Date of Filling : 06.03.2013.
Date of Disposal : 28.11.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.
PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S. SUJATHA, B.Sc., … MEMBER - I
Consumer Complaint no.29/2013
(Dated this Monday the 28th day of November 2016)
Mrs. E. Gomathi,
W/o. Mr. S. Elango,
No.17, Road Street,
Chennai - 600 069. … Complainant.
- Versus –
1. The Managing Director,
Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre,
Sri Ramachandra University,
Porur,
Chennai- 600 116.
2. Dr. G. Usha Rani,
Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre,
Sri Ramachandra University,
Porur,
Chennai - 600 116.
3. Dr. Thamarai,
Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre,
Sri Ramachandra University,
Porur,
Chennai - 600 116. … Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 07.11.2016 in the presence of M/s. T. Velumani, Counsel for the complainant and Mr. A.R. Poovannan, Counsel for the 1 to 3 opposite parties and upon having perused the documents, evidences, written and oral arguments of the 1 to 3 opposite parties 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 1 to 3 opposite parties for seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for improper, negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical bills and expenses to the complainant.
- The brief averments of the complaint as follows:-
The complainant has approached the 2nd opposite party for regular check ups and taking treatment and the 2nd opposite party is associated with the 1st opposite party. The complainant came to the 1st opposite party’s hospital for medical check up on 08.03.2012 and she was examined by the 2nd opposite party. At that point of time, the 2nd opposite party have informed the complainant that she is having higher sugar level and she should be admitted in the 1st opposite party’s hospital for treatment to reduce the sugar level. Thereafter, the complainant was admitted in the 1st opposite party’s hospital on 09.03.2012 for treatment and from 09.03.2012 to 13.03.2012, the complainant was given treatment in the 1st opposite party’s hospital and after thorough check up was made and she was discharged from the 1st opposite party’s hospital on 13.03.2012. The 2nd opposite party declared that the due date of delivery was fixed as 06.10.2012 and the 2nd opposite party further directed the complainant to come for regular check up every month so as to assess the growth of the foetus and the other related tests.
3. On the advice of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant again visited the opposite party on 16.04.2012 and on the same day sugar level was checked and it was found to be normal. The 2nd opposite party also advised NT Scan and Foetal Anatomy Scan is to be taken; NT Scan was taken on the same day and ultra sound Anamoly Scan was taken on 29.05.2012 and the scan reports were examined by the 2nd opposite party. Also the ultrasound anomaly scan was taken in the 1st opposite party’s hospital scan centre situated inside the 1st opposite party’s hospital compound and the scan report was duly studied by the 2nd opposite party after verifying the veracity of the report. That on 21.06.2012 also, all tests were conducted and the 2nd opposite party informed that the child in the womb is quite hale and healthy with normal growth and she was advised to come for further check up on 19.07.2012. The complainant was examined on 19.07.2012 and again on 16.08.2012. On 16.02.2012 once again scan was taken, on the advice of the 2nd opposite party and after examining the scan reports, the 2nd opposite party informed that everything was normal. When the complainant visited the 2nd opposite party on 25.09.2012, the 2nd opposite party had advised Biochemistry and clinical pathology tests to be taken and accordingly all tests were conducted and the 2nd opposite party had examined the reports.
4. Thereafter, on 01.10.2012, the complainant came for medical check up and after checking, taking further scans if necessary. The complainant submits that though the 2nd opposite party had originally declared that the due date of delivery would be 06.10.2012 for reasons not disclosed to the complainant and for the reasons best known to the 2nd opposite party admitted the complainant on 01.10.2012. At that point of time, no reasons were assigned for admitting the complainant. The 2nd opposite party had advised the complainant to immediately get admitted in the 1st opposite party’s hospital for delivery of the child. The complainant was unable to afford the expenses for availing special ward and as such she had requested the 2nd opposite party to provide General Ward and accordingly the 1 & 2nd opposite parties admitted the complainant in the General Ward on 01.10.2012 and after the admission, the 2nd opposite party have administered some medicines so as to ensure normal delivery of the child at an earlier point of time. But it was of no avail and the 2nd opposite party advised the complainant her husband that ceasarian operation was to be performed and by virtue of the said decision taken by the 2nd opposite party on 03.10.2012 at 11:31 a.m. The complainant delivered a male child by ceasarian operation. After the child was born, further scans were taken after the delivery of the child. In the said scan, it was found that the child is having following anomalies:-
- Anomalous ear and polydactyly
- Non visualization of left kidney
- 6 fingers were available
- There were 6 mm, 7 mm, 9 mm holes in the heart
- Problems in the lungs
- Tongue irregularity
- Spine Missing in the body and short of hearing.
5. That after the above anomalies were noticed, the 1 & 2nd opposite parties advised that the child is to be referred to cardiology Doctor and the child was admitted in ICU ward for sometime. Since the ear was not fully developed, the hearing test was conducted. In the said test, it was observed that the child is responding only to loud noise. Thereafter, the 2nd opposite party suggested to take further treatment with Dr. Binu Ninan, Paediatrician for other tests to be conducted in the 1st opposite party’s hospital, After conducting various tests, to the dismay of the complainant and her husband, the 1 & 2nd opposite parties could not give proper reasons and the complainant was put to severe hardship and mental agony due to the callous attitude of the 2nd opposite party.
6. When the complainant questioned about their careless attitude, the 2nd opposite party had not given explanation at all and simply gave some lame excuses. As the anomalies were not properly assessed by the 2 & 3rd opposite parties in the Ultra Sound Anomaly scans, the complainant with a fond hope had allowed the baby to grow up. Had the 2 & 3rd opposite parties advised of these anomalies when the first ultrasound anomaly scans were taken, she would have aborted the child at the very earliest stage itself as abortion under Medical Termination of Pregnancy. But due to the callous and irresponsible attitude of the 2 & 3rd opposite parties, the 2nd opposite party have allowed the child to grow with anomalies and ultimately after a wretched misery of 24 days on 23.10.2012, the child was suffering from breathing troubles and immediately the complainant rushed to the Doctor in the nearby locality and on examination of the condition of the child he advised the complainant to approach the 1st opposite party Dr. Shaffi had attended the child and he informed to admit the child immediately in the Govt. Child Hospital.
7. The complainant immediately rushed to the Child Hospital, Egmore where the Doctors scolded the complainant after verification of the scan reports and other details and admitted the child. But ultimately the child passed away on 25.10.2012 at 08:45 p.m. Due to the deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and hardship, the complainant sent a legal notice dated:24.11.2012 through her Counsel to all the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties have received the said notice, the opposite parties have neither responded to the said notice nor complied with the demand made in the said notice, eventhough the time stipulated under the notice has expired. Hence this complaint.
8. The contention of written version of the 1 to 3 opposite parties is briefly as follows:-
The opposite parties deny all the allegations stated in the complaint except which are specifically admitted herein. The opposite parties’ hospital also possesses state of the art equipments, laboratories, operation theatres and the best professionals in the various medical specialties who are highly qualified and experienced to handle the most difficult and medically challenging cases. The complainant came to the antenatal clinic of the opposite parties hospital on 08.03.2012, and she was examined by the opposite party doctors and was diagnosed with over diabetes mellitus and hypothyroidism. According to medical science, high sugar level, is one of the known causes/risks leading to birth of a congenitally anomalous baby. Therefore, at the very beginning itself, the opposite parties had counseled the complainant and her husband to terminate the pregnancy, in view of the complainant’s high blood sugar level. However, the complainant and her husband had adamantly insisted on going ahead with the pregnancy. This fact has been recorded in the antenatal chart under the date 08.03.2012 vide page no.29 of the documents filed by the complainant.
9. During the subsequent visits of the complainant to the opposite parties hospital, the opposite party doctors, as per the treatment protocol conducted a targeted scan to rule out ‘Fetal Anomaly’ of the complainant during which considerable difficulty was faced in imaging fetus due to the thick abdominal wall of the complainant and the non-conducive position of the fetus. Thereafter, the resulting scan reports did not disclose any abnormalities in the fetus. However, after the birth of the baby, it was discovered that the baby suffered from certain anomalies. The opposite party doctors took immediate steps towards assessment and treatment of the baby to rule out ‘VATERL associations’ (which means a collection of abnormalities, either occurring together or individually, associated with vertebral (spinal), anal, cardiac (heart), tracheosophageal (food pipe), renal (kidney), limb abnormalities). The treatment followed the standard protocol of assessment of the Cardiologist, Pediatric Urologist, Pediatric Nephrologists and Pediatric Surgeon and their opinions were sought. The Neonatologist at the Opposite party hospital also counseled the mother and her husband regarding the plan of management for the baby. Since the baby was tolerating direct breast feeds (DBF), and was gaining weight, the mother and her baby were discharged on 11.10.2012 after being advised by the opposite parties to follow up for check-ups and reviews.
10. Thereafter, on 23.10.2012 the baby was brought to the Emergency Dept. of the opposite parties’ hospital. Aspiration pneumonia was suspected needing respiratory support. In spite of advice given for urgent admission of the baby in the opposite parties’ hospital, the parents decided to admit the baby elsewhere and left the opposite parties’ hospital. It is submitted that in view of the above said facts, the opposite parties cannot be accused of being negligent or providing deficient service during the antenatal period. The anomalies discovered post-birth could not be identified during the antenatal period due to the thick abdominal wall of the mother, non-conducive fetal position and the inherent limitations of the ultrasound scan technology and that these factors led to the difficulty in diagnosing the anomalies during the antenatal period. The detailed facts relating to the treatment given to the complainant.
11. It is false that the opposite parties did not properly identify the irregularities in the scans taken and examined. It is denied that the child was allowed to develop such examined. It is denied that the child was allowed to develop such anomalies and ultimately died due to the sheer negligence and callousness of the opposite parties. On the contrary, the opposite parties had provided the best care and attention to the complainant and her baby and as such appropriate Specialists and consultants had closely monitored them. The complainant is making entirely baseless claims and the opposite parties vehemently deny the allegations of negligence and deficiency in service. It is false to state that the complainant suffered untold hardship and mental agony due to alleged negligence of the opposite parties. It is pertinent to state that the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- has no basis and merit. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed as being without merits.
12. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and the documents from Ex.A1 to Ex.A23 are marked. While so, on the side of the 1 to 3 opposite parties, the proof affidavit is filed and the documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked for their evidence.
13. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 1 to 4 opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
14. Written arguments filed and oral arguments adduced on the side of the 1 to 3 opposite parties. Inspite of sufficient time given for filing of written arguments and for adducing oral arguments for the complainant, she has neither come forward to file the written arguments nor for adducing oral arguments. Hence written arguments and oral arguments on the side of the complainant is closed.
15. Point no.1:-
On careful perusal of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant, it is learnt that when the complainant conceived for the second child in the month of December 2011, the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party for regular checkups and taking treatment in the 1st opposite party’s hospital for treatment to reduce sugar level since she is a diabetic patient. It is further narrated by the complainant that she was admitted in the 1st opposite party’s hospital on 09.03.2012 and discharged on 13.03.2012 and the 2nd opposite party declared that the due date for delivery was fixed as 06.10.2012 with direction to come for regular check up every month so as to assess the growth of the foetus and other related tests. In continuation of the treatment and regular checkups, the Ultrasound Anomaly Scan was taken on 29.05.2012 and the same was thoroughly examined by the 2nd opposite party and satisfied with the status of the foetus and in turn the complainant regularly visited and consulted with the 2nd opposite party and she was informed that everything was normal. When the complainant visited the 2nd opposite party on 25.09.2012, the 2nd opposite party advised Biochemistry and clinical pathology tests and the same were taken and examined by the 2nd opposite party and though the date of delivery fixed as 06.10.2012 without disclosing the reason to the complainant, the opposite party admitted the complainant on 01.10.2012 itself for delivery. Thereafter, by virtue of the decision by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant delivered a male child by caesarian operation on 03.10.2012 at 11.31 a.m. and on taking of scan it is found that the child is having some anomalies and thereafter the 2nd opposite party suggested to take further treatment with a Pediatrician for the anomalies notices in the child which caused severe hardship and mental agony since the anomalies was not properly assessed by the 2 & 3rd opposite parties in the Ultrasound Anomaly Scan to identify the anomalies in the child at the earliest stage itself. It is further stated by the complainant that on 23.10.2012, the child was suffering from breathing troubles and passed away on 25.10.2012 at 08.45 p.m. inspite of immediate treatment given in the Child Hospital, Egmore. Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 and Ex.A16 to Ex.A20 are the scan reports and the various test reports taken in the 1st opposite party’s hospital. On the advice of the 2nd opposite party Ex.A15 and Ex.21 & Ex.A22 are the discharge summary for taking treatment as inpatient by the complaiant in the 1st opposite party’s hospital are marked. Since the act of the opposite parties amounts for deficiency of service, the complainant had issued legal notice which is marked as Ex.A23. But the opposite parties neither responded nor comply with the demands and therefore the complainant has come forward to file this complaint.
16. While so, on the side of the opposite parties, it is contended that the allegations made in the complaint are all baseless and deposed in the proof affidavit that the complainant was already a diabetic patient and further diagnosed with ‘over diabetes mellitus and hypothyroidism’ and thereby according to medical science, high blood sugar level is one of the known causes / risks leading to birth of congenitally anomalous baby and therefore, at the very beginning itself, the opposite parties have counseled the complainant and her husband to terminate the pregnancy. But the complainant’s husband had adamantly insisted on going ahead with the pregnancy and the same was recored in the antenatal chart dated 08.03.2013. It is further narrated by the opposite parties that, the alleged anomalies discovered post-birth could not be identified during the antenatal period due to the thick abdominal wall of the mother, non-conducive fetal position and the inherent limitations of the ultrasound scan technology and these factors led to the difficulty in diagnosing the anomalies during the antenatal period. It is further submitted that it is not a part of the antenatal protocol to examine the ears of the fetus while imagining the fetus during the mid-trimester scanning for fetal anomalies. In fact, the ISUOG guidelines too do not prescribe for identifying the ears during the mid-trimester scanning. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the party of the opposite parties since they have done their duty in a proper manner as per the medical guidelines.
17. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is crystal clear that it is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken treatment with the 2 & 3rd opposite parties in the 1st opposite party’s hospital for the pregnancy of the second child and continuously taking treatment till delivery and also after delivery of the child. The main allegation alleged by the complainant is that, the 2 & 3rd opposite parties have not informed about the anomalies found after the birth of the child even during the period of taking the first, ‘Ultrasound Anomaly Scan’, and if the same was properly informed at that time, the complainant would have aborted the child at the very earliest stage itself and the failure of the opposite party to inform the complainant in due time, which they have allowed the child to grow with anomalies and ultimately after a wretched misery of 24 days clearly amounts for medical negligence which leads for deficiency of service.
18. At the outset, this Forum has to consider as to whether such allegation made by the complainant has been proved with relevant materials. In order to prove the same, the complainant had produced Ex.A1 to Ex.A22. On perusal of the above said documents, it is clearly learnt that they are all the documents which are pertaining to the treatment, periodical tests, taking of scan then and there and other tests periodically. From those above documents, there is no material available to show about the medical negligence if any specifically committed. Moreover, there is no concrete materials found in those documents to describe that there is deficiency on the opposite parties. If it is so, even for assuming that if any medical negligence committed by the opposite parties as alleged, it is pertinent to say that the Expert opinion to that aspect is a mandatory one. In fact, no such Expert opinion obtained by the complainant and submitted before this Forum which clearly fatal to the case of the complainant.
19. Such being so, the learned Counsel for the complainant would submit that, actually the complainant has not taken treatment from Gynecology of the 1 to 3 opposite parties and also found from the documents filed by the complainant itself, is shown that the complainant is already a diabetic patient and having high blood pressure. It is further submitted that the complainant came to the 1st opposite party’s hospital for medical check up on 08.03.2012 and the opposite party Doctors diagnosed that the complainant was having ‘over diabetes mellitus and hypothyroidism’ and therefore, according to the medical science high blood sugar level is one of the known causes lead to birth of a congenitally anomalous baby and so at the very beginning itself the opposite parties had counseled the complainant and her husband to terminate the pregnancy. But the complainant and her husband had adamantly insisted on going ahead with the pregnancy. It is further noticed by the opposite parties that the above said facts have been properly explained to the complainant’s husband and the same has been noted in Ex.A17 in the Antenatal chart which was marked on the side of the complainant vide page no.29 in the list of documents. Therefore, the allegation raised by the complainant with the opposite parties that the complainant was not properly informed about the anomalies found in the baby at the earlier stage becomes unsustainable. Moreover, the medical text submitted on the side of the opposite parties clearly reveals the fact as adumbrated as below:
“The majority of women who had repeat ultrasound scans stall had unsatisfactory image quality (19/22; 86%). The mean BMI for women those images were judged to be suboptimal was significantly higher than for those whose images were assessed to be adequate (33.2 vs. 26.3 kg/m²; P ,< 0.001). Only one was detected by antenatal ultrasound, giving a detection rate of 12.5%. This large difference in rate suggests that maternal obesity affected the image quality, which greatly limited the ultrasound detection of congenital anomalies. The offer of routine morphological ultrasound scans has been widespread. Despite this practice, rate of perinatal death from congenital anomalies in diabetic pregnancies have not changed over the last decade”.
19. In order to explain the medical fact, the learned Counsel would submit that during the ultrasound scan, sound waves from a probe pass through the abdomen and reflect waves, which get processed to create an image of the fetus and the quality of the resultant image of the fetus (and consequently the success of the Fetal Anomaly Scan) is heavily dependent on certain factors like thickness of the abdominal wall of lady and the position of the fetus. It is pertinent to note that in respect of the obese patients, due to thick layer of fat, the image of the ultrasound scan quality is often poor. It is caused by the scattering and bulk absorption effects, while performing the ultrasound sonogram. Thick muscle layers cause focus aberration due to large arrival time of the ultrasound waves and fluctuations. On careful perusal of the evidence of the opposite parties, it is stated that the opposite parties on 29.05.2012, the Fetal Anomaly Scan of the mother was conducted with due adherence to the universally recognized International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology’s “Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan” (ISUOG guidelines). However, due to the thick abdominal wall of the mother and the non-conducive position of the fetus, complete imaging of the fetus could not be completed on the said day and consequently, on 01.06.2012, 07.06.2012 and 21.06.2012 though sincere attempts were made by the Obstetric Sonologists to complete the scan due to the non-conducive position of fetus and the thickness of the abdominal wall of the complainant, the unwillingness of the complainant to wait for repeat scans and the irregular follow-up of the complainant and instead the scan was completed only in parts and thereby it requires several attempts for taking scans, due to the above said defect of thickness of the abdominal wall and non - conducive position etc.
20. It is further noticed that on 21.06.2012, the Obstetric Sonologist issued a scan report that they could image through their sincere attempts, opining that the fetus did not suffer from abnormalities that would threaten the life of the fetus and that of the mother. Furthermore, it is seen from the evidence of the opposite parties that complainant underwent a ‘growth scan’ to look at baby’s interval growth, estimated birth weight and liquid level and the structural details are not imaged during ‘growth scans’ as there are several technical limitations. From the foregoing among other facts, which reveals from the evidence of the opposite parties, that the reasons have not been known about the correct anomalies found in the child would not be ascertained during the fetal, such has been clearly explained by the opposite parties.
21. Regarding the treatment given to the complainant as well as the child Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 Series are relevant and acceptable documents which cannot be easily thrown out. Furthermore, there is no concrete materials found to conclude about the actual medical negligence admitted by the opposite parties. Therefore, as per the medical science as well as the ISUOG guidelines submitted on the side of the opposite parties, it is learnt that in case of obesity in pregnancy woman, with pre-existing diabetics during pregnancy, the alleged anomalies could not be identified during the antenatal period due to the thick abdominal wall of the mother, the non - conducive fetal position and the inherent limitations of the ultrasound scan technology and those factors lead to the difficulty in diagnosing the anomalies during the mid-trimester scanning of the obesity pregnant women and from the factors mentioned in Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 series, it is crystal clear that the treatment has been given in proper manner by the opposite parties as rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Regarding other allegations made in the complainant, there is no consistent evidence adduced on the side of the complainant.
22. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Forum concludes that the medical negligence and the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties have not been proved with reliable materials. Thus, the point no.1 is answered accordingly.
23. Point no.2:-
As per the decision arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
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 28th November 2016.
Sd/**** Sd/****
MEMBER - I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 01.10.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – OB -2/3 Trimester Scan report | Xerox copy |
Ex.A2 | 01.10.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – Ultra Sound Routine Obstetric Scan | Xerox copy |
Ex.A3 | | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre –F 6 5 | Xerox copy |
Ex.A4 | 25.09.2012 | Scaphoid Diagnostics – Biochemistry & Clinical pathology | Xerox copy |
Ex.A5 | 25.09.2012 | Scaphoid Diagnostics- Hormone Assays | Xerox copy |
Ex.A6 | 11.09.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre- OB- 2/3 Trimester Scan Report | Xerox copy |
Ex.A7 | | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – Sugar Test | Xerox copy |
Ex.A8 | 29.08.2012 | Scaphoid Diagnostics – Biochemistry | Xerox copy |
Ex.A9 | 30.08.2012 | Scaphoid Diagnostics – Clinical Pathology | Xerox copy |
Ex.A10 | 15.08.2012 | Scaphoid Diagnostics – Biochemistry | Xerox copy |
Ex.A11 | 16.08.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – OB – 2/3 Trimester Scan Report | Xerox copy |
Ex.A12 | 29.05.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – OB – 2/3 Trimester Scan Report | Xerox copy |
Ex.A13 | 16.02.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – NT Scan | Xerox copy |
Ex.A14 | | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – USG | Xerox copy |
Ex.A15 | 09.03.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Hospital – Discharge Summary | Xerox copy |
Ex.A16 | 09.03.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – Biochemistry | Xerox copy |
Ex.A17 | | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – Antenatal Chart | Xerox copy |
Ex.A18 | 06.10.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre – Abdomen | Xerox copy |
Ex.A19 | 06.10.2012 | SRU – Private Clinic | Xerox copy |
Ex.A20 | | Sri Ramachandra University – Neonatology | Xerox copy |
Ex.A21 | 01.10.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Hospital – Postal Discharge Summary | Xerox copy |
Ex.A22 | 03.10.2012 | Sri Ramachandra Hospital – Discharge Summary | Xerox copy |
Ex.A23 | 24.11.2012 | Legal Notice | Xerox copy |
List of documents filed by the 1 to 3 opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Series | | Case Sheet Volume – 1 of the complainant | Xerox copy |
Ex.B2 Series | | Case Sheet Volume – 2 of the complainant | Xerox copy |
Sd/**** Sd/****
MEMBER - I PRESIDENT
