Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/95/2015

Smt. Sudha W/o. Chidanandappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Smt. Suvarna Rajasheker,MBBS DGO W/o. Dr. Rajashekar.M. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.G.B.Prakash

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON: 25/11/2015

DISPOSED ON:20/12/2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 95/2015

 

DATED:20^th DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

 

…COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. Sudha W/o Chidanandappa, Age: 28 Years, R/o Echagatta Village, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Rep by Sri. G.B. Prakash, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1.  Dr. Smt. Suvarna Rajashekar, MBBS, DGO, W/o Dr. Rajashekar. M, Age: 32 Years, Gynecologist, KMC Reg.No.63624, Shlok Maternity and Eye Care Centre, Lakshmi Bazar, Chitradurga.   2. The President, Karnataka Medical Council, Basavanagudi, Bangalore.   (Rep by Sri. C.M. Veeranna, Advocate for OP No.1, OP No.2 ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to award compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- in favour of complainant against the OP for severe pain and sufferings, mental shock and agony, loss of earnings, loss of family life, loss and damage to the health huge and medical expenses caused to her by negligent act and deficiency in service of OP in conducting LSCS on 31.10.2012 with 12% interest from the date of complaint till deposit and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, complainant is the permanent r/o Echagatta village , Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District working as a household and agricultural work along with her husband since from the marriage.  It is further submitted that, during the first pregnancy she took treatment at Udaya Nursing Home at Chitradurga Town. Dr. Udayashetty and his Assistant Dr. Suvarna Rajashekhar, OP No.1 who treated the complainant during the first issue.  At that time OP advised the complainant to take feature consultancy at my own clinic, as per their advice the complainant took a treatment at OP private clinic by name Sholk Maternity and Eye Care Center during her second pregnancy period since from 27.03.2012 to 31.10.2012.  It is further submitted that, on 27.03.2012 the complainant visited the OP at Chitradurga in their clinic for confirmation of pregnancy and she underwent to clinical checkup, the OP confirmed the pregnancy and opined that the LMP on 03.02.2012 and EDD on 10.12.2012.  Since from 27.03.2012 to 31.10.2012, the complainant under the follow up checkup and treatment in OP.  During the follow up treatment the OP got several scan and opined the good health of the complainant and peats and submit the scan report as per the instructions of OP.  It is further submitted that, on 30.10.2012 the complainant consulted the OP.  On examination the OP noted the regular normal flow, past family/previous history is normal significant O/E, No-polar, No-Pedorl Edema, No-Ictress, Pr-Cy (previous caesarian) unaffected, as G3PILIAIC Term pregnancy C previous LSCS, IUGR.  Hence, the OP advised the complainant to post for elective LSCS. Then the OP referred the complainant to admit at Basappa Multispecialty Hospital, Chitradurga for posted elective LSCS.  The complainant underwent to checkup on 30.10.2012 at 7-30 PM and 31.10.2012 at 6-00 AM refer no history of hypertension/diabetics/born child asthma/epilepsy/allergy, surgeries/TB and good functional capacity and general condition is failed.  It is further submitted that, on 31.10.2012 the OP conducted the LSCS to the complainant at Basappa Multispecialty Hospital, Chitradurga. After LSCS the complainant was shifted to the ICU at 7-30 AM.  That the complainant is unconscious oriented and free from Anesthesical and she faced hard and severe pain to pass urine and commenced facial Edema at 10-30 AM.  On examination, the OP know the consequences and difficulties with respect to urine output.  The OP called the Physician and followed the treatment as he advised and severe pain and edema.  The Dr.Kousar, Physician come and examined about the reduced urine output since morning and history noted delivery by LSCS on 31.10.2012 urine output 300 ML since morning high coloured and give treatment and advised in view of mild organ dysfunction and problem need for Hemodialysis.  Hence, the complainant referred to higher center for further evaluation and management due to injury to the kidney caused by LSCS and it caused severe renal failure.  The pain and injury caused to the kidney during LSCS conducted by the OP in the negligent manner and deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses.  As per the advice given by the Physician, the complainant was shifted to S.S. Hospital, Davanagere on 01.11.2012 for further treatment.  The Doctor of S.S. Hospital given treatment at ICU through ventilator and advised to brought the patient to higher center for further management.  The complainant incurred Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses.  Thereafter, the complainant shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore on 02.11.2012, where the Doctor diagnosed the patient and found by scan report shows acute kidney injury, ATN/CORTICAL, NECROSIS-SEPSIS with multi-organ failure and DIC.  On examination reduced urine output since 2 days P21.2 she had underwent LSCS 2 days ago.  She was evaluated elsewhere and was found to have renal failure, electively incubates and transferred to MHB for further management which shows negligent act and deficiency in service of OP in conducting the LSCS to the complainant.  On 31.10.2012, the complainant took treatment as an inpatient since 02.11.2012 to 14.11.2012 and then Doctor advised to discharge by review after two weeks, with dialysis at 3 days once.  Due to their advice for further management.  During the hospitalization at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, the complainant was expensed Rs.4,80,000/- towards medical expenses. Thereafter, the complainant was shifted to Narayana Hrudyalaya, Bangalore on 16.11.2012.  On examination and the scan report shows the severe renal failure (postpartum status) under evaluation and found gastro intentional system PA:Soft LSCS Scar Tenderness.  The complainant is an inpatient till 24.11.2012 and spent Rs.1,79,000/- towards medical expenses and continued the dialysis 3 days once.  Thereafter, the complainant was shifted to Gandiji Naturopathy Hospital, Kannimangala at Thrissur and Mother Hospital, Thrissur and Jubilee Mission Medical College Hospital, Thrissur and took treatment from 25.11.2012 to 22.05.2013 and has spent Rs.88,000/- towards medical expenses and the Doctors opined to underwent continuous dialysis due to severe renal failure, the acute kidney injury caused during the LSCS conducted on 31.10.2012 by the OP and the same was caused severe renal failure and failure of multi organs function due to negligent act and deficiency in service by OP in conducting LSCS to the complainant.  The complainant has underwent for dialysis once in a week till 04.06.2015 and spent Rs.2,00,000/- and the Doctor advised to took continuous dialysis till the end of life and the complainant is underwent to continuous dialysis and unable to walk, sit and travel in a vehicle except in an Ambulance.  The complainant is in a position to travel in a vehicle to take dialysis with the help of others.  Therefore, the complainant approached the OP asking for compensation towards the deficiency in service in conducting the LSCS which caused acute kidney injury and thereby caused severe renal failure but, the OP did not bother about the complainant.  It is further submitted that, prior to LSCS the complainant had good health condition and was doing all kind of household work and agricultural work but, after the LSCS, she was suffering from pain, agony, the same was caused due to the negligent act by the OP in conducting LSCS which caused acute kidney injury and severe renal failure and multi organs failure.  The OP No.2 is the Licensing Authority to OP No.1 to practice as a Gynecologist, so, OP No.2 is also responsible for the deficiency of service.  The opinion of Doctors of S.S. Hospital, Davanagere, Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, Narayana Hrudyalaya, Bangalore and Mother Hospital, Tissure are one and the same that, the severe renal failure is caused due to acute kidney injury during the LSCS and multi organs failure.  Therefore, OPs are liable to pay compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for deficiency in service and prayed to allow his complaint. 

3.      On service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through Sri.C.M. Veeranna, Advocate and filed version.  OP No.2 failed to appear before   this Forum, hence placed ex-parte. 

4.      OP No.1 filed version stating that, the averments made in para 1 and 2 are not known to this OP.  It is not in dispute that, the complainant has taken treatment for her second pregnancy with OP No.1.  The averments made in para 3 and 4 of the complaint are not in dispute.  The averments made in para 5 to 9 of the complaint are specifically denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same, the same is liable to be dismissed.  There is no cause of action as alleged in para 10 of the complaint.  The complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and the complainant has not shown any sufficient cause for condoning the delay and it is highly belated and liable to be dismissed on this ground only. 

It is submitted that, the OP No.1 never worked as an Assistant to Doctor Udayashetty but, she has been taking care of patients in his absence so, there is no question of being an assistant.  The OP No.1 never asked any patient from Udaya Nursing Home to come to her own clinic and the same holds true for this patient seeking for treatment for his second pregnancy because most of her family members are her patients and one of this has brought this patient to her clinic.  It is further submitted that, complainant has falsely stated that, she had difficulty in passing urine and facial edema at 10-30 AM as she has cauterized (Tube inserted to drain urine prior to surgery) in the morning.  So, there is no question of difficulty in passing urine as urine will be drained automatically.  It is wrong to say that, Dr. Kousar, Physician was called on 31.10.2012, it was in fact on 01.11.2012 that day urine output was noted to be 300 ML high coloured.  It is submitted that, if the kidney damaged during surgery, then there could not have been drainage of urine for 24 hours after LSCS, so there is no question of negligence and the USG report shows kidneys are normal.  It is false to say that, complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- towards cost of the surgery in OP No.1 Hospital.  The complainant has not paid any amount towards surgery expenses.  It is further submitted that, Scan Report at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore on 02.11.2012 shows acute kidney injury, whereas the USG Scan Report dated 09.11.2012 states that, the kidneys were normal.  Once being discharge from Manipal Hospital on 14.11.2012, they could have gone Home taken intermittent dialysis as per advice, but the patient went to Narayana Hrudyalaya and incurred unnecessary expenses of Rs.79,000/- and the complainant went to Gandiji Naturopathy Hospital, Kannimangala at Trissura.  Then to Mother Hospital, Trissura and Jubilee Mission Medical College Hospital, Trissura for which she incurred unnecessary expenses of Rs.88,000/-.  All these Hospitals hoping shows that, the complainant is not satisfied by the treatment given at any Hospital, the same appears that, it is the basic nature of the complainant to be unsatisfied with any type of treatment and services.  There is no proof as to where she is undergoing dialysis and what expenses is incurring for the same.  It is wrong to say that, chronic renal failure patient need Ambulance for moving around.  It is well known that, most dialysis patients’ life is like that of a normal person.  In fact the patient approached the OP for financial help saying that, it was her negligence, but, the OP has not entertain them and advised them to take medical treatment properly without wasting time and to approach the proper authorities seeking for compensation if they aggrieved.  It is wrong to say that, this was negligence and deficiency in service while conducting LSCS on 31.10.2012 because the OP is practicing specialist in office and worked in many Hospital from the past 8-10 years.  This OP has conducted thousands of surgeries till date.  It is submitted that, OP will agree the fact that, the complainant has taken treatment from 27.03.2012 to 31.10.2012 hence, the consumer relationship exits admitted for LSCS but, the complainant has not paid any amount towards LSCS.  So, the complainant is not a consumer.  The OP has taken utmost care of the patient at every stage of surgery and also during the post operation period and there is no deficiency of service and no negligence on the part of OP No.1.  Therefore, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-20 were got marked.  OP No.1 Dr. Suvarna Rajashekhar has examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and no documents have been got marked.  

6.      Arguments heard.

7.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that:

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in treating the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?

              (2) What order?

          8.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

9.      It is the case of the complainant that, complainant during her second pregnancy she took  treatment at OP private clinic by name Sholk Maternity and Eye Care Center for the period since from 27.03.2012 to 31.10.2012.  On 27.03.2012 the complainant visited the OP at Chitradurga in their clinic for confirmation of pregnancy and she underwent to clinical checkup. The OP confirmed the pregnancy and opined that the LMP on 03.02.2012 and EDD on 10.12.2012.  Since from 27.03.2012 to 31.10.2012, the complainant under the follow up checkup and treatment in OP.  On 30.10.2012 the complainant consulted the OP.  On examination the OP noted the regular normal flow, past family/previous history is normal significant O/E, No-polar, No-Pedorl Edema, No-Ictress, Pr-Cy (previous caesarian) unaffected, as G3PILIAIC Term pregnancy C previous LSCS, IUGR.  Hence, the OP advised the complainant to post for elective LSCS. Then the OP referred the complainant to admit at Basappa Multispecialty Hospital, Chitradurga for posted elective LSCS.  The complainant underwent to checkup on 30.10.2012 at 7-30 PM and 31.10.2012 at 6-00 AM refer no history of hypertension/diabetics/born child asthma/epilepsy/allergy, surgeries/TB and good functional capacity and general condition is failed.  On 31.10.2012 the OP conducted the LSCS to the complainant at Basappa Multispecialty Hospital, Chitradurga.  After LSCS the complainant was shifted to the ICU at       7-30 AM.  That the complainant is unconscious oriented and free from Aesthetical and she faced hard and severe pain to pass urine and commenced facial Edema at 10-30 AM.  On examination, the OP know the consequences and difficulties with respect to urine output.  The OP called the Physician and followed the treatment as he advised and severe pain and edema.  The Dr.Kousar, Physician come and examined about the reduced urine output since morning and history noted delivery by LSCS on 31.10.2012 urine output 300 ML since morning high coloured and give treatment and advised in view of mild organ dysfunction and problem need for Hemodialysis and referred the complainant to higher center for further evaluation and management due to injury to the kidney caused by LSCS and it caused severe renal failure.  As per the advice given by the Physician, the complainant was shifted to S.S. Hospital, Davanagere on 01.11.2012 for further treatment.  The Doctor of S.S. Hospital given treatment at ICU through ventilator and advised to brought the patient to higher center for further management.   Thereafter, the complainant shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore on 02.11.2012, where the Doctor diagnosed the patient and found by scan report shows acute kidney injury, ATN/CORTICAL, NECROSIS-SEPSIS with multi-organ failure and DIC.  On examination reduced urine output since 2 days P21.2 she had underwent LSCS 2 days ago.  On 31.10.2012, the complainant took treatment as an inpatient since 02.11.2012 to 14.11.2012 and then Doctor advised to discharge by review after two weeks, with dialysis at 3 days once.  Due to their advice for further management.  Thereafter, the complainant was shifted to Gandiji Naturopathy Hospital, Kannimangala at Thrissur and Mother Hospital, Thrissur and Jubilee Mission Medical College Hospital, Thrissur and took treatment from 25.11.2012 to 22.05.2013 and has spent Rs.88,000/- towards medical expenses and the Doctors opined to underwent continuous dialysis due to severe renal failure, the acute kidney injury caused during the LSCS conducted on 31.10.2012 by the OP and the same was caused severe renal failure and failure of multi organs function due to negligent act and deficiency in service by OP in conducting LSCS to the complainant.  The complainant is in a position to travel in a vehicle to take dialysis with the help of others.  Therefore, the complainant approached the OP asking for compensation towards the deficiency in service in conducting the LSCS which caused acute kidney injury and thereby caused severe renal failure but, the OP did not bother about the complainant.  It is further submitted that, prior to LSCS the complainant had good health condition and was doing all kind of household work and agricultural work but, after the LSCS, she was suffering from pain, agony, the same was caused due to the negligent act by the OP in conducting LSCS which caused acute kidney injury and severe renal failure and multi organs failure. 

 10.   On the other hand, it is argued by the advocate for OP No.1 that, he never worked as an Assistant to Doctor Udayashetty but, she has been taking care of patients in his absence so, there is no question of being an assistant.  Complainant has falsely stated that, she had difficulty in passing urine and facial edema at 10-30 AM as she has cauterized in the morning.  So, there is no question of difficulty in passing urine as urine will be drained automatically.  It is wrong to say that, Dr. Kousar, Physician was called on 31.10.2012, it was in fact on 01.11.2012 that day urine output was noted to be 300 ML high coloured.  If the kidney damaged during surgery, then there could not have been drainage of urine for 24 hours after LSCS, so there is no question of negligence and the USG report shows kidneys are normal.  The complainant has not paid any amount towards surgery expenses.  Scan Report at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore on 02.11.2012 shows acute kidney injury, whereas the USG Scan Report dated 09.11.2012 states that, the kidneys were normal.  The Hospitals hoping shows that, the complainant is not satisfied by the treatment given at any Hospital, the same appears that, it is the basic nature of the complainant to be unsatisfied with any type of treatment and services.  There is no proof as to where she is undergoing dialysis and what expenses is incurring for the same.  It is wrong to say that, chronic renal failure patient need Ambulance for moving around.  It is well known that, most dialysis patients’ life is like that of a normal person.  In fact the patient approached the OP for financial help saying that, it was her negligence, but, the OP has not entertain them and advised them to take medical treatment properly without wasting time and to approach the proper authorities seeking for compensation if they aggrieved.  It is wrong to say that, this was negligence and deficiency in service while conducting LSCS on 31.10.2012 because the OP is practicing specialist in office and worked in many Hospital from the past 8-10 years.  This OP has conducted thousands of surgeries till date.  It is submitted that, OP will agree the fact that, the complainant has taken treatment from 27.03.2012 to 31.10.2012 hence, the consumer relationship exits admitted for LSCS but, the complainant has not paid any amount towards LSCS.  So, the complainant is not a consumer. 

11.   We have gone through the entire documents including the complaint, version, written arguments and affidavits, it clearly made out that, as per the exhibits it clearly shows that the complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation against the OPs on the ground of medical negligence.  The complainant approached OP No.1 for taking treatment during her second pregnancy.  OP No.1 has treated the complainant and delivered the complainant.  After delivery according to the complainant the OP No.1 has committed deficiency in conducting LSCS.  But as per the documents, it clearly shows that, the OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service during LSCS.  The only mistake was committed by the OP No.1 is that, at the time of conducting LSCS, the OP No.1 has not collected sufficient instruments for conducting LSCS.  It is purely a negligence on the part of OP No.2.  After completion of the LSCS, the complainant approached higher Hospitals for further treatment continuously.  After lapse of 3 ½ years, the complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs.  But the complainant has not made the higher hospitals as the parties in this case.  But anyhow, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs i.e., for non-availability of the instruments at the time of conduction LSCS in the Hospital.  The OP No.1 has done nearly 2000 deliveries in the Hospital but, she never committed any deficiency of service in conducting LSCS earlier.  According to the complainant, the OP No.1 has committed deficiency of service in conducting LSCS.  The documents and case sheet shows that, the OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service.  But non collecting of the materials at the time of conducting LSCS, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs.  As per the decision reported in III (2017) CPJ 246 (Punj.) in the case of Sher Singh Vs. Senior Medical Officer N. RLY&. Ludhiana and another wherein it has been held that:

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 15 – Health Services – Scheme availed – Amount paid – Medical Reimbursement – Denied – Treatment taken from non-recognised hospital – Deficiency in service alleged – District Forum dismissed complaint – Hence appeal – Complainant was symptomatic for two months prior to admission – He had enough time to report to authorized Medical Officer to arrange for his treatment – Admittedly complainant had suffered from hernia for last 25 years – He had enough time to report to his Medical Officer for further referring him to Divisional Hospital Ferozpur – No scope available for beneficiary to go to any private hospital on their own except in case of emergency  situation – Complainant failed to prove that he got admitted in hospital in emergency condition – Deficiency not proved”. 

Result: Appeal dismissed.

 

   Another decision reported in III (2017) CPJ 234 (Har.) in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd, and another Vs. Bedo Devi and others wherein it has been held as under:

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 15 – Medical Negligence – Calculus in right kidney – Surgery performed – Persistence abdomen pain – Treatment taken from various doctors – No relief – Validity of doctor’s qualification – Deficiency in service alleged – District Forum allowed complaint – Hence appeal – Medical observed that there was no lack of reasonable care and skill or wilful negligence on part of treating doctor/surgeon – There is nothing on record to suggest that treating doctors committed any negligence – As far qualification it is established that OP No.3 is a qualified MBBS, MS from AIIMS – Negligence not proved”.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Another decision reported in III (2017) CPJ 658 (NC) in the case of Susmita Roy Chowdhury and another Vs. B.M. Birla Heart Research Center and others wherein it has been held as under:

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(a)(ii) - Medical Negligence – Heart Surgery – Death of patient – Lack of care – Alleged deficiency in service – State Commission dismissed complaint – Hence appeal – Appellants have failed to establish that respondent No.2, Treating Doctor did not act with reasonable competence or prudence or skill, he was expected to act as medical practitioner  in performance of CABG procedure – They have not brought on record sufficient material to hold that respondent No.3, involved in initial diagnosis, on the question whether patient was infected with Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) or not, was negligent in his diagnosis – There was no manipulation in records relating to patient – It was doctor’s conscious decision to postpone the procedure till patient was stabilized but when he noticed that his condition was fast deteriorating, he decided to perform procedure immediately – Negligence not proved – Hospital deficient in service in not maintaining proper record – Lump sum compensation @ Rs.3,00,000 awarded for lapses”.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

 

According to the decision cited above, order has been passed ordering Rs.3,00,000/- against the Hospital.  The said Hospital is a very big Hospital.  As per the documents produced by the OP No.1, it shows that, the OP No.2 is very small clinic.  OP No.1 has produced citations with regard to condone the delay in filing the complaint.  The complainant has not produced any documents to condone the delay in filing the complaint.  Anyhow, in morality consideration this Forum has passed the following reliefs to the complainant. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for non-availability of materials to conduct operation.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative.   

    12.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for non-availability of instruments in the Hospital at the time of conducting LSCS to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till realization.   

  It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 20/12/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainants:

PW-1:  Smt.Sudha by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Letter of Basappa Multispecialty Hospital with case sheet
02	Ex-A-2:-	Prescriptions
03	Ex-A-3:-	Letter by Manipal Hospital with inpatient check list
04	Ex-A-4:-	Discharge summary
05	Ex.A-5:-	Lab investigation report
06	Ex.A-6:-	OP case sheet
07	Ex.A-7:-	OP case sheet
08	Ex.A-8:-	Discharge summary
09	Ex.A-9:-	Prescription receipt
10	Ex.A-10:-	Lab report
11	Ex.A-11:-	Lab report
12	Ex.A-12:-	Lab test reports
13	Ex.A-13:-	Hospital receipts
14	Ex.A-14:-	Letter of Muzumdar Shaw Medical Centre dated 22.10.2015
15	Ex.A-15:-	Letter of NH Health City dated 21.07.2015
16	Ex.A-16:-	Two Covers of Manipal Hospital
17	Ex.A-17:-	Legal Notice dated 16.11.2015
18	Ex.A-18:-	Postal receipt
19	Ex.A-19:-	Postal Acknowledgement
20	Ex.A-20:-	Discharge summary

 

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**