BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC.18 / 2002 WEDNESDAY THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. Unidevakadacham, W/o. Dr.V.P. Gunasekara Veeraiah, Village Health Nurse, No.122/1, Chittoor Road, Katpaid, Vellore 632 007. … Complainant. - Vs – Dr. Sandhya Babu, Sandaya Hospital, No.565, Phase –I, Sathuvachari, Vellore 632 009. … Opposite party. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 30.8.2010, in the presence of Thiru. S. Vijayakumar, , Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. T.L. Narayanan, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a government servant working as Village Health Nurse P.H.C. Guruvarajapet and her age is 40 years. The complainant’s husband Mr.V.P. Gunasekara Veeraiah is a doctor and now he is working as a professor in Hand Rehabilitation, Government Stanley Medical College, Chennai-1. The opposite party Mrs. Sandhya Babu is a doctor, obstetrician and Gynecologist having private hospital in the name and style of Sandhya Hospital at Sathuvachari, Vellore-9 and having another clinic at No.85, Battai Street, Velapadi, Vellore-1. During the month of February 2002, the complainant was five month pregnant and on 22.2.02 due to abdomen pain, the complainant was admitted in the opposite party Hospital for treatment as in-patient. The complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- as fees for the treatment to the opposite party. On 22.2.02 during the morning hours, the opposite party is present in the hospital and checked the complainant and treated her and the fees stated above have been received by her. The complainant has been admitted as in-patient and Macdonald stitch has been applied to her. During the evening hours severe pain and fever were developed due to the stitch applied by the opposite party and the opposite party was not available in the hospital. The opposite party is not available at the hospital and the staff of the hospital informed that the opposite partly is in the Velapadi Clinic. No trained nurse was available at that time to take care of the complainant. The complainant’s husband requested the staff to take proper care of the complainant and also requested to inform the complainant’s condition to the opposite party and to attend the complainant. Even after the complainant’s husband request no treatment was given to the complainant on 22.2.02 night. The opposite party attended the complainant only on the next day morning i.e. on 23.2.02. During evening hours again severe pain and fever were developed and none was available. 2. On 24.2.02 at 8.00 a.m. the complainant along with her husband met the opposite party and expressed their dissatisfaction about the treatment and narrated the pain and the sufferings of the complainant. The opposite party told that due to some side effect in the application of Macdonald stitch the complainant’s health has been affected and the opposite party assured that the defect has been found out and rectified and the complainant would recover soon and she assured for better treatment. On 24.2.02 at 10.00 a.m. the complainant’s heath has been deteriorated and the situation has been informed to the opposite party. The opposite party without the consent of the complainant and her family members, at the opposite party’s own will suddenly done abortion to the complainant and a male baby has been aborted and discharged the complainant on the same day. No medicine or prescription has been given to the complainant at the time of her discharge. The complainant and her husband tries in person to enquire about the treatment given by the opposite party and for the discharge summary between 24.2.02 and 2.3.02 but the opposite party purposely avoided to meet the complainant’s husband. On 3.3.02 the complainant’s husband went to the hospital to meet the opposite party and the matter has been informed by the staff to the opposite party and the complainant’s husband was kept to wait for more than 2 hours and he was allowed to see the opposite party. The complainant’s husband expressed his dissatisfaction about the treatment given by the opposite party to the complainant. Further he requested for a discharge summary since the complainant is a government servant and she has to attend the medical board along with discharge summary. But the opposite party refused to give any medical report or discharge summary. The complainant’s husband issued a registered letter dt. 4.3.02 to the opposite party narrating all the incidents and demanded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the pain and sufferings and also requested to issue a discharge summary for the complainant. The opposite party received the same but failed to comply the demands and issued a reply notice dt on 7.3.02. Due to the non-availability of the discharge summary the complainant could not attend the medical board on 5.3.02. Again on 11.3.02 the complainant’s husband sent another registered letter dt. 11.3.02 to the opposite party. But no discharge summary has been issued. On 18.3.02, the complainant and her husband attended the medical board without the discharge summary which created an embarrassing situation in the medical board which a disgrace to them. With great difficulty they got time for the production of discharge summary to the medical board on 26.3.02. The complainant’s husband again sent a registered letter dt. 19.3.02 to the opposite party narrating all the facts demanding a discharge summary. At last on 22.3.02 the opposite party with a covering letter sent the discharge summary through post. The complainant prayed for directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the lack of service, medical care and attention of the opposite party and for no defects of Macdonald stitch which ultimately resulted in septic and the abortion of a male child done by the opposite party and for the pain, sufferings and mental agony of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the wanton and willful delay in giving discharge summary to the complainant which created an embarrassing situation in the medical board, and for the mental agony and torture caused by the opposite party to them and to pay costs of this complaint. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite parties are as follows: The opposite party denies and repudiates all such averments in the complaint save such a those which are expressly admitted. The opposite party does not admit the truth of the allegations in para-1 of the complaint and puts the complaint to very strict proof to the same. The allegations in para-2 of the complaint are true. The allegation in para-3 of the complaint are not true or correct. The complainant came to the opposite party on 22.2.02 at about 10 am. complaining of abdominal pain. She had a gestation of 20 + 4 weeks and not as alleged. It is not true to state that she paid Rs.10,000/- as fees. No amount was received as per practice and for any sum received immediately a receipt is issued. Only after treatment and at the time of discharge fees would be determined and charged and bills will be issued. The entire allegation in para-4 of the complaint are also not true but merely selfserving and repetitive. The complainant was thoroughly checked and in her own version she had a long medical history of series of abortions in CMS Hospital-Vellore. The complainant is a diabetic. On examination she was found to have a dilated cervix and resultant incompetent cervix. The patient also admitted the same and concurred as she was fully aware of her health condition and also in the know of things by virtue of her occupation. The complainant consented to the application of ‘MCDONALD”S STITCH” the only recommended-available treatment which was put on at 12.30 p.m on the same day. For two days there was No fever and pain. The complainant falsely alleges that there was pain on the same date. She was under continuous care and treatment throughout and it is not true to state that the opposite partly was not available. It is also not true to state that No trained nurse was available. The chart would disprove the self serving allegations are false to the knowledge of the complainant. It is utterly nullified to suggest that the husband of the complainant visited her at 8 p.m on 22.2.02 and found her with severe pain and fever. Velapadi Clinic is lominutes away and functions only from 6 pm to 8 p.m. The residence is above the hospital and the opposite party is always available round the clock and ably assisted by highly qualified nurses who are at the call round the clock. The allegations in para-5 of the complaint are all false and frivolous. They are merely repetitive without substance and baseless. Throughout the complainant was under the best attention and it is not true to state that the complainant’s husband once again came on 23rd at 8 p.m and found her to be suffering. The allegations in para 6 by the complainant are purse malafide and dishonest. The opposite party had administed the Mcdonald’s stitch properly and there was no side effect, and at no time the opposite party had spoken to the complainant and her husband as falsely alleged. 4. The abortion was SPONTANEOUS due to already existing health condition of the complainant. The opposite party had nothing to do with the said abortion but about which the complainant had already been warned and also admitted that her condition was such that the abortion was inevitable and imminent and would be lucky to save the pregnancy for no fault of the opposite party at all. In fact she was anxious to leave the care of the hospital and so the opposite party had no option but to concede. It is utterly false to state that there was lack of medical care and lack of attention as alleged. The complainant had given her express consent for the administration of Mcdonald’s stitch. Her abortion was spontaneous and not due to any external agency at all. It is absolutely baseless to allege that the opposite party refused to come on line form 24.2. to 2.3.. There were no calls as alleged and there was no reason for the opposite party avoid any calls. Only on 3.3.02 the complainant’s husband came to the clilnic demanding the discharge summary and he told tat it would be on the same date. The opposite party never refused to issue the discharge certificate which is after all a routine procedure. The opposite party sent the discharge summary on 22.3.02 in immediate response to the letter of 19.2.2002. There is no deficiency of service in issuing the discharge summary as alleged falsely. The entire complaint is mischievous, malafide and with a view to tarnish the extreme high reputation and goodwill of the opposite party. The claim is extortionate and not bonafide but avaricious. Therefore the opposite party prays that the complaint may be deservingly dismissed with costs. 5. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 6. Ex.A1 to ExA9 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 7. POINT NO. (a):- It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant is working as a Village Health Nurse, Primary Health Centre, Guruvarajapet and her husband V.P. Gunasekara Veeraiah working as a Professor in Hand Rehabilitation, Governmetn Stanley Medical College, Chennai. The opposite party Mrs. Sandhya Babu is a doctor, Obstetrician and Gynecologist having Sandhya Hospital at Sathuvachari, Vellore-9. The complainant was admitted in the opposite party’s hospital on 22.2.02 due to abdomen pain for treatment as inpatient and she was discharged from the hospital on 24.2.02. 8. The complainant contended that when the complainant admitted in the said hospital as inpatient on 22.2.02 during the morning hours and Macdonald stitch has been applied to her. During the evening hours severe pain and fever were developed due to the stitch applied by the opposite party and at the time the opposite party and the trained nurse were not availed in the hospital. The opposite party attended the complainant only on the next day morning i.e. on 23.2.02. During evening hours again severe pain and fever were developed and none was available. Next day at 8.00 a.m. the complainant along with her husband met the opposite party and expressed their dissatisfaction about the treatment and narrated that the pain and suffering are due to the side effects of the application of the Macdonald Stitch and the defect had been found out and the same will be rectified and the opposite party assured that the complainant for a better treatment. On the same day at 10.00 a.m. the complainant’s health has been deteriorated and the situation has been informed to the opposite party, and the opposite party without the consent of the complainant and her family members, but the opposite party own will suddenly had done an abortion to the complainant and discharged the complainant on the very same day. No medicine or prescription was given to the complainant at the time of discharge. Therefore due to lack of care attention of the opposite party and due to the defects in the Macdonald stitch ultimately resulted in septic and the opposite party aborted the male baby with the consent of the complainant without the consent of anybody in order to overcome the mistakes committed by the opposite party. 9. The opposite party contended that the complainant came to the opposite party on 22.2.02 at about 10 a.m. complaining of abdominal pain and the complainant had a gestation period of 20 + 4 weeks as alleged and the complainant consented to the application of the Macdonald Stitch which was put properly on at 12.30 p.m. on the very same day. After the application of the Macdonald Stitch there was no fever or pain and she was under continuous care and the treatment throughout and at any point of time the opposite party had not alleged that there was a defect in the stitch and the same was rectified and at no point of time the Macdonald stitch was wrongly administered. It is further contented that the abortion was spontaneous due to already existing health condition of the complainant. The opposite party had nothing to do with the abortion, but the complainant had been already warned and also admitted her condition was such that the abortion was inevitable. The Macdonald’s stitch was perfectly administered and it did not turn septic as falsely alleged. Further the complainant had signed the express application for administering the same. Therefore there was no fault in administering the Macdonald stitch and the complainant was taken care with ulmost care. Hence there is no mistake or negligence on the part of the opposite party. 10. From the perusal of Ex.B1, Doctor Sheet for treatment given to the complainant, it is seen that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party hospital on 22.2.02 at 10.00 am. having pregnant 20 + 4 weeks it is mentioned that after the examination and investigation Macdonald Stitch was recommended and the patient has been explained about the procedure and also that the chance of continuing the pregnant less than 5 % even after the stitch and the same at 12.30 p.m. Macdonald Stitch applied under G.A. Thereafter some mistakes and injection were recommended and at 5.00 p.m. and the same day patient was conscious pulse and B.P were normal, not passed urine and at 9.30 p.m. and the same day pulse normal, passed urine. No abdominal pain. Next day at 9.30 a.m. she was examined pulse and B.P. normal. No abdominal pain and the same injection were recommended. Again 1.30 p.m. and 9.30 pm. complainant that examined under plus and B.P. were normal. On 24.2.02 at 9.30 a.m. complained of pain and bleeding PV on per vaginal examination – cervix was 4 cms dilated and the stitch was cut through the cervix. Hence stitch was removed. She went in to labour and expelled a male fetus weighing 250 gms at 10.10 am. Placenta and membrane removed entire. Bleeding was normal. And on the same day at 4.00 p.m. the complainant was examined her pulse 96 and B.P. 110/80 minimal bleeding. From the perusal of Ex.B2, nurses sheet issued by the opposite party’s hospital it is seen that details of treatment given by the opposite party and were mentioned from 22.2.02 at 10.30 am. to 24.2.02 at 10.10. am. Based on the Ex.B1 Doctor Sheet, Ex.B2, Nurses” sheet, Ex.B4 Antenatal record, and Ex.B5, discharge summary issued to the complainant on 3.3.02. From the perusal of Ex.B3, Operation / Treatment consent form it is seen that the complainant has given consent to undergo Macdonald Stitch on 22.2.02. 11. The contention of the complainant that due to lack of care attention of the opposite party and due to the defects in the Macdonald stitch ultimately resulted in septic and the opposite party aborted the male baby with the consent of the complainant without the consent of anybody. But from the perusal of Ex.B1 Doctor Sheet Ex.B2 Nurse’s Sheet, Ex.B3, Operation / Treatment Consent Form it is seen that after the application of the Macdonald stitch there was no fever or pain and the complainant under continuous care and treatment from 222.092 at 9.30 a.m to 24.2.02 at 4. p.m. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that bare allegations in the complaint would not establish charge of negligence on the part of the opposite party. The burden of proof on the medical negligence lies on the complaint, but in this case, the complainant has not proved the allegation made in the complaint against the opposite party through medical records or expert evidence. In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party is relying upon the following Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Consumer Disputes Redessal Commission, New Delhi. I. (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 130 C.P. SREEKUMAR (DR.), MS (ORTHO) ..Vs.. S.RAMANUJAM Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court is held that “ As already observed in Jacob Mathew case the onus to prove medical negligence lies largely on the claimant and that this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence. A mere averment in a complaint which is denied by the other side can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainant can be said to be proved. It is the obligation of the complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as the facta probantia. In Jacob Mathew case it has been observed as under: (SCC pp.32-33, para-48) “(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratantal 7 Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P.Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: ‘duty’ , ‘breach’ and ‘resulting damage’ (2) Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the par of a medical professional. II. 2007 (2) CPR 260 (NC) N. Krishna Reddy ..Vs.. Christian Medical College and Hospital Rep. by its Medical Superintendent & Anr. Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi is held that, “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(a)(i) – and 2 (1) (g) – Complaints about medical negligence – Medical negligence must be established and not presumed. In the absence of expert evidence on behalf of the complainant, no negligence or deficiency in service could be found against the affidavits filed by Hospital and doctors. “ 12. In the present case, on the perusal of Ex.B1, Doctor Sheet, Ex.B2, Nurses’ Sheet, and Ex.B5 Discharge Summary, it is seen that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party hospital on 22.2.02 at 10.00 am. and on examination she was found to have a dilated cervix and resulted incompetent cervix with the same of the complainant Macdonald stitch was put on at 12.30 p.m. and on the same day. For two days her pulse and BP were normal and there was no fever and pain. After abortion she was discharged from the hospital on 24.2.02 at 4.p.m. The complainant and her husband working in the medical field and both of them they have the knowledge about the application of the Macdonald stitch and its consequences. Further expert the Ex.B1 Doctor Sheet, Ex.B2 Nurse’s Sheet and Ex.B3 Operation / Treatment Consent Form and Ex.B5, Discharge summary of the opposite party hospital there is no medical record or expert opinion evidence about the treatment given by the De. Sandhya, Obstetrician and Gynecologist. 13. The nature of the medical profession is such that there are many courses of treatment in each disease. The diagnostic procedure may by vary, and the approach by each doctor will be different and the treatment given to a patient differs from man to man. It is for the doctor treating the patient to decide the best course of action and if he has done the job exercising due diligence with such standard of care that is required of him. Unless it is shown that the Doctor has failed to opt a particular precaution or failed to follow the procedure and such failure has called to the ultimate result or complication. In the present case, on examination the complainant was found to have a dilated cervix and resulted incompetent cervix and with consent of the complainant Macdonald stitch was put on care and treatment was given from 22.2.02 to 24.2.02. According to the complainant that due to the defects in the Macdonald stitch ultimately resulted in septic and the opposite party aborted the male baby, but there is no medical records or expert opinion on the side of the complainant. According to the opposite party that with the abortion was spontaneous due to already existing health condition of the complainant and the opposite party had nothing to do with the said abortion, but about which the complainant already been warned. Therefore there is no mistake or negligence on the part of the opposite party. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 14. The complainant contented that she was in need of the medical report to appear before the medical board on 5.3.02 and 18.3.02 the complainant’s husband came to the opposite party’s hospital and he was wait for more than 2 ½ hours and meet the doctor and asked for the discharge summary but the opposite party refused to give the medical report regarding the summary of the treatment administered to the complainant. When the complainant husband has sent letters Ex.A1 dt. 4.3.02, Ex.A3, dt. 11.3.02 and ex.A4 dt. 19.3.02 to the opposite party stating the facts but he opposite party sent the discharge summary Ex.A6, dt. 3.3.02 with the covering letter on 22.3.02 the allegation are baseless and suitably to the opposite party. 15. The complainant’s stated in her proof affidavit that on 3.3.02 she went to the hospital and he has been kept to wait for more than two hours and finally the opposite party refused to give any medical report or discharge summary and refused to say anything regarding the treatment given to his wife and refused to given discharge summary. Even after his repeated request that the complainant in need to the discharge summary to produce the same medical board, refused to issue the discharge summary. The opposite party stated in her proof affidavit that the discharge summary was ready even on 3.3.02 but was not collected by the complainant or her husband and the opposite party neither aware nor made aware of the necessity of the discharge summary to produce the complainant and her husband before the medical board. The said summary was immediately sent in respect of letter dt. 23.2.02. From the perusal of letter Ex.A1 dt.4.3.00, sent by the complainant’s husband to the opposite party it is mentioned that he try to contract the opposite party by phone to enquire about the treatment and discharge summary etc but the opposite party purposely avoid to coming into the line and she told the opposite party staff that to give on 3.3.02 (Sunday) to collect the discharge summary. He came to the opposite party’s hospital on 3.3.02 to collect discharge summary and he was kept wait for more than 2 ½ hours, even though he informed his present through one of opposite party staff nurse. After 2 ½ hours he was allowed to see the opposite party and he requested for the discharge summary but the opposite party simply to give the medical report for discharge summary. In conclusion his wife discharge without medical report given the discharge summary, when they try to contact the opposite party for the enormous suffering had already, and the loss which cannot be equated and the opposite party failure in her duties. Therefore the opposite party call upon to pay them Rs.1,00,000/- as a compensation and the opposite party to give the detailed medical report for the discharge summary. Failing which there can by forced to proceed with further steps in this regard. Even after receiving the letter Ex.A1,on 6.3.02 the opposite party did not sent the medical report or discharge summary immediately. But she sent a letter Ex.A2 dt. 7.3.02 to the complainant’s husband stating that totally denied allegations made by the complainant’s husband and she submit the detailed rely within 30 days. From the perusal of Ex.A7, letter dt. 18.2.02, sent by the Joint Director, Health Services, Vellore it is mentioned that the complainant was asked to appear before the Joint Director, Health Services at Vellore on 5.3.02 along with the medical report for taking the treatment. The Joint Director, Health Services, Vellroe again sent a letter Ex.A8, dt. 18.3.02 to the complainant and asked to her to appear before the Joint Director, Health Services, Vellore on 18.3.02 along with the medical report for taking the treatment. The complainant’s husband again sent a letter Ex.A3, dt. 11.3.02 to the opposite party stated that they requested for the medical report for the purpose of attending Medical board on 5.3.02 because of opposite party refused to issued the discharge summary. The complainant could not attend the medical board on 5.3.02, through the opposite party’s letter they came to understand that the opposite party’s ulterior motive is to drag the issue so as to increase their suffering and agony. They have face problem or they have cannot attend Medical Board because of opposite party delay or refused of medical report etc, a separate compensation will be claimed apart form the other cause. According to the complainant due to non-availability of the medical report or discharge summary the complainant could not appear before the medical board again on 18.3.02. The complainant’s husband again sent a letter Ex.A4, dt. 19.3.02 stating that because of the opposite party refusal to issue the discharge summary Mrs. J. Inidevakevakadacham, could not attend the Medical Board on 5.3.02. and his wife attend the Medical board on 18.3.02 without the discharge summary, which created an embarrassing situation in the medical board, which was a disgrace to them and it is very difficult and impossible to describe their suffering in words. The next medical bard for her, is fixed on 26.3.02. for refusal or delay in issuing the discharge summary, a legal action will be taken against the opposite party in due course. After receiving the letter Ex.A4, dt. 19.3.02 only the opposite party sending the discharge summary of complainant on 23.2.02. Therefore it is clear that the opposite party has willful and wanton delay in issuing the discharge summary of the complainant on 23.2.02 which created an embarrassing situation in the medical board to the complainant and her husband and thereby the complainant caused the mental agony, pain and torture to the complainant. 16. Hence taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.9 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5, we have come to the conclusion that, even though the complainant’s husband repeated requests through oral and letters the opposite party willful and wanton delay in issuing the discharge summary of the complainant which created an embarrassing situation in the medical board to the complainant and her husband and thereby the complainant caused the mental agony, pain and torture to the complainant. Hence this point (a) is accordingly. 17. POINT NO. (b): In view of our findings on point No.(a), the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the wanton and willful delay in giving the discharge summary to the complainant which created an embarrassing situation in the medical board to the complainant and her husband and for the mental pain and torture caused by the opposite party. Hence this point (b) is also accordingly. 18. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the wanton and willful delay in giving the discharge summary to the complainant which created an embarrassing situation in the medical board to the complainant and her husband and for the mental pain and torture caused by the opposite party. 2. and also to a pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of this complaint. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay the above said amounts within one month from the date of copy of receipt of this order, failing which, the complainant is also entitled to interest on the above said sum @ 9 % p.a from the date of default till the date of payment. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 22nd day of September 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 4.3.02 - X-copy of registered letter sent to the opp party. Ex.A2- 7.3.02 - X-copy of Reply Letter. Ex.A3- 11.3.02 - X-copy of Registered Letter sent to the opp party. Ex.A4- 19.3.02 - X-copy of letter sent to the opp party. Ex.A5- 22.3.02 - X-copy of reply letter of the opp party. Ex.A6-3.3.02 - - X-copy of Discharge Summary. Ex.A7- 18.2.02 - X-copy of letter issued by Joint director, Health Service, Vellore. Ex.A8- 8.3.02 - X-copy of letter issued by Joint Director, Health Service, Vellore. Ex.A9- -- - X-copy of Sandhya Hospital, Antenatal Record. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1 - -- - X-copy of Doctor Sheet. Ex.B2- -- - X-copy of Nurse’s Sheet. Ex.B3- -- - X-copy of Operation / Treatment consent Form. Ex.B4- -- - X-copy of CMC Antenatal Record. Ex.B5- 3.3.02 - X-copy of Discharge Summary. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
