Date of Filling : 28.03.2005.
Date of Disposal : 12.01.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc., … MEMBER-I
CC.27/2005
Tuesday the 12th day of January 2016
Smt. S. Kamatchi,
W/o. Mr. M. .Sriraman
No.123, Dr. Ambedkar Street,
Mitnamalle,
Avadi,
Chennai. … Complainant.
/ Versus /
Dr. S. K. Krishnaraj,
Dr. Bhats Hospital,
Vijaya Complex,
No.1,MTH Road,
Ambattur,
Chennai - 53. … Opposite Party.
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 29.12.2015 in the presence of Thiru. P. Kothandapani Advocate on the side of the complainant and Thiru. Dr. B. Cheran, Advocate for the opposite party and upon hearing arguments on both the sides, having perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This Complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking direction that the opposite party has to pay a sum of Rs.10,800/- for treatment and surgery charges, to pay Rs.8,500/- for the cost of hospital stay assistance and food charges, cost of transport charges, medical and blood tests charges and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of vision and to right eye shrinks completely and the left eye infected with cost.
1. The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:-
The complainant was suffering from lack of clear vision in the right eye on the distant objects only, which affected her rural household routine duties. The complainant underwent an eye test by a specialist i.e. Dr.Srinivasan, MBBS., MS.,DO., of Pattabiram on 02.03.2004, who after thorough examination advised only the bifocal spectacles for clear vision, which is enough for rural lifestyle.
2. Whereas her husband, who is employed in Breaks India Ltd., Company at Padi was traveling daily via ‘Bhats’ hospital Ambattur happened to see the catching publicity given on the hospital. Only in a view to have one more consultation Dr. S. K. Krishnaraj, MBBS., MS.,DNB., Regd.No.49239 ophthalmic surgeon who advised the complainant for blood test at his hospital. Whereas the opposite party Dr. S. K. Krishnaraj after seeing the blood test reports dt.02.09.2004 of his own Bhat’s hospital and compelled her advising for an immediate surgery and admitted her in his hospital for laser cataract operation for placing of imported foldable lens, in spite of the fact complainant told him that she is a poor rural women has to attend the daily routine household duties. Hence she requested to give treatment only by medicine as there is no financial background and as she could also get cataract operation free of cost by the Lion’s Club, Avadi. Whereas Dr. S. K. Krishnaraj, further advised and convinced her husband that there will be lesser charges for the surgery in his hospital which also could be reimbursed by her husband’s company. Her husband also fallen prey to Dr. S. K. Krishnaraj’s advise that the surgery will be very simple, easy and with 100% recovery of vision without any harm to the eyes, the free eye camps would not issue any bill for the treatment and not to ensure guarantee for recovery of vision like his hospital. Thus Dr. S. K. Krishnaraj almost confused and compelled her to undergo the unwarranted laser cataract surgery on the right eye, against all fair medical practices.
3. The respondent discharged the patient who even complained of no recovery of vision, immediately after the laser surgery. Hence it is clear that the respondent was not at all sincere to the patient as such he acted against the rights to safety, not informed genuine consequences, not chosen suitable medical treatment, not properly heard the complainant of the patient, held deficient diagnosis, deficient surgery, deficient administration of drug, exposed the patient to the risk of infection, and failure to warn the patient about the risk of surgery. Hence he acted against his Medical Ethics and he was showing all negligence which resulted in to the loss of vision by the surgery held by him proving that a surgeon has to hold the deficient surgery only and the patient has to take cure and care for her eye’s safety. The opposite party realized his deficient treatment came to light after removing pad and bandage on 10.09.2004 of the patient and in order to avoid any loss of image to his hospital immediately, discharged the patient on the false assurance that the eye vision would come in few hours and not to worry at all. Only when realized that there was no any symptom of recovery in the vision of her right eye Smt. S. Kamatchi rushed again to Dr. Bhat’s hospital accompanied by her husband M. Sriraman and his elder brother Mr. M. Diurairajan S/o. Madurai, on 12.09.2004. The opposite party assured to them that the complainant vision would be recovered by his treatment or at Shankara Nethralaya at his own cost. He also handed over Rs.1,000/- as an advance for admission in Sankara Nethralaya.
4. After the patient was admitted in the Shankara Nethralaya on the basis of the reference letter dt.12.09.2004 altered as 14.09.2004 by the opposite party enclosed as Do.4 the respondent not at all shown any interest on the care and cure, afterwards. The complainant was admitted in Shankara Nethralaya, issued with discharge summary after thorough test, - GA examination/observation certificate dt.18.09.2004 enclosed as Doc.10 in which it is clearly stated that the loss of vision was only due to the improper medicines administered from 09.09.2004 to 14.09.2004 noon, in Dr.Bhat’s hospital, found unhappy and dissatisfaction over the unwarranted surgery held by Dr.S.K.Krishnaraj. They have also thrown all such medicines/drops in to the dustbin as they are irrelevant. Latter on seeing Shankara Nethralaya observation report dt.18.09.2004 the respondent became pale and nervous. He also assured to Shri.M.Durairajan brother of complainant’s husband that he is prepared to pay compensation for the deficient surgery. To that effect Sri.M.Durairajan placed the affidavit about the facts of assurances given by Dr.S.K.Krishnaraj and his irrelevant cataract surgery to the best of his knowledge is placed as an evidence.
5. The opposite party failed to be acted immediately in admitting the complainant in Shankara Nethralaya on 12.09.2004. In that case the complainant’s vision would have been saved from the damage. This is one more evidence that the respondent was not showing a care for the complainant and he only in order to avoid the facts of irrelevant surgery to reach Shankara Nethralaya Hospital, the opposite party not allowed the complainant to be admitted on 12.09.2004 itself and thus caused irrecoverable damage to the eyes due to the medical negligence of the opposite party. Hence this complaint filed.
6. The contention of the written version of the opposite party as brief as follows:-
The opposite party does not admit any of the allegations in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. All the allegation in the complaint are false, concocted, frivolous, vexatious, imaginary and unsustainable in law and on facts. The opposite party is a well qualified ophthalmic surgeon. He is rendering quality surgical service for many years without any blemish. In fact this is the first time he had received such summons. Negligence and deficient care of the patients under treatment of the opposite party are clearly out of reckoning so far and any accusing finger on that score against the opposite party is nothing but an attempt at blasphemy and blackmail born out of imagination and malafide intention.
7. The complainant, Mrs. Kamatchi came to the opposite party’s hospital on 31.08.2004. After due diagnosis and getting the consent of the complainant, who was willing to undergo eye cataract surgery as advised by the opposite party. The opposite party has been explained clearly about the procedure, the risks involved in the surgery and the complications such as after cataract, for which yag laser is needed, secondary infection, glaucoma, expulsive heamorrhage, inability to place the IOL in the first sitting, need for a second surgery, vitreous loss, vitrectomy and the remote possibility of sudden death on table have all been clearly explained to him in his own mother tongue in the presence of the witness along with him.
8. Patient was shifted to pre OT for anaesthesia at 12.40PM. Injection xylocaine 2% with sensorcaine 0.75% and facidase, to total volume of 5MLgiven as peribulbar block. Patient shifted OT. At about 1.15PM, after applying betadine, drapes applied, lip speculum applied, betadine wash given, superotemporal 2.8mm clear corneal incision given, trypan blue dye injected, AC reformed with viscomet, side port made, CCC done, Hydrodisection doen, Phaco Emulsification done, settings: Power 70% vacuum: 60mm Hg, divide and conquer technique used, cortex washed after nucleus extraction, IOL injected into Bag after injecting healon.
Subconjunctival garamycin + decdan 0.5ML given. Eye pads applied, patient shifted to ward at 1.45PM.
9. Thus the surgery was performed without any complications. The post operative period in the hospital was uneventful. She was instilled Dexorens eye drops hourly, and predmet eye drops 1 drop 4 hourly. She was given tablet Acegan 1BD, Tab Diamox 0.5 OD, tab today DT 1 hs and tab Enciptn 1BD. She was able to count finger for 3-5 meters at bed side, that day. She was seen again on 10th of September 2004. There was no pain, irritation, watering or any complaints. Vision was tested and she was happy that vision which was nil before surgery had improved to 6/12 with pin hole, that is she was able to see objects at 6 feet distance which other normal persons could see at 12 feet distance. She was instructed about instillation of eye drops and handout of instructions was given. She was advised to come for follow up after 3 days i.e. 13th September 2004. She came on 12th September noon, with complaints of pain and loss of vision since last night. There was a delay of 16 hrs in consulting the opposite party. When asked about the instillation of eye drops she revealed that everyone had gone for attending their respective cores and there was no one to put the eye drops, which was a tremendous mistake to do after undergoing this delicate operation.
10. On examination conjunctival chemosis ++ lid edema (+) EOM full.
Cornea : edema ++
Anterior Chamber : grade +++ reaction
Pupil : 3mm size
IOL : in situ
Direct fundoscopy : No fundal glow visible.
After a thorough clinical examination opposite party made the diagnosis of endophthalmitis? Severe postoperative uveitis. The opposite party had immediately admitted her and started treatment at once. Injection ciprofloxacin, and metrogyl were given intravenously. Injection garamycin, vancomycin and decdan were given. The antihypertensive and antidiabetic medicines advised by physician were continued. Blood sugar levels and blood pressure monitored and maintained. Inj. Mydricaine was given along with the eye drops already with her. Gatifloxacin eye drops, ciprofloxacin eye drops, predmet eye drops were added. All theses measures were done meticulously in the hospital. With the above treatment, the conjuctival congestion reduced, cornea was clear, the anterior chamber was quiet. But again on 14th September morning, the cornea became cloudy. The anterior chamber became hazy. Despite the best treatment, she showed signs of endophthalimitis, opposite party rang up Sankaranethralaya and informed them and gave the case details. The opposite party gave a reference letter and referred her to that higher center. She came with no vision in the right eye and despite best efforts she remain the same as before. Because of her carelessness this sad incidence has happened. The other cases done after her are all doing fine.
11. First of all, the opposite party had never given any guarantee for recovery of vision as medicine is a filed where no one can offer any sort of guarantee. Secondly he had not told that the surgery will be very simple, easy and with 100% recovery of vision without any harm to the eyes. On the contrary, the opposite party held clear counseling with the complainant, explained the possibilities of complications and then only obtained informed consent from both husband and wife. The informed consent is reproduced there for better understanding. Thirdly the surgery was not an unwarranted one. The complainant practically had no vision in right eye because or dense cataract changes.
12. It is not true that the complainant complained of no recovery of vision during discharge. In fact during discharge she was having 6/12 vision as described earlier. The complainant did not oblige the advice given by the opposite party and she herself landed into trouble on her own. Thus the opposite party had never been negligent and he acted as per medical ethics. In fact the complainant had regained good vision on 10.09.2004 which is well revealed by the discharge summary submitted by the complainant as documents 5.
13. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant had willfully suppressed facts from the knowledge of Forum. The opposite party had tried his level best to save the vision of complainant. It can very well be seen that treatment offered at opposite party hospital and Sankara Nethralaya are essentially the same. In fact the opposite party had rendered better treatment. There is no cause of action. The opposite party has not committed any omission or commission. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence deficiency or action of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
14. On the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Exhibit A1 to A11 are marked. While so, on the side of the opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed along with the documents which are marked as Exhibit B1 and B6.
15. At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
16. Written arguments heard on both sides.
17. Point 1:
First of all, the learned counsel for the complainant would mainly submit that the opposite party failed to act immediately referred the complainant to the Shankara Nethralaya hospital for further treatment, when the complainant went to the opposite party on 12.09.2004 itself which is an admitted fact and the reason stated by the opposite party to that effect cannot be accepted since the opposite party being an expert and qualified ophthalmic, who is only well aware of the fact of consequence of ‘endophthalimitis’ and further treatment. But the opposite party has not done so and allowed the complainant to admit his hospital and thereafter when the condition of the complainant became worse, the opposite party discharged the complainant and on after thought only referred to the Shankara Nethralaya hospital for further management on 14.09.2004 only which clearly reveals the fact of the medical negligence of the opposite party and therefore the opposite party is fully liable for giving compensation to the complainant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that though it is true that there is no specific mentioning about the medical negligence on the part of the opposite party in the discharge summary of Shankara Nethralaya hospital, which itself is not enough to decide that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the Opposite party is liable to pay compensation as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
18. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party would contend that though it is admitted by the opposite party in respect of the admission of the complainant in his hospital for cataract surgery and other facts of giving further treatment to the complainant on 12.09.2004 to 14.09.2004, the treatment was perfectly given by him as per the procedure as enumerated in the medical text book and also after following all the formalities before and after the surgery and given mandatory instructions to the complainant for follow of action regarding the applying of eye drops then and there. It is further argued that the ‘endophthalmitis’ is a known complication, the opposite party has treated the complainant with his fellow opthamologists with care and best of skill, being a qualified doctor having huge experience and skills in his speciality and he used his best professional judgement due care in giving treatment of the complainant during post operative period as per the standard of medical practice and therefore there is no deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of the opposite party. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the opposite party has relied upon the following decisions:-
1997(2) CPR 126 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Kailash Kumar Sharma …Appellant
/Vs/
Dr.Hari Charan Mathur …Respondent
2005(1) CPR 611, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Culcutta
Sri Sushil Kumar Addy & Anr. …Appellants/Complainants
/Vs/
Silverline Eye Hospital 7 Research
Centre & Anr. …Respondent/O.Ps
III (2003) CPJ 563 (NC), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Shyam Lal Ladia … Petitioner
/Vs/
Dr.O.P.Nayak & Anr. … Respondents
2014 (3) CPR 146(NC)
Mrs. Sucheta Sanyel … Complianant
/Vs/
Dr. Meghned Bhoomek,
Aloken Eye Care Center, W.B & Other ... Opposite party
19. Furthermore, the learned counsel would brought to this Forum that it is clear from the cross examination of the complainant that he has not following the instruction in applying the eye drops properly as stipulated by the opposite party after completion of surgery and therefore the infection was only caused due to the lethargic and negligent attitude of the complainant only. It is further enlightened that the further treatment was given by the opposite party on admitting the complainant in the post operative period is completely on par with the treatment given by the Shankara Nethralaya hospital, while the complainant was admitted in that hospital and therefore it clearly reveals the fact that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is not only that, there is no expert report or opinion has been filed by the complainant and further no specific mentioning about the medical negligence on the part of the opposite party even in the discharge summary issued by the Shankara Nethralaya hospital, which is marked as Exhibit B4 series and hence the medical negligence on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint has not at all proved by means of relevant and consistent evidence and thereby this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
20. At this juncture, the duty cast upon this Forum is that whether the complainant has proved his case with relevant and consistent evidence. At the outset, it is the foremost duty of this Forum, to peruse the rival submissions put forth on either side before this Forum with due care and caution. First of all, on going through Proof Affidavit of the complainant, it is learnt that as per the Ex. A1 there is no immense need for surgery warranted for complainant as she was wearing bifocal spectacles. It is further stated in her evidence that only two tests held before this surgery and in fact there was any physical inconvenience certificate furnished to the Opposite party to test the surgery such as inconvenience certificate certainly false and self made by the Opposite party conveniently to defend his side which is marked as Ex.A2 series. It is further deposed by the complainant that Ex.A3 clearly proves the guilty feeling and negligence of the Opposite party made him not to reply for direct notice dated 01.12.2004 which is marked as Ex. A11. It is further learnt that the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 08.09.2004 for Cataract Surgery held on 09.09.2004, even when the complainant repeatedly reported orally that there is no vision in the right eye but indirectly the Opposite party has exploited the complainant by mentioning in the discharge summary as addition on discharge, ‘doing well’ in English which was not all understood by the complainant and the cost of surgery collected by the Opposite party in totally of Rs.10,800/- which are marked as Ex.A5 & A6 respectively. On further perusal of the evidence of the complainant that when the complainant went to the hospital of the Opposite party on 12.09.2004 for certain complaints in consequence of the surgery done by the Opposite party. Immediately the Opposite party initially has addressed to Sankara Nethralaya hospital, Chennai for further management but thereafter, for the reason best known to him, the Opposite party allowed to admit him to his hospital itself and continued the treatment till 14.09.2004. Since there is no improvement in his treatment, he has corrected the date 12.09.2004 as 14.09.2004 in the letter which already prepared and referred to Sankara Nethralaya hospital for further management. The two letters which are marked as Ex.A3 & A4. In continuation of the above said letters, the complainant was admitted in the Sankara Nethralaya on 14.09.2004 and discharged on 18.09.2004 with observation that the right eye of the complainant became blind, and the said discharge summary is marked as Ex.A7. The certificates issued by the said hospital is marked as Ex.A8 & A9 to that effect. The complainant further narrated in his evidence that the loss of vision in her right eye only due to the medical negligence of the Opposite party and hence the complainant has sent a letter to the Opposite party for claiming compensation which is marked as Ex.A11 and the reply sent by the Opposite party is marked as Ex.A10.
21. While so, on perusal of the evidence of the Opposite party it is learnt that the complainant is a known diabetic and she came to the hospital of the Opposite party on 31.08.2004 and after the tests taken, she was admitted on 08.09.2004 and informed her that she was suffering from cataract in the right eye. The case sheet from 31.08.2004 to 08.09.2004 is marked as Ex. B1. The consent given by the complainant are marked as Ex. B2 & B3. It is further narrated by the opposite party regarding the condition of the complainant who was admitted in the hospital from 08.09.2004 to 10.09.2004 is marked as Ex. B4 series. The additional case sheet record maintained by the Opposite party from 12.09.2004 to 14.09.2004 which clearly reveals the real fact of treatment given by the opposite party which fully on par with the treatment given by the Sankara Nethralaya hospital later on which is marked as Ex.B5 series. On further perusal of the evidence on the side of the Opposite party, it is stated that the Opposite party has given proper treatment and correct method of procedure followed during the cataract surgery who being qualified Ophthalmic and having rich experience and after surgery the complainant was discharged with 100% recovery of vision without any harm and therefore the allegation made in the complaint are all frivolous in nature and hence the Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as contemplated under law.
22. At the outset, it is an admitted fact that the complainant admitted in the opposite parity’s hospital on 08.09.2004 for cataract surgery in the right eye of the complainant and after the completion of said surgery, she was discharged on 10.09.2004. Similarly, it is not disputed that the complainant again went to the Opposite party’s hospital on 12.09.2004 for certain complication occured in the right eye, the Opposite party diagnosed the same. At this instance, it is learnt that initially that the Opposite party had decided to refer the complainant to the Sankara Nethralaya hospital by means of Ex.A3 but subsequently on after thought, the complainant was admitted in his hospital itself on the request of the complainant. It is also not a disputed one.
23. At this point of time, it is further came to understand that till 14.09.2004, the complainant was given treatment by the opposite party and all of sudden without any improvement, the opposite party again concluded to refer the complainant to the Sankara Nethralalya hospital by altering the date as 14.09.2004 in Ex.A3, which was originally put as 12.09.2004 along with Ex.A5 for further management. Such being the position, the only contention placed before this Forum by Opposite party is that the Opposite party had given proper treatment and followed the correct procedure as enumerated in the text, during the surgery undergone by the complainant for cataract in his right eye and in fact, only the lethargic and negligent act of non applying of the eye drops as per the instruction of the opposite party, the vision in the right eye of the complainant became blind and not on the part of the opposite party. In furtherance, it is contented by the opposite party that there is no expert opinion or report produced by the complainant in respect of the medical negligence on the part of the opposite party and not even mentioned the same in the discharge summary issued by the Sankara Nethralaya hospital which is marked as Ex.A7 & A8. Furthermore, the Opposite party would submit that only with the request and the inability of spending more money for further treatment in the Sankara Nethralaya Hospital, the complainant was admitted in the Opposite party’s hospital on 12.09.2004 and not as alleged by the complainant in the complaint and that too the treatment given by the Opposite party and medicines prescribed by him on par with the treatment given in the Sankara Nethralaya hospital. At the outset, it is true that there is no expert report or opinion produced by the complainant before this Forum. Similarly there is no mentioning about the medical negligence if an admitted by the Opposite party in the Ex.A7 & Ex.A8 as rightly pointed out by the Opposite party.
24. At this point of time, this Forum wants to enlighten that it is needless to say that the Opposite party is a well qualified Ophthalmologist surgeon and having rich experience in the specialization treatment in respect of various kinds of eye surgery. If it is so, the opposite party ought to have well aware of the Endophthalimitis and its consequence of infection will occur. In such circumstances the opposite party is the only competent authority to decide whether any further immediate referral of the patient to the specialized hospital for further management regarding the case on hand but the opposite party has taken defence that only at the request of the complainant and his inability of spending more money in the specialized hospital, the opposite party had admitted the complainant in his hospital for continuation of further treatment. For argument sake, if it is taken as true that only on the request made by the complainant, he was admitted by the opposite party, what necessity arises for the opposite party to refer the complainant to the Shankara Nethralaya hospital for further management after two days. When admitting the patient in his hospital on 12.09.2004 with confidence on him for further management, the opposite party would himself cured the infection occurred in the right eye of the complainant but per contra, after delay of two days, again the opposite party has decided to refer the complainant to the Sankara Nethralaya hospital for further management itself creates suspect over the treatment given by the Opposite party and the decision taken by him. Hence, it goes without saying that even an hour of delay leads to endanger to human life or an organ as per the medical science. In this case on hand the complainant has lost of her vision fully in the right eye and it is completely shrinked. So, the fact of inordinate delay of 2 days in the case of the complainant which certainly amount the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant which cannot be easily thrown out. In such act of deficiency in service, there is no need of any expert opinion. Hence the non production of expert opinion by the complainant or not mentioning specifically about the same in Ex.A7 & Ex.A8 are no way fatal to the case of the complainant since Ex.A3 itself shown the fault on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the plea taken by the opposite party has lost its merits.
25. From the forgoing among other facts and circumstances, this Forum is of considered view that the complainant has proved his complaint and thereby this Forum has concluded without any hesitation that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party has been proved without any doubt. Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.
26. Point No.2:-
As per the conclusion arrived in point no. 2 the complainant is entitled for the medical expenses has incurred and reasonable compensation with cost. Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.
27. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation to the complainant for the loss of vision to the right eye and shrinks completely due to the medical negligence on the part of the opposite party and the medical expenses including surgery, medical tests, room rent, transport charges, etc., of Rs.19,300/-, total of Rs.1,19,300/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand and three hundred only) with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of filing of this complaint (28.03.2005) till the date of this order (12.01.2016) with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation.
The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9.5% P.A. till the date of payment.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 12th January 2016.
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1/Dt.22.03.2014: Xerox copy of the agreement between the complainant and the
opposite party.
Ex.A2/Dt.02.09.2004: Xerox copy of the blood test report of the complainant.
Ex.A3/ & A4/Dt.14.09.2004: Xerox copy of the referral letter given by the opposite party
to the Dr.Prakash.
Ex.A5/Dt.10.09.2004: Xerox copy of the Discharge summary of the complainant given
by the opposite party.
Ex.A6/Dt.10.09.2004: Xerox copy of the consulting fees details given by the opposite
party.
Ex.A7/Dt.18.09.2004: Xerox copy of the Discharge summary of the complainant given
by the said Shankara Nethralaya.
Ex.A8 & A9/Dt.21.10.2004: Xerox copy of the given by the said Shankara Nethralaya.
Ex.A10/Dt. : Xerox copy of the reply letter sent by the opposite party to the
complainant.
Ex.A11/Dt.01.12.2004:Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite
party.
List of documents of the opposite party:
Ex.B1/Dt.31.08.2004: Xerox copy of the consultation history of the complainant given
by the opposite party.
Ex.B2/Dt.09.09.2004: Xerox copy of the Informed consent of the complainant.
Ex.B3/Dt. 09.09.2004: Xerox copy of the O.T. Record case sheet given by the opposite
party.
Ex.B4/Dt.10.09.2004: Xerox copy of the Additional Case Sheet Record of the
complainant given by the opposite party.
Ex.B5/Dt.12.09.2004: Xerox copy of the Additional Case Sheet Record of the
complainant given by the opposite party.
Ex.B6/Dt.17.03.2005: Xerox copy of the Proof Affidavit of one Thiru. C. Madurai, S/o.
Durairajan.
Forum’s Witness W1: Deposition of Dr.Krishnaraj.(Opposite party)
Forum’s Witness W2: Deposition of Thiru.Durairajan (Complainant)
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
