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. 46 / 1999 MONDAY THE 21st DAY OF JUNE 2010. Mrs. Abitha Banu, W/o. R. Kaleem No.31C, Phase II, Sathuvachari, Vellore – 9. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. Tmt. Dr. Sandhya Babu, No.88, Guruthoppu, Sathuvachari, Vellore – 9. 2. New India Assurance Company Limited, Vellore by its Manager, 19, Officers Line, Vellore. … Opposite parties. . . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 16.6.2010, in the presence of Thiru. R. Santhanam, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. T.L.Narayanan, Advocate for the opposite party-1 and Thiru. N.S.Ramanathan, Advocate for the opposite party-2 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. I. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant was experiencing pain frequently in the umbilical region of her body and she approached the 1st opposite party for treatment in May 1998. The 1st opposite party had diagnosed the same as unbilical Hernia and advised the complainant to have operation. The 1st opposite party had assured the complainant that she herself will perform the said operation in her Clinic. The said operation was done on 28.5.98 in the 1st opposite party’s clinic. Only at the time of the operation the complainant understood that the same is being done by a male Doctor whose name she had come know, subsequently as Dr. Manoharan. The complainant was attending the clinic of the 1st opposite party daily for about a month after her discharge from the Clinic of the 1st opposite party. There was oozing of liquid from the operated portion not only during the one month when the same was dressed daily but also subsequently. There was also pain in the said operated region. Due to heavy drugging there were side effects such as blood in the stools. When the complainant had complained about the pain, oozing of the liquid and the side effects the 1st opposite party had shown little importance to the same and told the complainant that they are inevitable and it will take even years for the operated wound to heal. The doctor by name Thiru. Mohan Manickavasagam M.S.M.D., who had examined the complainant told that there must be formation of puss in the operated region and it has to be opened without any further delay. On 2.2.99 the said Doctor opened the incision and found just over the rectus sheet an abscess cavity containing about 10 ml. of thick puss and evacuated the same and removed 3 proline sutures from the region of the abscess cavity and treated the same. The complainant was in the said hospital as an in-patient from 1.2.99 to 11.2.99 as an out patient for about 1 ½ months. Pain and oozing of puss gradually stopped and the wound got healed. The 1st opposite party had not got the complainant examined by the Doctor who had operated her either during her stay in the Clinic of the 1st opposite party or when the complainant was attending the clinic of the 1st opposite party as an out-patient for about a month from the date of discharge. As the 1st opposite party is a physician she ought to have taken the opinion of the Surgeon who have done the said operation when the complainant had complained to the 1st opposite party that the pain in the operated region was persisting and the liquid was oozing out from the operated portion. Without finding out the reason for the persistent pain and continued oozing of the liquid the 1st opposite party had been prescribed medicines after medicines and when the complainant complained to the 1st opposite party about the side effects together with the pain and the oozing of the liquid. 2. If the 1st opposite party has exercised reasonable skill and care in giving advice or performing the services, the complainant would not have underwent the pain, suffering and mental agony which she had underwent as sated above. The complainant had spent for her treatment not only in the Clinic of the 1st opposite party but also in Madurai Hospital. In all the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.1 lakh for her treatment and incidental expenses. Her husband had handed over a letter to the 1st opposite party wherein he has clearly set out the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has sent the reply letter containing false and frivolous allegations to the husband of the complainant. The complainant had caused the issue of the notice dt.30.3.99 to the 1st opposite party setting out the aforesaid facts and calling upon her to pay the complainant Rs.one lakh towards treatment and incidental expenses and Rs.one lakh towards damages for pain, suffering and mental agony underwent by the complainant. The said notice was received by the 1st opposite party on 3.4.99. The 1st opposite party had caused the issue of the reply notice dt.14.4.99, containing false and frivolous allegations. Hence the opposite parties to be directed to pay the complainant Rs.one lakh with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of payment and to pay the complainant Rs.one lakh as damages and to pay the cost of the proceedings. Hence the complaint. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the 1st opposite party is as follows: The 1st opposite party denies and repudiates all such averments in the complaint save such as those which are expressly admitted herein. She visited the hospital and the 1st opposite party examined her and found her to be suffering from umbilical hernia is true, but it is not true or correct to state that the opposite party assured the complainant, that she ‘herself’ would perform the operation. The complainant, her husband and mother who are all English knowing people were very clearly made aware that the surgery was to be performed by Dr.Varadhan, of the Government Pent land hospital, Vellore who is an eminently qualified and competent surgeon. All the persons above mentioned had given the consent and executed the consent letter for under going surgery at the hospital of the 1st opposite party. There was no male doctor name Dr. Manoharan as alleged. The 1st opposite party was with the complainant from the time of admission till the surgery was over throughout, and had assisted in the surgery also which has been conveniently burked by the complainant. The 1st opposite party had effectively followed up the surgery with genuine competent post operative care till discharge, and after discharge as an out patient. It is not true or correct to state that the 1st opposite party had prescribed ‘heavy and costly drugs’ and inspite of taking drugs there were side effects and pain did not subside. It is specifically denied that due to the taking of drugs there was passing of blood in stools. The complainant is put to very strict proof of the allegations in para-5 vis-a-vis the treatment given at Madurai, as the 1st opposite party is not put on notice about the same nor served with a copy of the treatment given at the Fenn hospital, Madurai. But it will not be out of place to point out here that once again the treatment was given only by a “male” doctor at Madurai also and therefore no significance can be attached to the fact that the surgery performed at the 1st opposite party hospital was by a male Doctor’ and that too only after the consent of all concerned viz., the complainant her husband and mother. The allegation that the said Doctor who had done the operation did not see her at all after the operation’ is puerile and apparently untrue. The 1st opposite party is a well qualified, competent surgeon and not a ‘physician’ as assumed by the complainant. It is not true to state that the 1st opposite party was prescribing medicines without finding the reason. On the contrary the 1st opposite party had been throughout treating her properly and promptly with utmost care and efficiency. The 1st opposite party is a student of the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore and had been in the faculty of the college, and in the staff of the Hospital as Gynecologist and obstetrician for nearly 12 years and has handled cases of more serious nature throughout her career with great skill and efficiency. She has performed major surgeries such as abdominal hysterectomy, Caesarian deliveries, Vaginal hysterectomy D & C and all other surgeries relating to Gynecological problems. 4. After the surgery at the opposite party’s Hospital, she was discharged as the post operative period was unevenful, and external sutures were removed without any complaint and the surgical (incision) wound had properly healed. It is significant to note that the surgery was done at the 1st opposite party’s hospital on 28.5.98 and she was discharged on 1.6.98 and attended follow up for nearly a month. But she had been admitted at Madurai Hospital only on 2.2.99 i.e. after nearly SEVEN (7) months. The complainant is curiously silent about the nature of suffering and treatment during this period and it is obvious that the alleged suffering was much later and not continuous as alleged. The 1st opposite party had not been negligent or deficient in service but on the contrary had been most efficient and careful in the treatment of the complainant. If the complainant had regularly undergone the treatment imparted by the 1st opposite party the inflammation and infection would have ceased and she would have been cured, but instead she had admittedly abandoned the same which had ensued in the infected inflammation becoming severe, resulting in the surgery at the same site which has shown pus of 10 ML in the abscess cavity. The reply sent by the 1st opposite party by her self and latterly through Counsel contain the proper and correct averments and may be read as parthereof. The claim for Rs.1,00,000/- is outrageously exaggerated, highly excessive, fanciful and therefore futile and untenable. The 1st opposite party is fully covered by a Professional indemnity Insurance with the 2nd opposite party who would be liable to pay under the said policy. The sufferings of the complainant even if true was not due to any deficiency of service of the 1st opposite party who had given her the best of medical attention. The alleged development of inflammatory infection was due to the nature of her physique and herself neglecting the proper follow up and treatment. The complainant is therefore misconceived, malicious, most vexatious and may therefore be deservingly dismissed with costs. 5. The averments in the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows: The 2nd opposite party does not admit any of the allegations in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof of rest of them all. The complaint is not aware of the allegations made in para-3 of the complaint. The company is not aware that the complainant experienced pain and frequently in the umbilical region of her body and she had approached the 1st opposite party for treatment in May 1998 and the latter had diagnosed the same as umbilical Hernia and advised the complainant to have a surgery. The complainant underwent the operation on 28.5.98 in the clinic of the 1st opposite party. It is also not known to the 2nd opposite party that the complainant came to know that the surgery should have been performed only by a male doctor by name Manoharan. The complainant did not inform that even after the operation there was oozing of liquid from the operated portion not only during the month when the same was dressed daily but also subsequently. The 2nd opposite party is in no way responsible for the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. It is false to state that the policy taken by the 1st opposite party is covered for the payment of compensation to the patient who had undergone a surgery. The professional indemnity policy taken by the 1st opposite party does not cover negligence in the performance of a surgery or dereliction of duty owed by a doctor towards his patient. The 2nd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the present complaint. The contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and indemnity alone. As such a liability if any, of a thirdly has to be determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore the complaint has to be dismissed u/s. 26 of the C.P. Act with compensatory cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- directed to be paid to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant and pass necessary orders. 6. The additional counter filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows: It is necessary that the liability under the policy would arise only when the insured under the policy incurs liability. It is an unnecessary party to the proceedings and that the contract of insurance is between the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party (Doctor). So the complainant being a stranger of the insurance between the 1st opposite party the 2nd opposite party she cannot seek to enforce her claim against the opposite party. So the complaint, in these circumstances, is without merit and is speculative and vexatious. So it may be dismissed. 7. Now the points for consideration are: (a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties? (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for? 8. Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 9. POINT NO. (a): It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant was admitted in the 1st opposite party’s Hospital on 28.5.98 and the 1st opposite party had diagnosed as umbilical hernia for which surgery was done and on the 5th day after the surgery sutures were removed, and she was discharged from the Hospital on 1.6.98. 10. The complainant contended that the 1st opposite party assured the complainant that she herself will perform the said surgery but the operation done by Dr.manoharan. Further, there was oozing of liquid from the operated portion not only during the one month when the same was dressed daily but also subsequently, and there was also pain in the said operated region. Due to heavy drugging there were side effects such as blood in the stools. It is further contended that as the 1st opposite party is a physician she ought to have taken the opinion of the Surgeon who have done the said operation when the complainant had complained to the 1st opposite party that the pain in the operated region was persisting and the liquid was oozing out from the operated portion. Without finding out the reason for the persistent pain and continued oozing of the liquid the 1st opposite party had been prescribed medicines after medicines. Therefore, the complainant was admitted in Fenn Hospital, Madurai, Dr.Mohan Manickavasagam M.S.M.D examined the complainant told that there must be formation of puss in the operated region and it has to be opened without any further delay. On 2.2.99 the said Doctor opened the incision and found just over the rectus sheeth an abscess cavity containing about 10 ml. of thick puss and treated the same. The complainant was taking treatment in the said hospital as an in-patient from 1.2.99 to 11.2.99 as an out patient for about 1 ½ months. Pain and oozing of puss gradually stopped and wound got healed. If the 1st opposite party had exercised reasonable skill and care in giving advice or performing the services, the complainant would not have underwent the pain, suffering and mental agony. 11. The 1st opposite party contended that when the complainant visited the 1st opposite party hospital and she was examined by the 1st opposite party and found her to be suffering from umbilical hernia. After executed the consent form Ex.B2 dt. 28.5.98 by the complainant, her husband and mother for undergoing surgery at the Hospital of the 1st opposite party, Dr. Varadhan of the Government Pent land hospital, Vellore who is an eminently qualified and competent surgeon was operated the surgery successfully. It is further contended that the 1st opposite party is a well qualified competent surgeon was with the complainant from the time of admission till the surgery was over throughout, and had assisted in the surgery also and she had effectively followed up the surgery with genuine competent post operative care till discharge and after discharge as an out patient. If the complainant had regularly undergone the treatment imparted by the 1st opposite party the inflammation and infection would have ceased and she would have been cured, but instead she had admittedly abandoned the same which had ensued in the infected inflammation becoming severe, resulting in the surgery at the same site which has shown puss of 10 M.L in the abscess cavity. The alleged development of inflammatory infection was due to the nature of her physique and herself neglecting the proper follow up and treatment. Therefore the 1st opposite party had not been negligent or deficient in service but on the contrary had been most efficient and careful in the treatment of the complainant. 12. The complainant has not denied the contention of the 1st opposite party that the surgery done by Dr. C. Varadhan of the Government Pent land Hospital, Vellore who is an eminently qualified and competent surgeon and the 1st opposite party is a student of the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore and had been in the faculty of the college, and in the staff of the Hospital as Gynecologist and obstetrician for nearly 12 years and she has performed major surgeries such as abdominal hysterectomy, Caesarian deliveries, Vaginal hysterectomy D & C and all other surgeries relating to Gynecological problems. From the perusal of Ex.B2 dt. 28.5.98 operation / treatment consultant form it is seen that the complainant her husband and mother have given consent to undergo umbilical hernia operation by Dr. Varadhan and also given consent to Dr. Anantharaj to administer spinal anesthesia to her. From the perusal of Ex.B4 clinical notes of the 1st opposite party’s Hospital it is mentioned that the complainant was admitted in the clinical of the 1st opposite party on 28.5.98 at 2.30 p.m. for pain in the umbilical region since four months and after investigation found her umbilical hernia. The umbilical hernia repair done by Dr.C.Varadhan M.S. (General Surgery) assisted by Dr. Sandhya M.S. DGO (1st opposite party) anesthesia by Dr.Anandha Raj and on 29.5.98 the patient was seen by Dr.C. Varadhan. After five days the complainant was discharged from the 1st opposite party’s Hospital on 1.6.98 and advised the patient to come for routine review on the 8th day. After nine months from the date of discharge, Particularly after, taking treatment from Fenn Hospital, Madurai the complainant’s husband wrote a letter Ex.A3, dt. 22.3.99 to the 1st opposite party stated that the 1st opposite party assured the complainant that she herself will perform the operation; accordingly the complainant got admitted in the 1st opposite party’s Hospital and was operated upon. But the operation was performed by a male Doctor by name Dr. Monogaran. Except the letter Ex.A3, dt. 22.3.99 and legal notice Ex.A5 dt.30.3.199, there is no documentary proof that contrary to the assurance given by the 1st opposite party, the operation was done by the Dr.Manogaran. Based on the consent letter Ex.B2 given by the complainant, her husband and mother, the operation was preformed by the Dr.C. Varadhan, M.S. (General Surgery) Government Pent land Hospital, Vellore, who is an eminently qualified competent surgeon and assisted by the 1st opposite party, who is an Gynecologist and obstetrician. 13. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that due to negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party there was oozing of liquid from the operated portion, not only during the one month when the same was dressed daily but also subsequently, and there was also pain in the said operated region. Further, without finding out the reason for the persistent pain and continued oozing of the liquid, the 1st opposite party had been prescribed medicines after medicines. Therefore the complainant was admitted in Fenn Hospital, Madurai and opened the incision and found just over the rectus sheeth an abscess cavity containing about 10 ml. of thick puss and treated the same. If the 1st opposite party had exercised reasonable skill and care in giving advice or performing the services, the complainant would not have underwent the pain, suffering and mental agony. 14. The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that if the complainant had regularly undergone the treatment imparted by the 1st opposite party, the inflammation and infection would have ceased and she would have been cured, but instead she had admittedly abandoned the same which had ensured in the infected inflammation becoming severe resulting in the surgery at the same site which has shown puss of 10 ml in the abscess cavity. The alleged development of inflammatory infection was due to the nature of her physique and herself neglecting the proper follow up and treatment. 15. From the perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.B4 dt. 28.5.98 clinical notes of the 1st opposite party’s hospital, Ex.A2 clinical notes to Fenn Hospital, Madurai, it is seen that after 8 months from the date of discharge from the 1st opposite party’s Hospital, the complainant again admitted in Fenn Hospital, Madurai on 1.2.99 and again surgery was done on 2.2.99 and he was discharged from the said Hospital on 11.2.99. The complainant has not stated anything about the nature of suffering and treatment during the said 8 months period. According to the 1st opposite party after discharged from the Hospital on 1.6.98, if the complainant had regularly undergone the treatment imparted by the 1st opposite party the inflammation and infection would have ceased on perusing the documents of both sides it seen that after 8 months from the date of discharged in the 1st opposite party’s hospital till admitted in Fenn Hospital, Madurai on 1.2.99, the complainant did not taken any treatment. 16. According to the complainant without finding out the reason for the persistent pain and continued oozing of the liquid the 1st opposite party had been prescribed medicines after medicines and if the 1st opposite party had exercised reasonable skill and care in giving advice or performing the services, the complainant would not have underwent the pain, suffering and mental agony and complainant had spent for treatment not only in the 1st opposite party’s Hospital but also in Fenn Hospital, Madurai. The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party has argued that bare allegations in the complaint would not establish charge of negligence on the part of the 1st 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 parties through medical records or expert evidence. In this connection the learned counsel for the 1st 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. “ 17. On the perusal of Ex.A2 clinical notes of Fenn Hospital, Madurai it is seen that the complainant was admitted in the said Hospital on 1.2.99 and again surgery was done on 2.2.99 under spinal anesthesia the incision and found just over the rectus sheeth an abscess cavity containing about 10 ml. of thick puss and evacuated the same and removed 3 proline sutures from the region of the abscess cavity and treated the same. Oozing of puss practically stopped and wound got healed, the patient was discharged on 11.2.99 from the Hospital. The Doctor who gave treatment to the complainant in Fenn Hospital, Madurai have not made any commends or adverse remarks in the Ex.A2 clinical notes of Fenn Hospital, Madurai about the operation done by the Dr.C.Varadhan, M.S. (General Surgery) by the 1st opposite party on 28.5.98. 18. 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, the 1st opposite party had diagnostic the complainant as umbilical hernia for which surgery was done successfully by Dr. C.Varadhan, M.S. (General Surgery) Government Pent land Hospital, Vellore, who is an eminently qualified competent surgeon and assisted by the 1st opposite party who is an Gynecologist and obstetrician. After the successful surgery and treatment the complainant discharge from the 1st opposite party’s hospital till she admitted in Fenn Hospital, Madurai on 1.12.99, the complainant had not made any complaint against the 1st opposite party regarding the operation done by the male doctor Mr.C. Varadhan, M.S. and the treatment given by the 1st opposite party. The doctor who gave a treatment to the complainant in Fenn Hospital, Madurai have not made any commends or adverse remarks in the Ex.A2. medical records about the operation was done by the Dr.C.Varadhan and treatment given by the 1st opposite party. Therefore except the complaint there is no medical record or expert evidence to prove that due to gross deficiency of service and negligence by the 1st opposite party. There was oozing the liquid from the operated portion not only during the one month but also subsequently and admitted and the complainant had spent for treatment both in the clinical of the 1st opposite party and in Fenn Hospital, Madurai. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the facts of this case. But the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 19. 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 the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A7 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 20. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 21. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 21st day of June 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1 - -- - X-copy of the particulars of treatment given by the 1st opp party. Ex.A2 - -- - X-copy of the particulars of treatment given at Fenn Hospital, Madurai. Ex.A3 - -- - X-copy of the letter given by the complainant’s husband to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A4 - -- - X-copy of the reply letter given by the 1st opp party to the Complainant’s husband. Ex.A5 – 30.3.99 - C-copy of the notice, sent by the complainant counsel to the 1st opp party. Ex.A6- -- - Postal Ack. signed by the 1st opp party. Ex.A7- 14.4.99 - X-copy of the reply notice sent by the counsel of the 1st opposite Party to the counsel of the complainant. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- -- - Notice to produce documents given on behalf of the 1st opp party to counsel for the 2nd opp party. Ex.B2- 28.5.98 - X-copy of the treatment consent form signed by complainant Attested by her husband and her mother. Ex.B3- 26.2.99 - X-copy of the reply by opposite party-1 to complainant’s Husband. Ex.B4- -- - X-copy of case history sheet of complainant maintained by Opposite party-1. Ex.B5- 14.4.99 - X-copy of reply sent by counsel for opp party-1. Ex.B6 -- - Policy with terms and conditions. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
