Kerala

Idukki

CC/121/2016

Venu Gopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chazikkadu Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 7.4.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the      27^th      day of  April,  2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                 PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                            MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                          MEMBER

CC NO.121/2016

Between

Complainants                                           :  1. Venugopal K.T., S/o. Thankamany,

                                                                    Kalingil Puthen Veedu,

                                                                    Valiakavala Bhagom,

                                                                    Vaikom.

       2.  M.C. Kunjan, S/o. Chothy,

                                                                    Thadikunnel House,

                                                                    Mrala, Idukki.

                                                                 3.  V.T. Ammini, W/o. M.C. Kunjan,    

                                                                     Thadikunnel House,

                                                                     Mrala, Idukki.

 (All by Adv: E. Abdul Rahim)

And

Opposite Parties                                      :  1. Chazhikkattu Hospital,

                                                                     IX/139A, River View Road,

                                                                     Thodupuzha – 685 584. 

                                                                  2.  Dr. Vinodini,

                                                                     Chazhikkattu Hospital,

                                                                       IX/139A, River View Road,                                                                                  Thodupuzha – 685 584.

        3.  Dr. Renjith,

                                                                     Chazhikkattu Hospital,

                                                                     IX/139A, River View Road,

                                                                     Thodupuzha – 685 584.

  (All by Adv: Johnson Joseph)

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

1^st complainant is husband, 2^nd and 3^rd complainants are father and mother respectively of deceased Nishamol, who was a Process Server of District Court,                                                                                                                            (cont....2)

• 2  -

Thodupuzha.  1^st complainant is a KSEB employee.  1^st opposite party is Chazhikkattu hospital, Thodupuzha. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are 2 doctors working in the said hospital, 2^nd opposite party Dr. Vinodini is a Gyneacologist and 3^rd opposite party Dr. Renjith  Anaesthesiologist respectively.  Deceased Nishamol N.K. was an outpatient of 1^st opposite party hospital from 27.2.2013 till 8.4.2014.  She had approached 2^nd opposite party gynaecologist on 27.2.2013 for infertility treatment.  At that time, she had urinary infection also.  1^st opposite party had asked the complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- for treatment expenses.  2^nd opposite party had assured the 1^st complainant that she would treat his wife properly and that she will be able to conceive within a month. Though infertile, Nishamol was in good health.  On 27.2.2013, it seems some medicines were prescribed by 2^nd opposite party.  On 8.4.2014, late Nishamol was admitted in 1^st opposite party hospital with IP No.215628.  2^nd opposite party had advised Hystero laparoscopy surgery on next day, that is on 9.4.2014.  1^st complainant wanted to know why surgery was to be performed on the next day without pre-operative tests.  Then 2^nd opposite party had assured complainant that it was a simple procedure, since Nishamol is in good health, surgery can be performed on the next day itself.  Though it was mandatory on the part of opposite party to monitor health condition of patient by conducting various tests, nothing was done.  On 9.4.2014, Nishamol was very pleasant in the morning.  Upon being informed about the time of surgery, she got ready at 8 am.  She was very energetic and brave.  After entering the operation theatre, she was informed about the procedure involved.  Thereafter she was subjected to surgical procedure.  However, it was abandoned as Nishamol has developed sinus bradycardia and cardiac arrest during beginning stages of the procedure itself.  She was thereafter declared dead.  When 1^st complainant enquired about her condition at about 10.30 am, the theatre nurse has informed him that surgery was being conducted.  At 12’o clock, 2^nd opposite party informed 1^st complainant that Nishamol has ceased breathing while the procedure was going on and there was no scope of revival.  He was allowed to see her in the operation theatre.  However, 1^st complainant was only able to see her dead body.  Surgery was performed by 2^nd opposite party.  3^rd opposite party was the anaesthesiologist.  Complainants allege that failure to conduct standard mandatory pre-surgical tests lead to premature death of Nishamol.  It was very important to monitor whole body function after conducting various tests.  2^nd opposite party deviated from standard course of practice.  She had been grossly negligent.  3^rd opposite party had administered anaesthesia while Nishamol had urinary infection.  Ordinarily anaesthesia is never administered when the patient is having viral or other infections.  3^rd opposite party  is also grossly negligent in performing his duties.  Complainant had informed Thodupuzha Police and case was registered as crime 703 dated 9.4.2014.  Additional Tahsildar, Thodupuzha had conducted inquest on 9.4.2014 at 4.30 pm and had filed his report.  Thereafter body wastaken for post mortem examination, which was conducted by Assistant Professor Dr. Jiju V.S.  and Assistant Police Surgeon, along with Dr. Deepu. T., Medical Officer of Department of Forensic Medicine, Govt. Medical                                                                                                                           (cont....3)

• 3  -

College, Kottayam,  as per requisition given by Additional Tahsildar, Thodupuzha.  Opinion with regard to cause of death was reserved since laboratory examination report was awaited.  It was finally received on 25.7.2014 from the chemical examiner to Government.  It revealed along with post mortem findings that the cause of death was due to encephalitis and myocarditis.  That the surgical procedure could have accelerated or precipitated the death.  It is abundantly clear that  death of Nishamol was due to negligence from the side of opposite parties.  Surgery was performed without conducting mandatory tests to ascertain the condition of patient.  So also, untimely administration of anaesthesia to a person having urinary infection as done by 3^rd opposite party reveals his gross negligence.  These acts of omission and commission of opposite parties, according to complainant, amounts to negligence and gross deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties.  1^st opposite party is vicariously liable for the acts of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Complainants under various heads as, loss of income, transportation expenses, medical treatment expenses, loss of consortium, pain and sufferings, loss of love and affection, mental agony, loss of estate and  cost of litigation, quantified the loss /damages at Rs.1,05,21,147/-,but had limited the claim to Rs.20 lakhs.  They prayed for compensation of Rs.20 lakhs from opposite parties with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint.

 

2. Complaint was admitted and upon notice, opposite parties have entered appearance.  1^st opposite party has filed written version.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite party have jointly filed a separate written version.  Both contain similar pleadings.  Case of opposite parties as disclosed from their written versions is briefly narrated hereunder :

 

According to opposite parties, complaint is not maintainable either in law or upon facts.  Nishamol (late) aged 36 years was being treated for primary infertility from 1^st opposite party hospital since 27.2.2013.  She had approached the hospital for treatment of primary infertility with diagnosed uterus polyps and endometriotic cyst as per ultrasound scan which was done outside.  Upon investigation, she was found to have hypothyroidism.  Medication was started for infertility treatment.  Repeat USG also confirmed uterus polyps and endometriosis.  These being so, in her late reproductive stage, she wanted to invasive procedure.  Upon detailed discussions with her and her husband, both had decided to proceed with laparoscopic infertility cystectomy, adhesiolysis and hysteroscopic polipectomy.  Necessary investigations were also suggested.  On 3.4.2014, after consultation with 2^nd opposite party and based on clinical examinations and investigations, she was given a date for hysterolaparoscopy (HLS) on 9.4.2014.  She was directed to be admitted in the hospital on the preceding day, that is, on 8.4.2014.  Pros and cons of hysterolaparoscopy, risks and complications involved were fully explained to the patient and 1^st complainant.  They had voluntarily opted for hysteroscopy as part of infertility treatment.  On 8.4.2014, patient had reported in 1^st opposite party hospital for admission with all test reports.  As per test results findings                                                                                                                 (cont....4)

• 4  -

with regard to urine routine examination, there was presence of 10 – 12 pus cells which ws normal in a woman of her age.  Upon examination, the patient was asymptomatic and she had no clinical complaints with urinary tract infection such as fever, dysuria, urgency or frequency.  She was clinically well.  She had no  complaints of palpitation, dyspnoea, breathlessness or tiredness.  On the date of surgery, patient was very energetic and brave when she had entered  operation theatre.  On the previous date, that is, on 8.4.2014, she was referred for pre-anaesthetic check up and evaluation. Hypothyroidism and allergic bronchitis were found to be well under control on treatment.  Cardio-vascular, CNS and respiratory status and other vital parameters were found to be satisfactory.  As per pre-anaesthetic evaluation, there was no contra indication for general anaesthesia.  She was found fit for surgery and accordingly surgery was posted to 9.4.2014.  Before that, patient and her bystanders were well informed about the surgical procedure.  1^st complainant had voluntarily signed written informed consent.  On 9.4.2014, upon finding the patient very energetic and well oriented and vital parameters being stable, she was shifted to operation theatre at 11 am.  As per protocol with all aseptic care general anaesthesia was administered with close monitoring of cardio-vascular system and vitals.  2^nd opposite party had positioned the patient, drappings were put and catheterisation was done which had drained clear urine.  Surgery had commenced on 11.30 am.  Hysteroscopy showed small uterus polyps.  D&C was done with all aseptic care.  Hysteroscopy was proceeded with, which showed normal cavity and ostia.  After change of gloves, laparoschopy was proceeded with, intra abdomen cavity was entered with various needles.  After confirming the position of needles, gas insufflations were done.  At this time, the patient had spontaneously developed sinus bradycardia and cardiac arrest.  Immediately surgery was abandoned.  3^rd opposite party had started cardiac resuscitation using prescribed medicines.  Pulse and BP were not recordable.  Patient was not responding to cardio-pulmonary resuscitation.  Though CPR was continued, bed side Echo showed cardiac stand still.  Bystanders were informed about sudden cardiac arrest and resuscitative measures and serious condition of patient.  Despite timely cardiac resuscitation, patient has not responded.  Though CPR was continued for 45 minutes, patient remained unresponsive.  Hence death was declared at 2 pm.  Bystanders were informed.  Sudden occurrence of sinus bradycardia and cardiac arrest intra operative was quite unexpected and not due to any act or omission from the side of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Both have immediately started cardiac resuscitation as per protocol and guidelines.  Despite this, patient had remained unresponsive and could not revive.  Pre-operative investigations and clinical examination findings show that there was no contra indication for surgery under general anaesthesia.  Patient did not shown any signs of encephalitis and myocarditis pre-operatively.  All routine investigations and clinical examinations necessary for assessment of surgical fitness were done in the case of patient as per standard and accepted protocol.  There was nothing suggestive of encephalitis or myocarditis.  Routine urine examination showed pus cells in range of only 10 – 12.  In a patient of 36                                                                                                                (cont....5)

• 5  -

years of age, this is not contra indication for anaesthesia.  It is incorrect to say that the 2^nd opposite party assured the patient that she will be able to conceive within one month of commencement of treatment.  Patient was a known case of uterus polyps and endometriosis.  She has been under primary infertility treatment for a long time.  She was in very good health.  Her hypothyroidism and allergic bronchitis were well controlled by treatment.  It is incorrect to say that the surgery was done in urgency without conducting pre-operative tests.  It is also false to say that nothing was done to monitor the health condition of patient.  3^rd opposite party had conducted pre-operative anaesthetic check up and all parameters were found within normal limits.  Surgery was fixed after assessing the cardiovascular, CNS evaluation and assessment.  Patient had not shown any features, signs or symptoms to suspect encephalitis or myocarditis.  It is obvious that patient did not have encephalitis or myocarditis pre-operatively.  Post mortem findings that surgical procedure could have accelerated or precipitated death is unfounded and unsustainable.  Sudden onset of sinus bradycardia leading to cardiac arrest had resulted in death of the patient despite attempts of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party to revive her by resuscitation.  Post mortem findings pin point sudden cardiac arrest induced by factors unconnected to surgery and anaesthesia.  Findings of eccentric narrowing of left coronary artery and subendocardial haemorrhage in left ventricle are indicative of sudden onset of myocardial infarction.  Allegations that failure to adopt standard mandatory pre-surgical tests had lead to premature death of patient are not tenable and sustainable.  Surgical procedure was done as per pre-operative check up and  pre-anaesthetic evaluation  done.  Findings were within normal limits and surgery was fixed on 9.4.2014.  Allegations that 3^rd opposite party was negligent in administering anaesthesia to the patient having urinary tract infection is not tenable or sustainable.  Urine routine examination was done and as mentioned earlier, result revealed only pus cells 10 – 12 which is not contra indication for anaesthesia in case of a female aged 36 years.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have exercised reasonable degree of skill diligence and care in the treatment of late Nishamol.  Her death was not due to any negligence or carelessness on their part.  It is incorrect to say that the hurried operation was only for the purpose of making financial gain by extracting money from complainants.  Allegations that nothing was done to monitor the body functions and that no tests were conducted and further that administration of medicines had also deteriorated the health of patient are incorrect.  Complaint is filed by misrepresenting facts with a view to extract money from opposite parties.  Compensation claimed under various heads is excessive and without any basis.  2^nd opposite party has qualification of DGO, DNB with experience of 15 years as consultant gynaecologist.  3^rd opposite party has qualification of MBBS, MD with experience of 6 years as consultant anaesthesiologist.  There was no negligence or carelessness on their part.  That being so, the question of vicarious liability of 1^st opposite party does not arise.  Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

                                                                                                                   (cont.....6)

- 6  -

3. After filing of written versions, case was posted for evidence and this was after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to take steps.  Upon application from the side of complainant, records pertaining to treatment of late Nishamol, maintained by 1^st opposite party which were in the custody of Deputy Superintendent of Police were summoned and accordingly, produced before the Commission.  On the side of complainants, fist complainant was examined as PW1 and 3^rd complainant as PW2.  Exts.P1 to P9 and Ext.R1 were marked.  Thereafter case was posted for opposite parties evidence.  However, it was after this, that an application to re-open evidence was filed for examination of 3^rd complainant which was allowed and she was examined as PW2 as such.  Though case was then posted for evidence of opposite parties, an application to re-open  evidence was again filed by complainants and this time the purpose was to examine Dr. K. Sasikala, Head of the Forensic Department of Kottayam Medical College.  This application was also allowed.  However, on 17.4.2023, when the case was posted for examination of this witness, though witness was present, complainant or his counsel were not present.  The witness was examined as PW3 on her own volition and Ext.X1 was marked.  Thereafter upon submissions by able counsel for opposite parties, that opposite parties are not tendering any evidence, evidence was closed.  We have also heard the learned counsel for opposite parties.  Since complainant or his counsel was not present we were unable to hear them.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)   Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2)  Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties ?

3)  Whether complainants are entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint ?

4)  Final order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

          Though it is mentioned in the written versions that complaint is not maintainable in law, we did not find any legal impediment as such against entertaining this complaint.  It is a case of negligence in providing medical/professional services for consideration, medical services are covered by the term ‘service’  as defined in the Old Act.  Opposite parties being professionals engaged in providing medical service upon consideration  are certainly service providers.  Any complaint alleging deficiency in service as against them can be maintained before the Forum constituted under the Act.  Hospital is situated within the local limit of this Forum.  Cause of action has also arisen within the limits and hence this Forum does have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

 

          Coming to the facts upon going through the complaint, we find that  main grievance of complainants is that late Nishamol was subject to invasive procedure without conducting all requisite tests to ascertain her body condition or vital functions.  It is also alleged that deceased had urinary infection and administration of anaesthesia while the patient had urinary infection was not in accordance with medical protocol.                                                                                                                (cont....7)

• 7  -

The patient was very healthy and active before surgery, as per evidence of PW1 and 2 just before she entered the theatre to undergo surgery. It was the lack of pre-operative tests and administration of anaesthesia while the patient was having urinary infection which had caused her untimely death in the course of operation.  To substantiate this, there is oral evidence of PWs1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P9.  Ext.P1 is photocopy of electoral ID card of deceased Nishamol.  Ext.P2 is photocopy of her salary certificate.  Deceased was working as a Process Server of District Court, Thodupuzha, at that time.  Ext.P3 is electoral ID card of 1^st complainant.  Ext.P4 is photo print out of electoral ID card of 2^nd complainant and Ext.P5 is similar ID card of 3^rd complainant. Ext.P6 is a treatment certificate purportedly signed by 2^nd opposite party dated 31.12.2015.  This  certificate is to the effect that late Nishamol was being treated for infertility in 1^st opposite party hospital from 27.2.2013.  She was a known case of endometriotic cyst and was on outpatient treatment till 8.4.2014, when she was admitted for  hysterolaparascopy on the next day.  She was taken up for surgery on 9.4.2014 and procedure was abandoned since she developed sinus bradicardia and cardiac arrest during beginning stages of the procedure.  Resuscitative measures failed and patient was declared death at 2 pm on 9.4.2014.  Exact cause of death is pending autopsy report.

Ext.P7 is photocopy of FIR in crime No.703/2014 of Thodupuzha Police Station registered on 9.4.2014, with regard to demise of Nishamol, under unmatured death.  Ext.P8 is her post mortem certificate and Ext.P9 is final post mortem certificate after receipt of chemical analysis report.

 

          In the written versions filed, opposite parties contend that there were pre-operative investigations and body tests.  It was after this that the surgical procedure was attempted on 9.4.2014.  During his cross examination, it was suggested to PW1 that when Nishamol admitted for pre-operative care on 3.4.2014 ,  her blood, urine and pressure were tested and value ascertained.  To this, PW1 has given an evasive reply that he does not know about this.  That he does not remember whether  deceased gone to the hospital on 3.4.2014.  At the time of her death, he was working in Kidangoor.  During later stages of cross examination, he has admitted that 3^rd opposite party had examined deceased Nishamol on 8.4.2014.  He was confronted with the consent letter given by him for  surgery which contained his signature.  He has admitted this and the document was marked as Ext.R1 upon his admission. PW1 is a KSEB employee. He is literate. He has no case in complaint or proof affidavit that consent was given without understanding the risks involved or nature of procedure. Therefore the implication is that entire procedure was fully explained to him and that he had given his consent for surgery after understanding all the risks and consequences involved.  Coming to the evidence of PW2, who is the 3^rd complainant herein, she was examined nearly 3 years after the examination of PW1.  Purpose was to prove that she was with the deceased at the time of her admission in 1^st opposite party hospital on the date prior to the surgery and on the date when the incomplete procedure was performed, in the course of which the deceased                                                                                                            (cont.....8)

• 8  -

has lost her life.  Though PW2 has sworn in her affidavit that after the demise of her daughter, records were forged by opposite parties, during her cross examination, she was not able to   support  those  allegations with reasons which had lead to her believe that records were forged.  No such specific instances of forgery are deposed to by PW1.  PW2 has admitted during cross examination that on 31.3.2014, deceased had gone to the hospital and several tests including blood tests were conducted on that date.  All the tests prescribed by doctor were done before surgery. Though she would correct this later and depose that only urine test was done, this appears only as an evasive tactic to get over the earlier admission. We have also gone through hospital records, which were seized  in the course of police investigation which had commenced on the basis of Ext.P7 FIR.  Apart from this case records, post mortem certificate and expert opinion are also there.  Copy of the entire case file maintained by 1^st opposite party relating to treatment of deceased was available. These records along with others were called for by this forum upon application from the side of complainants.  As per these records, deceased was first seen by 2^nd opposite party on 27.2.2013 as referred patient from Indo American Hospital, Chemmanakary, Vaikom.  These records would reveal that the patient was seen by 2^nd opposite party on subsequent dates including on 18.2.2014, 3.3.2014, 31.3.2014 and 3.4.2014, prior to her admission on 8.4.2014.  On 3.3.2014, four days before admission she was found to be suitable for HLS.  Since the deceased wanted to do the procedure during vacation time of the courts, surgery was fixed as per her convenience. On 31.3.2014 and 3.4.2014, there are observations to the effect that the patient was examined prior to her admission for surgery on 8.4.2014, by paramedical staff and 2^nd opposite party.  These records should be considered in the light of admission of PW2 that all pre-operative tests were conducted before the intended surgery as such.  Its results are also contained in the hospital records.  Contentions that these records are forgeries as claimed by complainants are not convincing. Police investigation has not revealed commission of any such forgery, if it were to be so there would be other criminal charges also. Complainants have not produced final report of investigation or copies of case dairy to substantiate their contentions.

 

          We also notice that an expert opinion was given by a panel of  medical experts including PW3, on 30.12.2015, that even if mild urinary tract infection is not treated, it will not cause encephalitis or myocarditis or may result in the death of the patient. This report was admitted upon proof by PW3.  It is seen from the records that Ext.X1 report was preceded by another report by the same set of experts dated 18.6.2015.  In the earlier report, experts have noticed that there was no mention of patient suffering from encephalitis or myocarditis in the case records.  There were records to the effect that a proper pre-anaesthetic check up was done before administration of anaesthesia.  Experts have concluded that there was no clinical evidence of encephalitis and myocarditis.  There was evidence of mild urinary tract infection for which no treatment was offered as per  records.  Cardiac  arrest  during  laparascopy  is  an  accepted  complication.                                                                                                                            (cont....9)

• 9  -

Considering the hystopathological examination report of tissue bit possibility of a subclinical infection cannot be excluded.  That patient might have been symptomatic and hence the subclinical infection could not be detected.  In such a patient, chance of developing cardiac arrest is more while undergoing laparoscopic procedure.

 

          The investigating officer, DySP was not satisfied by this and upon his request, the expert panel has considered the records and  given Ext.X1 opinion whereby they have very clearly opined that mild urinary tract infection, if  left untreated, will not be a cause of myocarditis or encephalitis which may cause death.  That the patient was given necessary support as per medical protocol when she had sustained heart attack during the procedure of laparoscopy.  Experts have also stated that the doctors who had treated the patient have exercised their duty with reasonable care and skill.  No dereliction of duty of care could be identified from the records submitted.  Hence panel has opined that there is no medical negligence.  When PW3 who was summoned by complainants, for examination on the basis of Ext.X1 and the previous report, was present before forum, neither complainants or their counsel were present for examining or cross examining the witness.

 

Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the matter of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Panjab (2005 KHC 1045) observing that Bolam Text had withstood the test of time opined that a professional may be held liable for negligence if he is not possessed of requisite skill which he professes to have possessed or that he did not exercise with reasonable competence in the given case the skill which he does possess.  Standard to be applied for judging, whether a professional is negligent or not, would be that of an ordinarily competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession.  It is not necessary for  a professional to possess highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices.  In other words, the test is to see whether the professional, an ordinary competent person having ordinary skill in his profession had exercised his skill as he ordinarily does and not whether he had exercised the skill of the highest competent expert in the field.          

 

          Upon going through evidence tendered by PWs1 and 2, we find that their evidence to the effect that no pre-operative tests were conducted and that body vitals were not monitored are not supported by medical records of deceased and  falsified by admission given by PW2.  Medical records, Ext.X1 and earlier report are only to the effect that the deceased had mild urinary tract infection.  She was asymptomatic of encephalitis and  myocarditis. Even if inflammatory condition of brain and heart were pre-existing, those could not be detected by clinical examination and by routine tests  conducted using equipments and conventional methods which a hospital like 1^st opposite party can provide. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are medical personnel, who are not possessed of extra ordinary skills or knowledge. They were ordinary professionals exercising professional skill and going by hospital records, they have exercised their                                                                                                               (cont.....10)

• 10  -

skill in accordance with their competence and knowledge.  There is no evidence to prove that they were negligent in exercising whatever knowledge and skill they had possessed.  Opposite party No.1 is only a private hospital functioning in  Idukki District.  Opposite parties 2 and 3 are gynaecologist and anaesthetist respectively working there. Their skill and competence cannot be equated with that of professionals working in medical colleges or super speciality hospitals functioning in Metropolitan cities.  We do not find any evidence of medical negligence alleged as such.

 

          To sum up our findings, we find that complaint is maintainable.  There is no sufficient proof with regard to the medical negligence alleged and consequently we hold that there is no deficiency in service.  For the very same reasons, we find that complainants are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.  We notice that PW23 was summoned upon application by complainants, her witness bata remains unpaid.  She had retired from Kottayam Medical College and is presently working as Principal in a private medical college in Kollam.  She had to undertake a journey from Kollam to this Commission functioning in Idukki District. X1 was rendered while shw was in service, while working at Kottayam. Upon a fair estimate, her bata can be fixed at Rs.2000/-.  Considering all these aspects and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this amount should be ordered as payable by complainant to PW3.

 

5.  Point No.4 :

 

          In view of our findings rendered while considering Point Nos.1 to 3, this complaint is only to be dismissed.  Considering the fact that opposite parties have not appeared or given evidence, no costs are to be ordered as payable to them.  

 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed, without costs. However, complainant is directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards witness bata to PW3, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount will be realised from him in accordance with law.  Parties shall take back extra sets of copies without fail.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the   27^th  day of April, 2023

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

  SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                            Sd/-

 SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

                             (cont....11)

• 11  -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1        -   Venugopal K.T.

PW2        -  V.T. Ammini.

PW3        -  Dr. K. Sasikala.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -Photocopy of electoral ID card of deceased Nishamol. 

Ext.P2   - Photocopy of her salary certificate. 

Ext.P3   - Electoral ID card of 1^st complainant. 

Ext.P4   - Photo print out of electoral ID card of 2^nd complainant.

Ext.P5   -  Photo print out of electoral ID card of 3^rd complainant.

Ext.P6  - Treatment certificate purportedly signed by 2^nd opposite party dtd. 31.12.2015.

Ext.P7  - Photocopy of FIR in crime No.703/2014 of Thodupuzha Police Station.

Ext.P8  - Post mortem certificate.

Ext.P9  - Final post mortem certificate after receipt of chemical analysis report.

Ext.X1  -  Medical report.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -  Consent for operation.

 

 

                                                                              Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR