Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
651/2005
Mohammed Rafi - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s.Women & Children Foundation Ltd. & Others - Opp.Party(s)
Muthu Venkata Raman
10 Dec 2021
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 23.06.2005
Date of Reservation : 19.11.2021
Date of Order : 10.12.2021
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH)
Present: Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L. : President
Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L. : Member
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.651/2005
FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
1.Mr.Mohammed Rafi,
2.Mrs.Aysha,
Both residing at No.16/7,
Srinivasapuram 1st Street,
Old Washermenpet, Chennai -600 021. .. Complainant. ..Versus..
1.M/s Women & Children Foundation Limited,
Represented by its Director,
No.4/1 &4/2, Porur Somasundaram Street,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai -600 017.
2.Dr.Anjana, Gynecologist,
M/s Women & Children Foundation Limited,
No.4/1 &4/2, Porur Somasundaram Street,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai -600 017.
3.Dr.Sumathi, Gynecologist,
M/s Women & Children Foundation Limited,
No.4/1 &4/2, Porur Somasundaram Street,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai -600 017.
4.Dr.Saravanan, Pediatrician,
M/s Women & Children Foundation Limited,
No.4/1 &4/2, Porur Somasundaram Street,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai -600 017. .. Opposite parties.
******
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.S.Muthuvenkataraman, Adv.,
Counsel for the 1st &3rd opposite parties : M/s. V.Balaji, Adv.,
Counsel for the 4th opposite party : Mr. K.J.Rebello, Advocate
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : Ex-parte
This complaint has been remanded back to this Commission as per the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, in F.A.No.215/2018, dated 21.01.2011, and restored on the file of this commission and after perusing the documents, the order of the Hon’ble SCDRC, Chennai, on perusal of both side records and after having heard the oral arguments the complainant and 1st and 3rd opposite parties we delivered the following:
ORDER
2.Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.
The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- towards compensation and with cost of proceeding to the complainants.
3. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A26 were marked and written argument filed. While so, on the side of the 1st opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, document Ex.B1 was marked and written argument filed.
4. While so, on the side of the 4th opposite party proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 were marked and written argument filed. The 3rd opposite party filed proof affidavit as his evidence but no document filed, written argument filed and also oral argument not adduced. Hence written argument of 4th opposite party treated as oral argument. Though sufficient opportunities given by this commission the 2nd opposite party has not turned up before this commission to file version and he was set ex-parte.
5. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-
The 1st complainant is the husband of the 2nd complainant. In the month of February 2004 the 2nd complainant approached the 1st opposite party hospital for her pregnancy. In the month of March 2004 she was enrolled with the 1st opposite party hospital and continued her treatment with the 1st opposite party. The complainants states that on 24.11.2004 at about 3pm the 2nd complainant was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital for delivery. On 24.11.2004 during the night there was bleeding and the same was informed to the 1st opposite party. The 2nd complainant got the delivery pain at about 9.00 am on 15.11.2004 the pain was unbearable and it was informed to the 1st opposite party at about 10.00 am and for that the 1st opposite party informed that the baby is in a MECONIUM STAIN which means that the baby had swollen its own discretion which had succumbed in to ASPHYXIA i.e. (LOW LEVEL OF IXYGEN) caused breathing trouble which is called BIRTH ASPHYXIA.
6. The 2nd complainant was suffering from labor pain from 10.00am to 12.15 pm wherein only at the time 2nd opposite party started the treatment for delivery and till such time the baby was IN MECONIUM STAIN and 2nd complainant was undergoing labor pain for about 14 hours from morning 10.00am to the next day morning 12.15.am and thereafter at about 2.00 am it is informed about the new born baby and also informed the serious situation of the baby as such the baby was in LIQUOR AMNIA. The 4th opposite party who came late to the hospital realized that the baby is in real critical situation had advised to shift the baby to RAMACHANDRA HOSPITAL, PORUR as the baby was born with following defects. (a) MECONIUM ASPIRATION, (b) BIRTH ASPHYXIA WITH HYPOXIC ISCHEMIC ENCEPHALOPATHY GRAD – II, (c) NEONATAL SEIZURES.
7. Thereafter the complainants approached the RAMACHANDRA HOSPITAL, PORUR and admitted the child on 26.11.2004. The baby was there in RAMACHANDRA HOSPITAL, PORUR for about 8 days and thereafter the baby was discharged and on 01.01.2005 again the baby developed symptoms of seizures and the baby was admitted in KANCHI KAMAKOTI CHILDS TRUST HOSPITAL AT NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI on the same day. The next day 02.01.2005 the baby was shifted from KANCHI KAMALOTI CHILDS TRUST HOSPITAL TO CHILDREN HOSPITAL, EGMORE but the baby was passed away on 11.01.2005 for INTRA CRANIAL BLEED, RESPIRATORY FAILURE & SHOCK even after giving the best treatment and the miserable event had occurred due to the deficiency in service committed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
8. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties had committed fault, imperfection and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which is required to be maintained to be performed in relation to service. According to the complainant during the critical moment from on 24.11.2004 night to 25.11.2004 9.00am itself, the complainants and their parents were suggested for a caesarian surgery but the 2nd opposite party had not heeded to the request made by the complainants. Further it is stated that C.T.G was taken and when the baby came out and went in, the baby was forcibly pulled out by administrating vacuum treatment by which means pulling the head of the baby with force, which is also a kind of forceps. It is noteworthy to mention that administrating vacuum treatment is not advisable when the baby is already in MOCONIUM STAIN and BIRTH ASPHSIA. Due to administrating vacuum treatment at this serious condition the baby had undergone the worst circumstances, which has lead to BRAIN HAEMMORAGE during later period. Hence it is stated that the opposite parties are liable for the loss which cannot be compensate. Hence this complaint.
9. Written version of the 1st opposite party in brief:-
It is admitted that the 2nd complainant enrolled with the 1st opposite party hospital during the month of March 2004 for her pregnancy. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th opposite parties are consultants of the 1st opposite party hospital. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the qualified Gynecologist and 4th opposite party is qualified Pediatrician, the 2nd opposite party where about at present is not known to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party also adopts the version of the 3rd opposite party. The treating Gynecologist also adopted the norms for delivery and no negligence and deficiency can be attributed against the said Gynecologist. The 1st opposite party stated at request of the complainants she was discharged on 29.11.2004. The baby of the complainant was again admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital on 02.12.2004 and discharged on 10.12.2004. Hence it is crystal clear that the complainants have satisfied with treatment and facilities of the 1st opposite party hospital and it is an afterthought for the complainants to allege the deficiency against the opposite parties. The complainants have also failed to file the Discharge summary issued by the Child Trust Hospital which will substantiate the above cause of death. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.
10. Written version of the 3rd opposite party in brief:-
The 2nd complainant married the 1st complainant in the month of April 2002. She had a history of Spontaneous abortion in 50th day. Thereafter she conceived and her last menstrual period was 11.02.2004. Her expected date of delivery was 18.11.2004. On 15.04.2004 the 2nd complainant came with the complaint of severe cold. Her B.P was 110/60 and weight was 44kgs. It is properly treated by 2nd opposite party. The 2nd complainant came up for review on 03.05.2004. During that period her weight was 45kgs and B.P. was 100/70. Her gestation age was 11 weeks and 3 days. Thereafter she came up for review on 11.05.2004 with the complaint of vomiting throat pain and head ache. It is properly treated by the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter the 2nd complainant came up for check up with the 2nd opposite party on 03.05.2004 and 09.06.2004. On 09.06.2004 the 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to take various test. On subsequent visit from 19.06.2004, 23.06.2004, 25.06.2004, 28.06.2004, 13.07.2004 and 17.07.2004, the 2nd complainant was attended by the 2nd opposite party with utmost care.
11. On 09.08.2004 the 2nd complainant came with the complaint of pain in abdomen since one week. Oedema was present; it was properly treated by the 2nd opposite party by prescribing the proper medicines. On 10.08.2004 there was swelling in the knee and it was observed as petal oedema. It was treated by appropriate medicines. On 11.08.2004 ultra sonogram was taken and fetal heart rate is 118 per minute. Thereafter up to 24.11.2004 the 2nd complainant was under the care and treatment of 2nd opposite party.
12. On 25.11.2004 at 12.00 Noon the 2nd complainant was seen by the 3rd opposite party. Per abdomen reveals that uterus terms and contracted well cephalic, fixed. Fetal heart rate is 140 per minutes. Per vaginal exam shows that Cervix 80% effaced OS 4 cm and she advised monitoring of fetal heart rate half hourly. Thereafter the case was taken over the 2nd opposite party. On 25.11.2004 at 2.45 pm the following thing was recorded by the 2nd opposite party viz.
C/o. Pains
No draining ()
No bleeding () PV
Bladder distend+
P/A – Term
Mildly acting
FHS+
PV-CX 75% effaced
OS 3 -4 fingers dilated
VX -3 stations
At 12.15 am the delivery notes reads as follows: as the patient was getting exhausted. LAPUT at the outlet VENTOSE applied and pressure gradually raised to 600mm Hg and traction applied decent of the vertex almost to the outlet and then slipped. The fetal heart rate is 140 to 150. The position was now occipito posterior (oblique) head at the outlet. Episotomy extended and patient delivered the case Ventose delivery and baby delivered at 12.35 am. Baby required resuscitation. Apgar at 10’ 6/10. Baby taken over by pediatrician at 1.07 am. These are all this happened during the time of delivery. Any averments contained contrary to above fact are hereby denied as false.
13. The 2nd complainant is the patient of the 2nd opposite party and only one occasion i.e. on 25.11.2004 at 12.00 Noon alone the patient was seen by the 3rd opposite party. The case sheet clearly shows that there was no bleeding per veginam on 24.11.2004. She was monitored by the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party staff periodically. The delivery note recorded by the 2nd opposite party clearly shows that the Apgar score is 6/10. It is false to allege that the 2nd complainant was undergoing prolonged labor for about 14.00 hours. Immediately after the delivery the baby was attended by the 4th opposite party at 1.17am. During interregnum period the baby was stabilized by the 2nd opposite party herself. Whether the patient required LSCS or normal delivery is decided by the 2nd opposite party alone. There is no basis for making such allegation that the complainants and their parents suggested caesarian surgery. It is normal veginal delivery. It is perse false averment. The birth was intimated to the relative to the complainants. The complainants have also failed to file the Discharge summary issued by the Child Trust Hospital which will substantiate the above cause of death. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.
14. Written version of the 4th opposite party in brief:-
The 4th opposite party is a qualified pediatrician, trained in pediatrics and Neonatology. On 26.11.2004, during his off-duty hours i.e. around 00.45 hrs, the 4th opposite party has received intimation over phone from the 1st opposite party hospital to attend an emergency case of a new born male baby of the 2nd complainant who was very sick due to birth complications. The 4th opposite party was informed by the attending Obstetrician / Gynecologist, the 2nd opposite party herein that the baby was born out of an assisted normal delivery and it did not cry and had no respiratory efforts. It was also informed that the attending Doctor had performed the following resuscitation/recovery measures:- (1) Bag and Mask ventilation, (2) Endotracheal Intubations Intermittent Positive Pressure Respiration (IPPR), (3) Cardiac Compression and Injection Naloxone.
15. The available team of Doctor at that point of time had observed the new born baby as more sick, they informed the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party in turn request the 4th opposite party to attend the baby as the attending Doctors were not able to manage the said situation. As soon as the 4th opposite party reached the 1st opposite party hospital, the 4th opposite party clinically examined the baby and observed the following problems at that point of time.
- Meconium stained Liquor,
- Perinatal Hypoxia,
- Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy,
- Shock and Seizure
Immediately the 4th opposite party has resuscitated/recovered and stabilized the baby by the following medication/management.
Normal Saline 10ml/kg bolus,
Injection phenobarbitone,
Injection Vitamin K and Oxygan.
16. Having stabilized the baby, the 4th opposite party advised the complainants to shift the baby to Sri Ramachandra Medical Collage Hospital at Porur for further treatment as there was no sufficient facilities available in the 1st opposite party to handle the Neonatal complications. The baby was stabilized further at Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital till 02.12.2004 and discharged. At the time of discharge, the baby was apparently stable but had the following problems.
Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy.
Burn wrist (rt arm)
Pseudomonas sepsis-unblical catheter.
17. The baby got re-admitted at the 1st opposite party hospital as they were not able to meet out the medical expenses at Sri Ramachandra Medical College with above clinical problem and the following appropriate treatment was provided to the baby
Injection Imipenem,
Syrup Carbamazepine and
T Bact ointment.
Thereafter there was no episode of seizure during hospital stay and breast feeding was established. The baby was discharged on 10.12.2004 with Medication, Immunization Hearing check-up and EEG as per schedule.
18. It was reported that the baby had died after a period of one month i.e. on 11.01.2005 at INSTITUTE OF CHILDREN HOSPITAL, EGMORE, due to intracranial bleeding and its complication. It was also learnt that before that baby got admitted at Child trust Hospital on 01.01.2005 for intracranial bleed and seizure most probably due to later stage of Haemorrhagic Disease of new born. The 4th opposite party specifically stated that the baby died not because of the complication during delivery but because of late onset Haemorrhagic Disease of new born leading to intracranial bleeding. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.
19.The points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
4) To what relief, the complainant is entitled?
20.Point Nos.1&2:-
Ex.B1 is the case sheet it is found that on 25.11.2004 at 2.45 pm the following thing was recorded by the 2nd opposite party viz. (a) C/o. Pains, (b) No draining (), (c) No bleeding () PV and 25.11.2004 at about 09.05 pm It is mentioned as Meconium liquid lehee therefore the allegation that the 2nd complainant was bleeding during on 25.11.2004 is not correct one. According to the opposite party all pain that arise in a woman approaching labor are not true labour pains. The precise definition of normal labour is the spontaneous onset of regular painful uterine contractions associated with effacement and progressive dilatation of the Cervix and descent of the presenting parts with or without “shows”or ruptured membranes resulting in the birth of the baby. Labour and dilatation of Cervix is composed of 2 phases:
1. Show latent phase – During which the Cervix shortens and dilates to about 4 cms. The duration of latent phase id difficult to define but is generally present for 8 hours and is considers prolongs if is is greater than 15 hours in Nulliparious women.
2. Active phase – during which the Cervix dilates from 4cms to 10cms (full dilatation) after which delivery occurs. During the active phase of labour the cervix dilates at the rate of 1 cm per hour in Nulliparious women.
The use of a partograms which plots time duration of active labour against cervical dilatation helps the Obstetrician to assess labour progress and identify women who require intervention.
21. As per Ex.B1 at 12.00 Noon on 25.11.2004 the 2nd complainant was in latent phase. The one and the only allegation made against the 2nd opposite party is that she was not to resort LSCS. The indication for LSCS are:
1. Cephalo –Pelvic disproportion and contracted Pelvis.
2. Dystocia due to soft part.
3. APH
4. Pre-eclampsia
5 . Eclampsic
6. fetal distress and prolapsed of the cord.
7. malpresentation.
8. maternal diseases.
9. Heart diseases in pregnancy.
10. Bad obstetric history.
11. Elderly Primigravidia.
The 2nd complainant did not have any such indications. Hence the 2nd opposite party has performed normal vaginal delivery. Ex.B1 is the case sheet which is in support of the opposite party.
22. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted technical support document and it found “Maternal complications associated with vacuum extraction are comparable to those associated with spontaneous deliveries. Complications do not vary with the type of vacuum extractor used.
Subgaleal hemorrhage is a serious neonatal complication of vacuum extraction. This complication occurred in 1.0 to 3.8 percent of vacuum extractions in one series but has been much less common in more recent studies. Infants with subgaleal hemorrhage present with a boggy scalp, swelling crossing the suture lines and an expanding head circumference. They may also have sign of hypovolemia, pallor, tachycardia and a falling hematocrit.
Cephalohematoma is another fetal complication of vacuum extraction. This complication has a mean incidence of 6 percent (range:1 to 26 percent) in vacuum-assisted deliveries.
intracranial hemorrhage has been found to occur in one of every 860 vacuum-assisted deliveries compared with one of every 1,900 spontaneous deliveries (a statistically significant difference), Yet, the comparative rate of intracranial hemorrhage is not statistically different when vacuum extraction, forceps delivery and cesarean section during labor are compared. It is possible that the abnormal labor that necessitated the assisted delivery may be an underlying cause for a portion of the morbidity attributed to operative deliveries.
Retinal hemorrhages may be more common in vacuum-assisted deliveries but are most often associated with duration of labor. Because these hemorrhages resolve within several weeks, they are unlikely to be associated with long-term morbidity.
Transient neonatal lateral rectus paralysis has been found to occur more frequently in vacuum-assisted deliveries (3.2 Percent) than in forceps deliveries (2.4 Percent), normal spontaneous vaginal deliveries (0.1 percent) and cesarean section (0Percent). Because the paralysis resolves spontaneously, it is unlikely to be of clinical importance.
Vacuum extraction has not been found to result in significant intellectual or neurologic disability”.
22. In this case there is no proof to say that the opposite party wrongly used vacuum treatment. The complainant suppressed the fact after discharge from Sri Ramachandra Medical college hospital the baby of the complainants again admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital on 03.12.2004 and the 1st opposite party has given treatment till 10.12.2004. The above fact was suppressed by the complainants in the complaint as well in the as proof affidavit. As stated by the 1st opposite party that the complainants have satisfied with treatment and facilities of the 1st opposite party hospital and it is an afterthought for the complainants to allege the deficiency against the opposite parties.
23. The complainants have not submitted the discharge summary issued by the CHILD TRUST HOSPITAL which will substantiate the above cause of death. The complainants submitted Death Report from Hospital for Children, Egmore, in the death reports as diagnosis “INTRACRANIAL BLEED, RESPIRATORY PALIURE, SHOCK”. The 4th opposite party stated that the baby was stabilized at Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital till 02.12.2004 and discharged. At the time of discharge, the baby was apparently stable but had the following problems. (a) Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, (b) Burn wrist (rt arm), (c) Pseudomonas sepsis-unblical catheter.
24. The baby got re-admitted at the 1st opposite party hospital as they were not able to meet out the medical expenses at Sri Ramachandra Medical College with above clinical problem and the following appropriate treatment was provided to the baby Injection Imipenem, Syrup Carbamazepine and T Bact ointment.
25. Thereafter there was no episode of seizure during hospital stay and breast feeding was established. The baby was discharged on 10.12.2004 with Medication, Immunization Hearing check-up and EEG as per schedule. Further the 4th opposite party has specifically stated that it was reported that the baby had died after a period of one month i.e. on 11.01.2005 at INSTITUTE OF CHILDREN HOSPITAL, EGMORE, due to intracranial bleeding and its complication and the complainant suppressed the above facts. It is unfortunately the 1st baby of the complainants was died within 46 days from the date of birth. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has not performed cesarean surgery in time and the same was not proved by the complainant through relevant documents.
26. The 2nd allegation is there is abnormal delay that is 14 hours delay to perform delivery by the opposite party. According to the opposite party’s records and case sheets it would revealed that the treatment given by the opposite party in time to the 2nd complainant. The 3rd allegation is that the opposite party used forceps wrongly. But for which there is no proper evidence produced by the complainants.
27. Further the complainant has specifically suppressed the recommendation of baby to the 1st opposite party hospital. Further the complainant has submitted the discharge summary issued by the 1st opposite party as Ex.A7. On perusal of Ex.A7 it is specifically it is mentioned that the baby activity improved and discharge advice is Breast feeding, Syp.Gardenal 15mg BD, T-Bact Oinment Local application, hearing Check-up at one months of life, EEG at 3 months of life, Immunization as per schedule. Review on Saturday. Therefore the 1st opposite party has given proper treatment. Further the complainants have failed to submit the discharge summary of the kanchi kamakodi Child trust hospital. Hence we found that the complainants have not approached this commission without clean hands. Further there is no expert evidence to prove the case of the complainant and disprove the version of the opposite parties. The medical literature submitted by the complainant is not applicable in the fact of this case. Considering all those facts we found that there is no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point Nos.1&2 are answered.
28. Point Nos.3&4:-
We have discussed and decided that there is no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainants are not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed this complaint. Accordingly Point Nos.3&4 are answered
In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 10th day of December 2021.
VINODH KUMAR R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN
MEMBER PRESIDENT
List of documents filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 | …………… | Hospital chart & Reports from the 1st op | Xerox |
Ex.A2 | 26.11.2004 | Transfer summery from 1st op. | Xerox |
Ex.A3 | 29.11.2004 | Discharge summaries from 1st op | Xerox |
Ex.A4 | 02.12.2004 | Discharge summary from Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre. | Xerox |
Ex.A5 | 03.12.2004 | Discharge summary from Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre. | Xerox |
Ex.A6 | 03.12.2004 | Birth certificate issued by the corporation of Chennai, Health Department. | Xerox |
Ex.A7 | 10.12.2004 | Discharge summaries from 1st op. | Xerox |
Ex.A8 | 01.01.2005 | Haematology report from Kanchi Kamakoti Childs Trust Hospital. | Xerox |
Ex.A9 | 01.01.2005 | Blo-Chemistry report from Kanchi Kamaloti Childs Trust Hospital. | Xerox |
Ex.A10 | 02.01.2005 | Haematology report from Kanchi Kamakoti Childs Trust Hospital. | Xerox |
Ex.A11 | 04.01.2005 | Requisition letter from childrens hospital, Egmore to Knachi Kamakoti Childs Trust Hospital. | Xerox |
Ex.A12 | 11.01.2005 | Death report from Hospital for children, Egmore. | Xerox |
Ex.A13 | 28.03.2005 | Legal notice issued to opposite parties. | Xerox |
Ex.A14 | 29.03.2005 | Acknowledgement card from 1st op | Xerox |
Ex.A15 | ………….. | Returned cover from 4th op. | Xerox |
Ex.A16 | ……………. | Returned cover from 3rd op. | Xerox |
Ex.A17 | …………….. | Returned cover from 2nd op. | Xerox |
Ex.A18 | ……………… | Brochure of the 1st op. | Xerox |
Ex.A19 | ………………. | Payment receipts in the 1st opposite party hospital. | Xerox |
Ex.A20 | ……………. | Immunization record of the complainant. | Xerox |
Ex.A21 | …………… | Prescription of the baby of the complainant. Kanchi Kamakoti Childs Trust hospital. | Xerox |
Ex.A22 | ………………. | Pharmacy bill in Kanchi Kamakoti child trust Hospital | Xerox |
Ex.A23 | 04.01.2005 | Scan bill | Xerox |
Ex.A24 | ……………. | Payment receipts in Kanchi Kamakoti Child Trust Hospital. | Xerox |
Ex.A25 | …………….. | Birth certificate of the complainant’s baby. | Xerox |
Ex.A26 | ……………. | Death certificate and Burial certificate of the complainant’s baby. |
|
List of document filed by the 1st opposite party:-
Ex.B1 | 12.04.2004 | Case sheet. | Xerox |
List of documents filed by the 4th opposite party:-
Ex.B2 | …………….. | Case sheet issued by the 4th opposite party. | Xerox |
Ex.B3 | ………………. | Discharge summary issued by the 4th opposite party | Xerox |
VINODH KUMAR R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.