Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

         The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                 2.  The case of the complainant is briefly stated as follows:  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party one Dr. Saramma Thomas for the treatment in connection with her 3^rd pregnancy.  At the time of consultation the complainant revealed that her prior pregnancy was a tubular one and accordingly a surgery was done there.  It is further contended that at the time of that surgery it was noticed that there was an extensive adhesion in her abdomen.  On 02.06.2014 the complainant was admitted at 1^st opposite party’s hospital and she delivered a baby on 03.06.2014.  This delivery was a normal one and the 2^nd opposite party advised and compelled the complainant to undergo PPS.  The 2^nd opposite party further made to believe the complainant that the tube will not be visible later since the 2^nd pregnancy was a tubular one and there is every chance of tubular pregnancy in future.  Accordingly, believing the words of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant was agreed to perform PPS on 06.06.2014.  It is contended that when the 2^nd opposite party was done the PPS a tear was occurred in the caecum while releasing the adhesion.  The tear which occurred in the caecum was due to the gross negligence of the 2^nd opposite party.  The tear occurred in the caecum of the complainant was managed with cecostomy by the 2^nd opposite party.  It is further contended that the discharge summary of the said hospital the doctor (2^nd opposite party) stated that a cecostomy was done to the complainant because her colon was loaded with faeces.  According to the complainant, the tear happened in the caecum due to the negligence and incompetency of the 2^nd opposite party.  If the opposite party would have taken sufficient care and caution while conducting PPS surgery, the above complication could have been avoided.  As a result of the cecostomy the complainant had to be in the surgical ICU for 7 days and she had been isolated from the baby.  It is contended that the 2^nd opposite party has not taken any precaution to overcome complication which may occur during PPS surgery.  Even though the 2^nd opposite party was conscious about the extensive adhesion of the complainant enema would have been given to her.  In order to overcome the problem of faeces the 2^nd opposite party fixed a bag for collecting the faeces.  It is further contended that the complainant had to wear this bag to hold faeces to discharge for a period of 50 days.  According to the complainant, her relatives are discussed these above facts with the PVS Memorial Hospital, Kochi and she was admitted at the P.V.S Hospital and after a thorough preoperative evaluation, caecostomy closure with limited ileoceacal resection was done on 30.07.2014.  On 07.08.2014 the complainant was discharged from PVS Memorial Hospital, Kochi.  As a result of the presence of a collas bag in her abdomen which make so much inconvenience to the complainant and it also highly affected the feeding of the baby.  It is further contended that the complainant’s husband who is working in abroad also forced to take leave for one month to attend the surgery of the complainant.  It is again contended that there is an omission and negligence on the part of 2^nd opposite party to do something precautious before conducting the PPS.  On 14.11.2014 the complainant sent a legal notice to opposite parties with a demand for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for pain and suffering etc.  Though the opposite parties received the notice they did not redress the grievances of the complainant.  Hence this complaint to realise the hospital and further expenses of Rs.6,241/- paid to opposite part’s hospital and for the further treatment expenses Rs.1,63,500/- paid to PVS Hospital, Kochi, compensation, cost etc.

                   3. This Forum peruse the complaint, and other records produced by the complainant and issue notice to opposite parties for appearance.  During the time of the trial on 03.03.2015 the complainant filed a petition which is numbered as I.A.No.18/15 for impleading the insurance company as addl. 3^rd opposite party.  This Forum allowed the petition and issue notice to addl. 3^rd opposite party in this case.  All the opposite parties entered appearance and all of them were filed separate versions in this case.

                   4. The version of opposite party 1 is briefly stated as follows:  According to opposite party 1 the hospital is well insured for the medical consequences of the hospital with the United India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 05.10.2013 to 04.10.2014.  As per the allegation of the complainant, the alleged negligence happened on 02.06.2014 and 03.06.2014 hence the incident has taken place within the validity time of the above said insurance.  It is contended that this opposite party has no idea with regard to the further treatment of the complainant.  The doctor who treated the complainant (opposite party 2) is competent and qualified.  It is further contended that opposite party 2 doctor is also protected by professional protection scheme of Indian Medical Association.  It is again contended that if at all any direct negligent found against opposite party 2 he has been answered.  According to the opposite party 1 claiming a right of vicarious liability is not the order of the day.  It is further contended that even if an award is passed the insurer is to be made liable and 1^st opposite party’s hospital is an ISO certified hospital capable of facing any eventuality of any ordinary treatment.  Therefore, this opposite party 1 prayed to exonerate him from all liability.

                   5. The version of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:  According to 2^nd opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed.  It is contended that the complainant consulted the 2^nd opposite party during her 5^th pregnancy on 07.03.2014 for antenatal check up.  Though the complainant checked her pregnancy on earlier stage at Bahrain she did not produce any records relating to her earlier consultation.  It is reported that her 1^st and 4^th pregnancy ended in normal delivery, 2^nd pregnancy ended in spontaneous abortion and 3^rd one was tubular pregnancy which necessitated upon salpingectomy.  The complainant had regular antenatal check up with 2^nd opposite party since 07.03.2014 the complainant delivered a female baby by a normal vaginal delivery.  It is contended that the 2^nd opposite party had discussed with the complainant and her husband about pros and cons of tubal sterilisation and chances of pregnancy even after sterilisation and P.P.S conducted with their consent and full knowledge.  PPS (Post Partum Sterilisation) operation was posted to 06.06.2014.  The 2^nd opposite party conducted the surgery with aseptic care and precautions with the help of general anaesthesia.  It is contended that when surgery was conducted intraoperatively left fallopian tube was not visualised.  There were extreme thick adhesions between right fallopian tube, urinary bladder, caecum and small intestine.  The adhesion had to be released with proceed with tubal ligation and while carefully releasing the adhesions, it is noticed that a small tear in the caecum and the surgeon was called and he immediately reached in the theatre and on exploration found out a small tear in caecum with colon with faecal  matters.  Therefore, it is decided to do cecostomy and the bystanders were informed about the tear in caecum and the need for cecostomy and with their consent opposite party 2 proceeded with cecostomy surgery.  Post operatively the complainant was managed with IV antibiotics and the patient responded well for the treatment.  The complainant was discharged on 18.06.2014 with an advice for cecostomy closure after 8 weeks and review in Gynaec OPD after one week.  Though it is advised the complainant did not turn up to the 1^st opposite party’s hospital as advised.  It is contended that adhesion makes the procedure difficult and in spite of due care and caution exercised in releasing adhered fallopian to caecum and small intestine, release of adhesions can some time cause tear.  It is again contended that this opposite party diagnosed the tear caused to caecum and with the assistance of the surgeon cecostomy was done with the consent and knowledge of the close relatives of the complainant.  The tear in caecum was not caused due to any negligence or carelessness on the part of 2^nd opposite party and as per usual protocol enema need not be given prior to tubal sterilization and adhesion involving fallopian tube, urinary bladder, caecum and small intestine is a rarely seen distorted anatomy.  Though the complainant was advised for review of cecostomy closure after 8 weeks she went to PVS Hospital for the said procedure by abandoning the treatment in the 1^st opposite party’s hospital.  It is contended that even during 1^st clinical examination and taking history as part of antenatal check up, though the complainant stated history of tubal pregnancy and open salpingectomy she did not bring any records connected to the said events.  It is also stated that there is no inducement or compulsion for sterilisation on the part of the 2^nd opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party is well experienced and well trained in PPS operation and she had done the procedure with reasonable skill and care.  It is contended that opposite party 2 has not given any assurance regarding outcome of the surgery as no surgeon can give any assurance with the surgery would be devoid of any complication.  According to opposite party 2 caecal tear is a reported known complication that can occur especially if there are extensive adhesions in spite of care and caution taken by the surgeon while exercising the surgery.  According to opposite party 2, the complainant has gone to PVS Memorial Hospital against proper advice for review in opposite party’s hospital for cecostomy closure.  This opposite party denied the statement regarding mental agony and inconvenience allegedly suffered by complainant’s husband and child at the time of the treatments.  It is further stated that the complainant developed a complication of tear in caecum due to extensive adhesion between internal organs.  According to the 2^nd opposite party, 1^st opposite party’s hospital is a multi speciality hospital with all modern facilities and devices.  All medical practitioners and para medical staff are well qualified and much experiences and opposite party 2 is working as a gynaecologist in the said opposite party’s hospital since 2010.  It is again contended that opposite party 2 has no privity of contract with the complainant or she did not accept any payment or deferred payment from the complainant.  The amount quantified as damages is highly exorbitant, exaggerated and without any substance, merit or rational behind this claim.  For the reasons and facts stated above the opposite party 2 prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to 2^nd opposite party.

                   6. The version of the addl. 3^rd opposite party is as follows:  According to this opposite party he denied all allegation of the complainant stated in para 1 to 11 of the complaint.  It is contended that the complainant is put to strict proof with regard to all these allegations.  According to this opposite party, the complainant has not preferred any notice of professional negligence of this opposite party or otherwise the complainant has no allegation or averment against this addl. 3^rd opposite party in the complaint.  It is further contended that this opposite party issued a professional indemnity policy to M/s. MGM Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry for a period from 05.10.2013 to 04.10.2014 vide Policy No.101700/46/13/32/00000071 covering the claim arising out of bodily injury and/or death of any patient caused by or alleged to have been caused by error, omissions or negligence in professional service rendered or which should have been rendered by the insured or qualified assistants named in the schedule or any nurse or technician employed by the insured.  The liability of this additional 3^rd opposite party is limited to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  According to him, the complainant is not entitled to reimburse the medical expenses incurred for the treatment.  It is further contended that neither this opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service against the complainant nor the opposite party 1 and 2 also committed any medical negligence as alleged by the complainant.  According to this opposite party the amount claimed as compensation is unjust, unreasonable and without any basis.  Therefore, this opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them.

7. We peruse the complaint, versions of the opposite parties and the records before us and framed the following issues.

1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant? 
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

                   8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant’s power of attorney holder he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1 in this case.  Ext.A1 to A11 and Ext.B1 were also marked through PW1 and at the time of the chief examination of PW2 she also identified all these exhibits (A1 to A11).  Ext.A1 is the power of attorney executed by the complainant.  Ext.A2 series (3 pages) are the discharge summary and the results of clinical examinations dated 18.06.2014 issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the discharge summary dated 07.08.2014 issued by PVS Memorial Hospital, Kochi.  Ext.A4 series (8 Pages) are the medical bills for Rs.1,63,500/- issued by PVS Memorial Hospital, Kochi.  Ext.A5 is the copy of legal notice dated 14.11.2014 sent by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties.  Ext.A6 is the postal receipts (2 in Nos.) dated 14.11.2014.  Ext.A7 is the postal acknowledgment cards (2 in Nos.).  Ext.A8 is the reply notice dated 01.12.2014 sent by 1^st opposite party’s counsel to the complainant’s counsel.  Ext.A9 is the antenatal card issued by Muthoot Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Kozhencherry to the complainant.  Ext.A10 series (5 in Nos.) are the medical bills of Muthoot Hospital.  Ext.A11 is the medical certificate dated 21.06.2014 issued by 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.B1 is the copy of policy and conditions.  On the other side, opposite party 2 she who filed a proof affidavit and she is examined as DW1 in this case.

                   9. Point No.1:- Opposite party 2 in this case strongly contested and pleaded that this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is proved that PW2 the defacto complainant she who undergone to 1^st and 2^nd opposite party’s hospital for her 5^th delivery and it also admitted that opposite party 2 has done a post partum sterilization to PW2.  The opposite party 1 hospital admitted that opposite party 2 is a doctor who is working at opposite party’s hospital.  Considering all these facts, we can easily arrived a conclusion to the effect that the complainant is a consumer and opposite party 1 and 2 are service providers of the complainant.  It is also proved that additional opposite party 3 is an insurance company and opposite party 1’s hospital availed insurance coverage from addl. opposite party 3.  Therefore, we find Point No.1 in favour of the complainant.

                   10. Point Nos.2 & 3:  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  The main issue to be considered in this case is whether opposite party 1 and 2 have committed any deficiency in service against the complainant as alleged.  When we evaluate the evidence adduced by the opposite parties in this case it is admitted that opposite party 2 is a qualified doctor who is working under opposite party 1.  It is also admitted that opposite parties has done PPS surgery on PW2 and as per Ext.A2 series it is found that, “extensive adhesion between the right fallopian tube, urinary bladder, caecum and small intestine.  While releasing the adhesion there was a small tear in the caecum.  Surgical consultation taken daily.  Since the colon was loaded with faeces, cecostomy was done.  Right tubectomy done.  Left fallopian tube not visualized.  Postoperatively was managed with IV fluids, IV antibiotics [Inj. Metrogyl].  Patient responded well to the treatment.  Surgical consultation taken daily.  Gastroenterologist and Physician opinion was taken during the post operative period.  Cecostomy functioning well.  Abdominal wound healed.  On discharge, patient fully stable and ambulant and breast feeding her baby.  Suggested closure after 8 weeks”.  As per Ext.A2 series Page No.1, it can be inferred that PW2 had an adhesion between the right fallopian tube, urinary bladder, caecum and small intestine.  It is also clear that the small tear in the caecum happened while releasing the adhesion.  When we peruse this aspect it has to be seen that there was an extensive adhesion already existed at the surgery area when doing the PPS surgery.  No doubt, the adhesion of the abdominal area of PW2 cannot be considered as negligence on either side.  But it is to be noted that if a surgery like PPS done on the body of PW2 whether the state of adhesion is a reason for causing tear in caecum.  PW2, the doctor who conducted the PPS surgery deposed that she has taken all necessary precautions prior to surgery and no negligence happened at the time of surgery.  It is also admitted that the PW2 had regular antenatal check up with opposite party 2 since 07.03.2014.  It is so important to see that the delivery was taken place on 03.06.2014.  If so the doctor who conducted the surgery has got nearly 3 months time to assess all the nature and condition of PW2.  We do admit that the DW1 explained all pros and cons of tubal sterilisation and chances of pregnancy even after sterilisation to PW1 even prior to the surgery.  It is also understood that DW1 conducted the PPS surgery on PW2 with her consent and knowledge.  When we peruse the deposition of PW2 it also proved that the PW2 explained the whole history of her 4 pregnancies to the doctor concerned DW1.  While so, we can presume that DW1 conducted this PPS surgery with a knowledge that PW2 had happened an abortion and a tubal pregnancy prayer to the present delivery.  When we refer Para 6 of the proof affidavit of DW1 it reads, “There were extreme thick adhesions between right fallopian tube, urinary bladder, caecum and small intestine.  The adhesions had to be released to proceed with tubal ligation and while carefully releasing the adhesions, I had noticed a small tear in the caecum and the surgeon was called and he immediately reached the theatre and on exploration found out a small tear in caecum with colon loaded with faecal matter”.  In cross-examination DW1 answered, “caecum ത്തിൽ patient – ന് മുറിവ് ഉണ്ടായത് surgery ചെയ്ത സമയം ആണ് ടി മുറിവ്  close ചെയ്യാൻ കഴിയാഞ്ഞത് മലം കെട്ടി നിന്നതിനാൽ ആണ്. സാധാരണ  operation ചെയ്ത സമയം  മലം പോകാൻ ഇനിമ വെയ്ക്കാറുണ്ട്”.  Witness adds,  “ major surgery – ക്ക് ഈ  case- ൽ  ഇനിമ വച്ചില്ല കാരണം P.P.S Surgery ക്ക് അതിൻറെ ആവശ്യമില്ല”.   When we examine the above portion of deposition in chief as stated above and answer in question with regard to the same aspect in cross-examination it can be inferred that DW1 has no specific case with regard to the tear happened in caecum.  As per his deposition in chief, the tear of caecum has seen at the time of PPS surgery and in cross she answered that the tear happened at the time of surgery.  It is also to be noted that at the time of surgery the colon was fully loaded with faeces.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that as a precaution, if an enema given to PW2 the problem of adhesion can be avoided to a limited extent and tear in the caecum could have to be avoided. When the complainant’s learned counsel asked this aspect to DW1 she answered that, “ഈ case- ൽ  ഇനിമ വച്ചില്ല കാരണം P.P.S Surgery ക്ക് അതിൻറെ ആവശ്യമില്ല”.  In another question DW1 answered, “caecum-ലെ  മുറിവ് വയറ്റിൽ മലം കെട്ടിനിന്നത് മാറ്റിയിരുന്നുവെങ്കിൽ patient ഇത്രയധികം  suffer ചെയ്യേണ്ടിവരില്ല എന്നത് ശരിയാണ് ഇതിന്  tubular pregnancy patient ന് ഉണ്ടായ വിവരം അറിയാം. Adhension ഉള്ള രോഗിക്ക് അതീവ ശ്രദ്ധയോടെ വേണം ചെയ്യാൻ Surgery-ക്ക് ശേഷം adhension ഉണ്ടാവാൻ സാദ്ധ്യത ഞാൻ മനസ്സിലാക്കിയിരുന്നു.”.  When we refer the above testimony of DW1, it is to be presumed that DW1 doctor has done this PPS surgery with a knowledge of presence of adhesion in abdomen.  In such a situation a surgery can be performed with utmost care and precaution.  It is also admitted that if the presence of faeces in colon was absent the possibility of tear in caecum would be avoided.  As an experienced doctor like DW1 she would have managed all these matters prior to the surgery.  It is also to be noted that the cecostomy was done to PW2 when the colon was loaded with faeces.  As a result of caecostomy PW2 was forced to carry an extra bag in her body for two months.  The difficulties for carrying an extra bag at the subsequent time of delivery can be imaginable.  When we refer Ext.A2 series Page 1 it also reveals that left fallopian tube was not visualised at the time of surgery hence for doing PPS surgery this left fallopian tube was searched and as a result the tear of caecum happened.  When we examine the deposition of DW1 in chief, she also suggested that when releasing the adhesion this kind of tear can be normally happened.  The complainant in this case relied Ext.A3 document to show that she approached the PVS Memorial Hospital at Kochi for the closure of cecostomy and for further treatment.  If we examine this Ext.A3 document, it can be seen that there is a dense adhesion and caecal injury was seen when the surgery for the cecostomy closure was done at PVS Hospital.  As per Ext.A3, it reveals that the closure of cecostomy was done on 30.07.2014 at PVS Hospital.  Ext.A4 series are the medical bills for an amount of Rs.1,63,500/- paid by the complainant at PVS Memorial Hospital for her subsequent surgery and further treatment.  At the time of the trial, the opposite parties have not seriously challenged the genuineness of the bill etc.  Ext.A5 to A7 are legal notices to opposite parties and its allied records.  Ext.A8 is the reply notice issued by 1^st opposite party’s counsel in favour of the counsel for the complainant in this case.  When we examine Ext.A8 reply notice, it reveals that opposite party 1 denied almost all the contention put forward by the complainant and also stated that the complainant has gone for further treatment as on her risk and not by the advice of opposite party 1.  Ext.A9 is an antenatal card issued by opposite party 1’s hospital in favour of the defacto complainant PW2.  This evidence shows that from 04.04.2014 to 28.05.2014 she was regularly visited the opposite party’s hospital for pregnancy consultation and admitted on 02.06.2014 for her delivery.  The complainant produced and marked Ext.A10 series (5 in Nos.), it shows that she paid Rs.6,241/- for the P.P.S at opposite party’s hospital.  Ext.A11 also shows that the defacto complainant PW2 was undergone a surgery and delivered a child on 03.04.2014 and she was not fit for travel on those days.  Ext.A11 also helps to prove that her condition was so worse even on 21.06.2014 as per the letter issued by opposite party 2.  The addl. opposite party 3 in this case produced and marked Ext.B1 through PW1.  It is the photocopy of an insurance policy of opposite party’s hospital M/s. MGM Muthoot Medical Centre, Pathanamthitta.  As per this Ext.B1, the said insurance was valid from 05.10.2013 to 04.10.2014.  When addl. 3^rd opposite party cross-examined PW1 it is stated, “ഈ case- ൽ യാതൊരു തരത്തിലും ഉള്ള medical negligence ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല എന്നും അതിനാൽ additional OP3- ക്ക്  insurance നൽകേണ്ട ബാധ്യതയില്ല എന്നും പറയുന്നു       (A) “ശരിയല്ല”.  Though the addl. 3^rd opposite party filed a written version against the complainant no attempt on addl. 3^rd opposite party can be seen even as a suggestion with regard to Ext.B1 certificate.  In the light of the above discussion, it can be seen that opposite party 2 has done this PPS surgery with negligence and she did not take any serious precaution to avoid the consequences which might have happened in the surgery.  The complainant in this case contended that PW2 suffered physical and mental agony as a result of the PPS surgery.  Further, she contended that due to the failure of the PPS surgery she was lost her job in abroad.  When we examine the style of version and the style of cross-examination of opposite party 1, it proves that the 1^st opposite party hospital was covered with an indemnity (medical establishment) policy and indemnity limit is fixed as on any one year Rs.50 Lakhs any one extent Rs.12.5 lakhs etc. etc. and the said policy was also valid at the time of this surgery.  As discussed earlier, it finds that complainant is succeed to prove deficiency in service against opposite party 2 who is working in 1^st opposite party’s hospital.  It is also find that opposite party 2 is working in 1^st opposite party’s hospital hence a vicarious liability is existing between opposite party 1 and 2 as employer and employee.  We further find that opposite party 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to the complainant.  Since it is found that 1^st opposite party’s hospital is covered with a valid insurance with addl. 3^rd opposite party, opposite party 1 and 2 are indemnified with the said insurer, i.e. United India Insurance Company.  Point Nos.2 and 3 are also found in favour of the complainant.

                   11. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay the medical expenses Rs.6,241/- (Rupees Six Thousand two hundred and forty one only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are also liable to pay the medical expenses incurred by PW2 the defacto complainant Rs.1,63,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Three Thousand five hundred only) at PVS Hospital, Kochi, for subsequent treatment with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are also liable to pay a compensation of Rs.1 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

4. A cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is also allowed to the complainant from opposite party 1 and 2 with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

5.  In view of the valid policy additional opposite party 3 the insurer should make the following payment - The additional opposite party 3 shall produce an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for the entire award amount with interest as stated above within one month of receipt of this order.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2017.

                                                                                            (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  A.C. George

PW2  :  Leemol Shiju

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Power of attorney executed by the complainant. 

A2 series (3 pages) :  Discharge summary and the results of clinical 

                                examinations dated 18.06.2014. 

A3 :  Discharge summary dated 07.08.2014 issued by PVS Memorial Hospital, 

        Kochi. 

A4 series (8 Pages) :  Medical bills for Rs.1,63,500/- issued by PVS Memorial

                                 Hospital, Kochi. 

A5 :  Copy of legal notice dated 14.11.2014 sent by the complainant’s counsel  

        to the opposite parties. 

A6 :  Postal receipts (2 in Nos.) dated 14.11.2014. 

A7 :  Postal acknowledgment cards (2 in Nos.). 

A8 :  Reply notice dated 01.12.2014 sent by 1^st opposite party’s counsel

        to the complainant’s counsel.

A9 :  Antenatal card issued by Muthoot Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Kozhencherry

        to the complainant. 

A10 series (5 in Nos.) :  Medical bills of Muthoot Hospital. 

A11 :  Medical certificate dated 21.06.2014 issued by 2^nd opposite party

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Saramma Thomas

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Copy of policy and conditions.

                                                                                              (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Leemol Shiju, Peniel House, Nedumon.P.O.,

                   Arukalickal East, Parakode, Adoor Taluk.

2. Managing Director, Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry.P.O., Pathanamthitta – 689 641.
3. Dr. Saramma Thomas, MBBS, DGO,

          Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre,

          Kozhencherry – 689 641.

4.  The Divisional Manager, United India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

                     Divisional Office, Kizhakkedathu Building,

                     P.B.No.34, Pathanamthitta.

               (5)  The Stock File.