand, the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties fully denied the allegations made by the complainant and it is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubts.  Furthermore, it is contended that the 1^st opposite party is a qualified Doctor as prescribed by the “Medical Council of India” and has very carefully done the spinal anesthesia to the complainant on 10.11.2008 and during completion of operation in lower segment  Caesarean Section (LSCS) and took care of the complainant’s health and also it is narrated that before, during and after surgery the complainant was maintaining perfect health and hence, there is no gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

20.     At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is crystal clear that the complainant is having bounden duty to prove the allegations made in the complaint with relevant and acceptable evidence.  In such circumstances, on careful going through the proof affidavit of the complainant, it is seen that the complainant was continuously consulted with the 3^rd opposite party in connection with her pregnancy and to that effect, the prescriptions from Ex.A2 to Ex.A4, Ex.A6 to Ex.A9 and  Ex.A11 to Ex.14 were given on various dates.  Similarly, Ex.A5 & Ex.A10 are the Lab Test Report as referred by the 3^rd opposite party dated 14.05.2008 and 12.10.2008 respectively.  It is further learnt that the complainant got admitted in the opposite party’s hospital on 09.11.2008 for surgical incision in Lower segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) on 10.11.2008 wherein a live male child was begotten and subsequently, the complainant was discharged with the baby on 14.11.2008 with advice to take physiotherapy treatment and tablets.   Pre Discharge case sheet note book is marked as Ex.A1.  In continuation physiotherapy treatment was undergone from 31.12.2008 to 22.01.2009 for which Ex.A15 & Ex.A16 are marked.

21.     It is further stated by the complainant that after discharge from the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital, the complainant incurred acute pain in the left leg and immediately, she approached the 3^rd opposite party for the treatment but ended in vain and therefore, the complainant sought for treatment with the reputed Doctors namely Dr. A.A.R. Jegathraman and Dr. S. Rajamony and immediately, the complainant was admitted and got treatment for the persisting of pain and tenderness due to past spinal anesthesia and due to food drop in left leg which is sheer outcome of improper of spinal anesthesia procedure being carelessly done by the 1^st opposite party for which Ex.A18 is marked.  In continuation of the advice of the above said Doctors, the complainant has taken medicines as well as further treatment from “Tamil Nadu Orthotics and Prosthetics Centre” which is marked as Ex.A19 to Ex.A22.  Ex.A23 is the Certificate given by Dr. S. Rajamony, that the “complainant was suffering from foot drop and severe leg pain due to Post Spinal Sequalac and is undergoing treatment” for which the  prescription given by the Dr. A.R. Jagathraman is marked as Ex.A24.  Ex.A25 is the cash receipt for the purchase of foot drop splint.  Ex.A28 is the photograph of the foot print. Ex.A29 is the cash receipt for taking of the said photo.  Ex.A17 is the medical certificate of the complainant for availing medical leave.

22.     The complainant further stated that she was put to untold pain only due to negligence of the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is also vicariously liable for the same and thereby, they have committed gross negligence in service and hence she had issued a Ex.A26, legal notice dated: 09.09.2010 to the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties and inturn the 2^nd opposite party had sent a reply dated 22.09.2010 which is marked as Ex.A27.

23.     While so, from the evidence of the 1^st opposite party, it is learnt that he is a fully qualified person of giving anesthetic service and the Government of India has recognized him to provide anesthetic services in the District of Thiruvallur and with such qualification and experience he has followed the anesthetic procedure properly. In this connection Ex.B1, the Medical Registration Certificate, Ex.B2 Faculty of Medicine Certificate for completion of “Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery” Course, Ex.B3, Additional Qualification Registration Certificate Ex.B4 Post Graduate Diploma Certificate in Anesthesiology, Ex.B5, Letter of the Joint Director of Medical Rural Health Services and Family Welfare, Tiruvallur of the 1^st opposite party have been marked  and therefore, the allegations in the complaint are of false and fabricated and hence there is no deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint against the 1^st opposite party. 

24.     On the other hand, on the side of the 2^nd opposite party, it is stated in her proof affidavit that the complainant is only the patient of  the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party was known to her for  longer time and she had only taken for rent the well equipped theatre of the 2^nd opposite party on 09.11.2008 and the complainant stayed there for 3 days in the post operation period and for that the complainant paid rent of Rs.4,000/- on 14.11.2008 and discharged on 14.11.2008 with good health for which Ex.B6, the final bill and Ex.B7, the discharge summary are marked. 

25.     Furthermore, it is narrated in her evidence that the allegations that the complainant was referred to neurologist by the 2^nd opposite party to overlook the negligent spinal anesthetic procedure and was discharged with the advice to take physiotherapy treatment and tablets.   It is further stated that, infact the complainant was not at all engaged by the 2^nd opposite party and it was only done by the 3^rd opposite party who had engaged the 1^st opposite party and hence any stretch of imagination, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party since the 2^nd opposite party has simply rented the operation theatre to the 3^rd opposite party for doing surgery.

26.     At the outset, this Forum has to decide whether the complainant has proved the medical negligence on the part of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties with available materials submitted before this Forum.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant was admitted in the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital and undergone Lower Segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) on 09.11.2008 and the surgery was done on 10.11.2008 and thereafter, she was discharged on 14.11.2008 from the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital.  Similarly, there is no dispute that the 1^st opposite party had  given anesthesia during surgery and the said surgery was done by the 3^rd opposite party.   Such facts have been established through Ex.A1, Case Sheet book.   In that book, the 1 to 3 opposite party’s names have been noted for their act.  At this point of time, on careful perusal of the documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A15 which are the prescription and Lab test Report which are issued by the 3^rd opposite party clearly reveals the fact that the 3^rd opposite party has given periodical check up from 14.11.2008.

27.     In such circumstances, as per the averments of the complaint there is not even a single word for making allegation against the 3^rd opposite party regarding medical negligence.  If it is so, the main allegation made against the 1^st opposite party by the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party is not being a qualified and experienced anesthetic who was engaged by the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital and thereby, the 1^st opposite party has not taken due care in dealing the complainant at the time of operation and due to their gross medical negligence, the complainant incurred acute pain and severe nervous shock due to improper spinal anesthesia and on engaging the 1^st opposite party by the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party is also vicariously liable for the medical negligence of the 1^st opposite party.

28.     In such circumstances, on going through the evidences of the complainant, produced before this Forum, that there is no relevant evidence to show that the 1^st opposite party was engaged by the 2^nd opposite party and not only that the 3^rd opposite party kept silent in this regard.   Such being so, as per the averments made in the written version of the 1 & 2^nd opposite party that the 1^st opposite party was engaged by the 3^rd opposite party who in the written version of the 3^rd opposite party is not at all denied the same and not explained either in his proof affidavit or in his written version.  If it is so, this Forum can be presumed that the 3^rd opposite party admitted the averments made in the written version of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties and thereby, the burden of proof in this regard of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties have gone up.

29.     Next thing has to be decided is, whether the medical negligence on the party of the 1^st opposite party has been proved by means of any expert opinion and by means of proper and relevant documents?.  In this aspect, the complainant has produced Ex.A18 and Ex.A29, on careful perusal of Ex.A18 it is given by Dr.  A.R. Jegathraman, who is a neuro surgeon attached with Billroth Hospital and in that documents it has been mentioned as Post spinal sequalac complainant of dimension of sensation left lower limb and redialing pain in the left  lower limb and for that he has prescribed some medicine and advised for physiotherapy.   At the same time, on seeing Ex.A23 it is a certificate issued by the Dr. S. Rajamony, stating that the complaint is suffering from  foot drop (left foot) and severe leg pain due to post spinal sequalac and is undergoing treatment.  In fact, in the above certificates there is no mentioning anything about the medical negligence of the 1^st opposite party and the sufferings of the complainant was only due to the improper procedure of anesthetic done by the 1^st opposite party. 

30.     Moreover, the Doctors namely, Dr.  A.R. Jegathraman and Dr. S. Rajamony are not at all recognized anesthetics.   More so, the complainant has stated in the complaint that she spent Rs.1,00,000/- for further treatment taken from the above said Doctors but no relevant documents or bills produced to that effect.  Therefore, this Forum cannot come to the conclusion for the said expenses and other things.  In respect of these documents, no other documents produced on the side of the complainant in order to prove the medical negligence on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Not only that, the complainant has not come forward to take any steps for obtaining expert opinion from the Government institution even after filing of this complaint regarding the improper procedure followed by the 1^st opposite party in giving anesthetic to the complainant during surgery.  Therefore, without any expert opinion specifically for improper procedure of anesthetic, this Forum cannot presume or conclude that the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties have committed the medical negligence since the expert opinion is a vital document to decide the same.  Furthermore, in Ex.A1, the case history as well as Ex.B7, the Discharge summary, there no mentioning about the defects in respect of the post spinal sequalac surgery as stated in the complaint as well as in Ex.A23.   In such situation, the expert opinion is must and mandatory to decide the allegations made in the complaint. 

31.     In the light of the above facts and circumstances and observations made above this Forum without any hesitation has concluded that the medical negligence on the part of the 1 &2^nd opposite parties has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the party of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties.  In respect of the 3^rd opposite party there is no averments of medical negligence and deficiency of service made by the complainant in the complaint.  Thus point no.1 is answered accordingly.

32.     Point no.2:-

As per the decision arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not at all entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.  Thus, point no.2 is answered accordingly.

33.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 09^th   August  2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

List of documents filed by the 2^nd  opposite party:-

List of documents filed by the 3^rd  opposite party:-

Nil.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT