Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant was riding a Motor Cycle and met with an accident. The accident caused injury on the left hand of the Complainant and the injured was taken to the Opposite Party's center 'G G Kalari Marma Chikilsa'. The Opposite Party assured the Complainant that if continuous treatment including the band aid was given the fracture of the bone would be rectified. The treatments under the Opposite Party continued for the period of 15 days in course of treatment instead of subsiding the pain and discomfort the Complainant had to suffer severe pain. Massaging of the left hand continued by the Opposite party and bandages were also applied followed by the severe pain of the hand, the Complainant had undergone treatment

from a hospital of Alopathy treatments. It was later known to the Complainant from the hospital on examination that the pain of the left hand was due to fracture. The treatments given by the Opposite Party was without understanding the fracture of the bone. In course of treatments, towards the expenses, the Opposite Party collected from the Complainant Rs.30,000/- in different heads. The massaging of the region where the bone fractured made the Complainant undergo further complications. The ignorance of the Opposite Party and the rustic methods of treatment made the Complainant to suffer a lot. The Opposite Party has no knowledge of 'Marma Chikilsa' the left hand of the Complainant has the permanent disability caused by the negligence and defective treatments of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party may be directed to refund the Complainant Rs.30,000/- towards the pain and sufferings Rs.2,00,000/- along with cost.

2. The Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version is as follows. The allegation of the Complainant is absolutely false. The Opposite Party has not given any

treatments to the Complainant nor the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for any kind of treatments. The Opposite Party is not in the habit of treating any patient who met with road traffic accident. On the particular day dated 30.1.2007 or any day afterwards the Complainant was not escorted by anybody else to 'Kalari Marma Center' conducted by the Opposite Party. The further allegation of the Complainant that the Complainant had contacted the doctor in Assumption Hospital and then only it was known that the bone of the left hand was fractured and complication of injury was only due to the massaging by the Opposite Parties are nothing but false. The Opposite Party is accustomed to receive Rs.30/- as the charge for one binding. The claim amount quantified to be received from the Opposite Party is not based on any reasons. The Opposite Party is a member of the family who practices 'Kalari Chikilsa' from the distant past onwards. As a practitioner in ' Kalari Chikilsa' this Opposite Party has enough reputation

in the locality as an expert in marma chikilsa. The complaint is ill motivated. The Complainant and his near relatives when demanded personal help to protect the interest of the Complainant the Opposite Party refused it and it is the only reason for making a false complaint against this Opposite Party and more over the Complainant's father put a demand to the Opposite party for the purchase of the land where the center is situated. The rejection of the request also triggered the enmity upon this Opposite Party. The complaint is not based on any facts and reason. The Complainant is motivated with interest to get the center closed and more over it is also with an intention to tarnish the reputation of the 'Marma Chikilsa Center'. The complaint is not born out of reasons and ill motivated. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the Opposite Party.

3. The points in consideration are.

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- The complainant filed affidavit swearing the contentions. Ext.A1 to A8 are marked in support of their contentions. The Opposite Party filed affidavit, Ext.B1 to B4 are marked on their side. Ext.X1 is the case sheet of the treatment availed by the Complainant.

5. The case of the Complainant is that the rustic method of treatment given by the Opposite Party, resulted further complications for which the Complainant had to undergo treatment after 15 days of injury in a hospital. Ext.X1 consists of the consent letter of the patient, who had undergone operation. It shows that the Complainant had to undergo treatment under one doctor Moin from the case sheet Ext.X1 it is seen that the patient was admitted there on the 16

day after the injury. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant had not undergone any treatment in the Kalari Marma Chikilsalayam of the Opposite Party. The allegation of the Complainant is motivated with personal interest. The enmity of the Complainant's family and the Complainant himself is the reason for false complaint against the Opposite Party. The documents produced by the Opposite Party consists of the documents showing that the Opposite Party is the member of the Kerala Kalarippayattu Association. The Opposite Party being an authorised member in the association who is technically qualified. It does not mean that being a member in Kerala Kalarippayattu Association what all treatments given by him would be free from defect the Complainant had undergone treatment in the Assumption Hospital Sulthan Bathery. Two witnesses are examined to establish the contentions of the Complainant. They escorted the Complainant to the treatment center of the Opposite Party when the accident took place. The contentions of the Opposite Party that PW2 is an interested witness, how ever the other witness examined all rate deposed that the Complainant was taken to the Opposite Parties Kalari Marma Chikilsalayam and he had undergone treatment there till 15.2.2007. The contention of the Opposite Party that the treatment availed from Assumption Hospital Sulthan Bathery is false and the document produced are nothing but the result of the personal influence and it cannot be considered. The Complainant had undergone treatment from 15.2.2007 to 19.2.2007 if the treatment given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant had given recovery the question of further treatments does not arise. The Doctor who treated advised on 16^th day for surgical treatment for malunion. It shows that the previous treatments availed by the Complainant resulted maluniting of the bones for which surgery was advised. The indigenous treatment of the Opposite Party caused the malunioun of the bone fractured. The Opposite Party has no case that the Complainant was given treatment from his treatment center. The Opposite Party has not brought out in evidence to show that in the relevant period the Complainant had not undergone any treatment there. On the other side the treatment of the Complainant from the

Assumption Hospital Sulthan Bathery from 15.2.2007 to 19.2.2007 15 days after the injury. It can be presumed as such that the Complainant had undergone treatment from the Opposite Party side. From the above inferences we are in the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the treatment of the Opposite Party to the Complainant. The point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- The complainant filed the receipts given towards the payment of money in the Assumption Hospital, Sulthan Bathery. Ext.A2 to A8 are the bills of different amount paid in the hospital. It further alleged by the Complainant that he had given Rs.30,000/- to the Opposite Party for the treatment received from there . Apart from the oral testimony no other document is produced by the Complainant to show that Rs.30,000/- was paid by him for towards bandages for 7 days which was done on alternative days. More over the allegation of the complainant that the four bandages of each day near about Rs.4,300/- was paid is beyond reasons and inconceivable. Any how the Complainant had spend Rs.14,658/- in the hospital for treatment and he had undergone further operation as a result of the Complication of the treatment availed in the beginning which is to be compensated.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) including the cost and compensation to the Complainant within one month from the date of receiving of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 27^th day of December 2008.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Vipin Jose, Complainant.

PW2. Sunil P.K. Business.

PW3. Sreejesh Agriculture.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Kuttikrishnan Trainer of District Ayodhana Kendram.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Treatment Certificate. dt:09.01.2008.

A2. Discharge Bill dt:19.02.2007,

A3. Bill. dt:19.02.2007.

A4. Bill. dt:18.02.2007.

A5. Bill. dt:18.02.2007.

A6. Bill. dt:17.02.2007.

A7. Bill. dt:16.02.2007.

A8. Bill. dt:16.02.2007.

X1. True copy of the Case sheet.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Certified copy of L-3 license. dt:7.7.93.

B2. Copy of Registration Certificate. dt:19.11.2004.

B3. True copy of Identity Card.

B4. Letter from District Collector, Wayanad dt:01.08.2005.

(True Copy)