BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 21^ST DAY OF MAY 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1.  Treat the grave mistake and misdiagnosis completely on the part of OP1 to 6.
2. Treat the gross medical negligence and deficiency in services by the OP1 to 6 for not explaining to Abhijeet Doye for immediate hospitalization for Deep vein Thrombosis (DVT) treatments.
3. Treat the gross medical negligence in services for non providing immediate high group treatments for thrombosis by OP1 to 6.
4. Treat medical negligence and deficiency in services by OPs 1 to 6 for sad demise of Abhijeet Doye
5. , due to pulmonary embolism, at the age of 33 years.
6. Direct the OP 1 to 6 to pay special compensation/special damage to the complainant along with the compound interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of sad demise of Abhijeet Doye As follows:

1. Rs.10,00,000/- by Narayana Hospital, Bangalore.
2. Rs.5,00,000/- by Health Nest through Dr.Vivek M.D.(Ortho) Bangalore.
3. Rs.5,00,000/- by Apollo Clinics, Bangalore.
4. Iv) Rs.5,00,000/- by Dr.Rajshekhar, M.B., M.D.(Med.) DTCD (T.B. & Chest), Bangalore.
5. Rs.5,00,000/- by Primus Hospitals, Bangalore through Dr.Kamlesh Kumar Singh, M.D.(Cardio.)
6. Rs.19,00,000/- by HP computing & printing Systems India Pvt. Ltd., (Employer)., Bangalore.

7. Grant any other in the interest of justice.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant is the father of the deceased namely Abhijeet Doya, B.Tech (Mech.), MBA(SIBM) and he was working business planning manager 1 HP multinational company, America, Electronic City, Bangalore, since last two years with attractive package of Rs.19.91 lakhs per annum.

3. It is further case of the complainant that his son came to Nagpur from Bangalore by Jet Airways on 17.10.2018 at around 10.30 pm., for fixing his marriage date which was to be scheduled in the last week of December 2018. His engagement was also fixed with Swarna Gayakwad, MBBS, MS., which was to be performed at 7 pm on 09.11.2018 at Rajawada Palace Nagpur.  The complainant son reached home around 10.30 pm by ola cab from Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport, Nagpur. After arrival of his son he has noticed that he was suffering from short breath/breathlessness. When they have asked him he has informed that he has taken medicines from the Bangalore doctors for his treatment of short breath.
4. It is further case of the complainant that on 19.10.2018 they took their son to Krims multi speciality hospital Nagpur, after consultation by Dr.Ashok Arbat, he advised for admission of his son in the hospital and further advised to get pulmonary angiography test from Precision Dhantoli Scan, Nagpur, without providing their ambulance for this purpose. The complainant took his son to the scan center by his own vehicle and his son undergone the Pulmonary angiography test and return to the hospital.
5. It is further case of the complainant that Dr.Ashok Arbat has not explained to the seriousness of Pulmonary embolism after receiving the angiography report on 19.10.2018 from the scan centre, Nagpur. The doctor had not even started the immediate treatment by providing high risk treatment to the patient after hospitalization. The doctor Ashok Arbat is a well qualified senior Pulmonologist started low risk treatment to the patient, which was prescribed at the time of consultation.  On 20.10.2018 doctor came on his morning round at around 9 am and he saw the angiography report and film.  The deceased has asked the doctor about the test report and about the medical treatment and also discharge from hospital etc.  The doctor has advised him that he will have to take the treatments in SICU ward for atleast one week only. The doctor has not allowed this complainant presence at the time of his rounds.
6. It is further case of the complainant that the patient became unstable at around 10.40 am after his rounds, the junior doctors were trying to bring the patient in stable/normal condition, but the doctors were failed to do so.  At that time Dr.Ashok Arbat was absent and not made available even after frequent telephone calls. The junior doctors declared that the patient expired on 20.10.2018 at 12.20 pm.  The complainant do not understand the type of medical treatment provided to his son during one hour forty minutes which is not clear in the death summary.  
7. It is further case of the complainant that the deceased was working in HP MNC Bangalore since last two years. He had taken medical treatments for his left leg ankle pains on 22.09.2019 from Dr.Amarnath Reddy, MD(Ortho) NH Narayana Hospital, Bangalore on 05.10.2018, from Dr.Vivek MD(Ortho) Health Nest Bangalore, and on 05.10.2018 and on 06.10.2018 from Vita Family Clinic, Bangalore and the patient undergone the tests like X-ray ECG, 2D Echo, Cardiology, Sonography, Glucose random on 11.10.2018 from Apollo Hospital, Bangalore and Tenet Diagnostics, Bangalore. He was further advised to approach Dr.Rajashekar MBBS, MD., with test reports.  The doctor had diagnosed has left leg ankle pain and short breath as gout and pulmonary hyper tension, instead of deep vein thrombosis/blood clotting and prescribe medicines without alert for hospitalization.  
8. Thereafter, the deceased approached Dr.Kamlesh Kumar Singh Cardiologist Primus Multispecialty Bangalore on 13.10.2018, 17.10.2018 for short breath and chest pain and he has also misdiagnosed and prescribed medicines as usual.  All the Bangalore doctors had totally failed to diagnose the pain of left leg ankle pain which was DVT (Deep Vein Thromprosis)/blood clotting instead of gout and which was travel to lung infection. There was gross negligence on the part of the Bangalore doctors/service provider for the diagnosis of left leg ankles pain and medical negligence and deficiency in service and medical treatment to the patient even after all the test reports produced by the deceased before the doctors and employers as well.  
9. It is further case of the complainant that the deceased was an extraordinary brilliant student, he has taken education from reputed schools like Mount Carmel School, Nagpur and also High Schools and he has done his a V-tech from NIT Bhopal and MBA from Symbiosis International Business Management, Pune.  He was very conscious about his health. Recently he has made his health check up on August 2018 from Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and all reports were normal. Apart from this the doctors at Bangalore did not make proper diagnosis inspite of ECG changes.  Apart from this Dr.Kamlesh Kumar Singh has allowed the deceased to fly from Bangalore to Nagpur on 17.10.2018 when he was suffering for short breath and chest pains. In view of these facts the OPs are responsible for the demise of the deceased in his younger age and thereby they have committed series of deficiency in services with the deceased the son of the complainant and they have also indulged in unfair trade practices and they are guilty of deficiency in services and gross negligence of doctors and hospitals. Hence they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant along with the cancellation of their registration of practices, so that the other hospital can take the lesson for medical negligence and deficiency in services. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint.
10. In response to the notice, OPs 1, 4 and 5 appeared before this commission and filed their separate version. On the basis of the version filed by the OP5, complainant filed memo to dismiss the complaint against OP5. Hence the complaint is dismissed against OP5. Though notice was service on OP2, 3 and 6 they have not appeared before this commission. Hence OP2, 3 and 6 have placed exparte.
11. OP1 filed their version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. The complaint is frivolous, vexatious and deserves no consideration. It has been filed solely with the malafide intention of unjustly enriching the complainant at the cost of the OP1. There is no cause of action to file this complaint. 
12. It is further case of the OP1 that the adjudication of the claims and allegations made in the present complaint would require this commission to consider and going to various questions of facts and medical aspects would require parties to lead evidence and as such it cannot be considered by this commission.  It is for the complainant to go to appropriate commission.  The various claims made by the complainant reveal that they fall outside the ambit of the provisions of C.P.Act 2019.  Opinion by the independent panel of experts is required to even consider negligence as alleged by the complainant as against this OP. the complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has claimed an exorbitant amount of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs against this OP1. This OP has treated the complainant’s son only once as an outpatient.  
13. It is further case of the OP1 that they have to operate National Network of hospitals in India with a particularly strong presence in the southern state of Karnataka and eastern India as well an emerging presence in western and central India.  This OP1 strongly believe that there brand is strongly associate with their mission to deliver high quality and affordable health care services to broader population. OP1 has won numerous award in health care industry.
14. It is further case of the OP1 that the deceased came to their hospital and visited the OPD on 22.09.2018 with complaints of pain in the left lower limb. Upon speaking to the consulting doctor it is learnt that a doctor an orthopedist Dr.Amarnath Reddy a well qualified spine surgeon, physically examined Mr. Abhijeet Doye and diagnosis of the said doctor after taking history orally from the patient and physical examination was left sided sciatica which means radiating pain in the left lower limb which is arising from lower back secondary to nerve compression in spine.  Mr. Abhijeet Doye straight leg raising test was normal and there were no nuero vascular defects found upon physical examination. Based on the clinical findings the consulting doctor at this OPs hospital treated him symptomatically with oral medicines for left sided sciatica. He was not admitted as an inpatient nor treated for any other medical condition or ailment in the OP1 hospital.  Mr. Abhijeet Doye was informed to come to follow up by examining doctor. Despite the same being advised to him he didn’t come for follow up consultation. The complainant claims to be the legal heir of the deceased was not present at the time of his son’s check up at OPD of this OP hospital and cannot make assumptions and proceed to smear this OP’s name and the name of Dr.Amarnath Reddy, who was put to 16 years of experience and his considered as an expert.
15. The OP1 has given highest degree of professional medical care to the complainant’s son and he was treated suitably based on the symptoms explained by him. Hence this OP are not aware whatsoever about further changes in his medical condition and the treatment provided to him elsewhere as he has not come for followup visits.
16. The OP case sheet of the OP1 hospital produced by the complainant clearly indicates that there were no neurovascular deficits on examination. Hence the complainant is not entitle for any relief.  Mr. Abhijeet Doye displayed no symptoms of deep vein thrombosis such as pain in calf mussels with local swelling, local warmth and change in colour of skin when he visited the OP hospital. Hence any allegations of the complaint against this OP1 claiming misdiagnosis and medical negligence are baseless and false. The son of the complainants had no complaints of shortness of breath when he visited the OP hospital as an outpatient. Hence the cause of death of son of the complainant at Nagpur cannot be attributed to this OP.  The son of the complainant has visited numerous doctors within a short period of time and the averments made in the complaint itself reveals that he was negligent in attending to his health care. Hence the complainant has not even made out a primafacie case against this OP1. Hence OP1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
17. It is the case of the OP4 that the allegations made in para 1 to 7 and 9 are neither known to this OP nor he is aware of the same. The allegations made in para 8 with regard to this OP that as advised, “he approached along with the test report before Dr.M.B.Rajashekar on 11.10.2018 as an outpatient and the doctor has diagnosed for left leg ankle pain for short breath as gout and pulmonary hypertension instead of deep vein thrombosis/blood clotting and prescribed medicines without alert for hospitalization” are all false.  The OP4 has denied all other allegations made against him.
18. It is the specific case of the OP4 that he is an outpatient consultation doctor with an experience of 30 years and has an absolutely unblemished service against his name. Mr. Abhijeet Doye has consulted this OP as outpatient on 11.10.2018 complaining of chest pain and breathlessness after examination of the patient he had advised him to go for some important tests like RBS, Blood Urea, ECG, 2G Echo and PFT. The patient had visited the tenet Diagnostic on the same day and after examination he has produced the lab reports. The lab reports noticed the cardiac issues and advised the patient to consult a cardiologist and specialist hospital immediately for further examination. This OP has advised basic medicines.  This OP has performed his duty with reasonable skill and competency.  The chronology of events narrated in the complaint reveal that Mr. Abhijeet Doye had an improper and negligent approach in attending to his health care.  The allegations in the complaint reveals that the patient had visited multiple doctors within a short span of time. Hence the cause of death of patient in Nagpur cannot be attributed to this OP. the complaint is devoid of merits and filed after lapse of substantial time. Hence the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.
19. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 71 documents.  Affidavit evidence of official of OP1 has been filed and OP relies on 02 documents.  OP4 has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on 02 documents.
20. Heard the arguments of both the parties. Perused the written arguments filed by the complainant, OP1 and OP4.
21. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP1 to 4 and 6?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

22. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

23. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of both the parties, written arguments and documents.
24. The complainant who is the father of the deceased Abhijeet Doye is claiming compensation and also damages from OP1 to 6 on the ground that they are responsible for medical negligence and deficiency in services for the sad demise of his son.  Hence the OPs are responsible for deterioration of health day by day and hence liable for compensation due to sudden death of his son in grave mistake and misdiagnosis completely by OP1 to4.
25. It is further claim of the complainant that the OP6 who is the employer HP also fail to settle death claims of PF, gratuity, insurances, encashment of leave, pension, on duty compensation and any other dues payable etc., in time, which the deceased was entitle under the policy of HP company.
26. The complainant’s son Abhijeet Doye was working in OP6 company for more than two years prior to his death.  He suddenly died on 20.10.2018 at Krims Multi specialty Hospital, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur after hospitalization on 19.10.2018 due to gross negligence and misdiagnosis completely.  The deceased was stable quite normal at the time of admission to the hospital.  The hospital totally failed to provide immediate high group medical treatments to the patient. The deceased became the victim of the adverse drug reaction of all the doctors medication.
27. The main grievance of the complainant is that his son was working in OP6 company has come to his native place Nagpur on 17.10.2018 at around 10 am.  After that he has reached his home around 10.30 am.  After he reached home on 17.10.2018 the complainant noticed that his son was facing short breath/breathlessness. After enquired with the deceased he came to know that his son has taken treatment from the hospitals and doctors of Bangalore city and he further informed that he is feeling well after coming to home.
28. On 19.10.2018 the complainant took his son to Krims Hospital, Nagpur for his breathing problem, where the deceased was treated by Dr.Ashok Arbat, Sr. Palmanalogist at around 12 pm.  As per the advise of the doctor the deceased was admitted to the hospital after getting pulmonary angiography from the Precision Dhantholi Scan, Nagpur.  The doctor has come on his daily morning rounds and also verified the pulmonary angiography report and film.  He has also convinced the deceased to not to worry about the pulmonary embolism. However he has advised to admit in SICU atleast for seven days for medical treatment.  On 20.10.2018 the condition of the deceased became serious and he died on 20.10.2018 at 12.20 pm.
29. It is further case of the complainant that the doctor Ashok Arbat has not explained the seriousness of pulmonary embolism after receiving the angiogram report and he has not started immediate treatment by providing high risk treatment to the patient after hospitalization. He has continued only low risk treatment which was prescribed at the time of consultation before admission and before receiving the scan report, which shows gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Dr.Ashok Arbat.
30. It is pertinent to note here that even though the complainant had made serious allegation against Dr.Ashok Arbat, Krims Multi specialty hospital, Nagapur, has not made the doctor or the hospital as OP in this complaint and not claimed any relief from the said doctor.  Under these circumstances the commission need not consider the alleged deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the said doctor. Whether the complainant has filed any other complaint within the jurisdiction of Nagpur state or whether they have entered into any settlement or compromise with the said hospital is also not informed by the complainant.
31. The complainant has made serious allegations only against OP1 to 5. The main grievance of the complainant against OP1 to 5 is that they have committed grave mistake and misdiagnosed when his son approached first time before Dr.Amarnath Reddy for orthopedic treatment for his left leg ankle pain on 22.09.2018. The said doctor failed to advise the patient for x-ray of left leg ankle and to mention review date on prescription and thereby the OP1 has failed to diagnose deep vein thrombosis and not aedvised for hospitalization at an early stage.
32. On the other hand, the contention taken by the OP1 is one of the total denial except the fact that the deceased has visited their hospital OPD on 22.09.2018 with complaints of pain in the left lower leg and he was seen by the consultant orthopedist Dr.Amarnath Reddy who is well qualified and expert in the field. After examination and after taking history orally from the patient he has diagnosed that the patient was suffering from left sided sciatica, which means radiating pain the left lower limb.  
33. It is further contention taken by the OP1 that the SLRT of the deceased was normal and there was no neurovascular deficits found upon physical examination.  Based on clinical findings the consulting doctor has treated the patient symptomatically with oral medicines.  He was not admitted as an inpatient and further advised the deceased to come for follow up treatment, but the deceased has not come for follow up consultation, the complainant was not present at the time of check up at OPD of OP1 hospital and he cannot make assumption and proceed to spoil the name of the OP1 and the name of the doctor Amarnath Reddy who is having an experience of two decades in his field. When the deceased has not come for follow up treatment neither this OP1 nor its consultant doctor are aware whatsoever about further changes in his medical condition and the treatment provided to him.   Further this OP has treated the deceased only as a outpatient.  They have given highest degree of medical care and attention without any compromise whatsoever to the said Mr. Abhijeet Doye and follow the standard of care as his commensurate with the symptoms on examination. Hence this OP1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
34. It is further contention taken by the complainant that the OP2 Dr.Vivek of Health Nest centre has made grave mistake and misdiagnosed completly when his son approached him for his left leg ankle pain on 05.10.2018 and the doctor failed to advise for X-ray of left ankle pain and to mention the review date and prescription after test report from Asha Diagnostic laboratory and not alert the patient. They have failed to diagnose for DVT and not advised for hospitalization at an early stage.
35. It is further grievance of the complainant that when his son deceased has not received satisfactory result by way of medication prescribed by earlier doctor, he preferred to get expert opinion from Dr.Vishwanath Avadhani, Dr.S.Santosh Gandhi of Vita Family Clinic, HSR Layout. They have only gave medicines for his left leg pain on 06.10.2018 and made grave mistake and misdiagnosed completely.
36. It is further grievance of the complainant that when the deceased did not get satisfactory result from the medications of the aforesaid doctors he approached OP4 as per his advise he has undergone several tests. After examination OP4 has diagnosed that the deceased was suffering from GOUT and pulmonary hypertension for breathlessness/short breath and chest pain instead of DVT.  The doctor who is a pulmonologist and medicine doctor prescribed wrong medication to the patient.  The doctor has not advised for immediate hospitalization in the reputed heart hospitals at Bangalore and further failed to advise for hospitalization atleast for 24 hours under observation and thereby the OP4 committed gross negligence. 
37. The OP4 has filed his version and denied the allegations made against him except the fact that he has treated the deceased.  The contention taken by the OP4 that after examining the lab report he has advised basic medicine to the deceased. Even though the OP4 has advised to come for follow up treatment the deceased has not at all come for follow up treatment. The chronology of events narrated in the complaint reveal that Mr. Abhijeet Doye had an improper and negligent approach in attending to his health care.  It further reveals that the patient has visited multiple doctors within a short span of time.  This OP has treated the deceased as an outpatient. Hence the cause of death of patient in Nagpur cannot be attributed against this OP.
38. It is pertinent to note here that the complainant has got dismissed the complaint against OP5. The OP6 is the employer of the deceased and the complainant has alleged the deficiency of service in settling the death claims of the deceased.
39. In support of his contention the complainant has relied on 71 documents. All these documents are relating to the prescription, diagnostic report, lab reports and cash receipts and medical bills and also death certificate and death summary of the deceased.
40. The complainant admittedly is not claiming any relief from the Krims Multispecialty hospital, Nagpur, the complainant has restricted the claim only against the doctors residing at Bangalore.  The main contention taken by the complainant is that even though his son deceased was suffering from DVT the doctors at Bangalore hospital OP1 to 4 have misdiagnosed alleging that the deceased was suffering from sciatica and Gout and pulmonary hypertension for breathlessness and chest pain and prescribed wrong medications to the patient.
41. On perusal of the entire documents produced by the complainant it is clear that the deceased was treated as an outpatient in OP1 to 4 hospital and he was not taken any treatment as an inpatient. Even though the doctors at OP1 to 4 have advised him for review he has not at all consulted the doctors which clearly disclose that the deceased himself was very negligent and he had an improper and negligent approach in attending to his health care. The OP1 to 4 have also advised the deceased to undergo for medical tests and they have obtained the reports and they have diagnosed that the deceased was suffering from sciatica, gout and pulmonary hypertension.
42. It is the specific contention taken by the OP1 that the deceased Abhijeet Doye, straight leg raising test was normal and there were no neuro vascular deficits found upon physical examination.  The patient displayed no symptoms of DVT such as pain in calf mussel with local swelling, local warmth and change in colour of skin when he was taken treatment as an outpatient at OP hospital. Hence the allegations made against the OPs that they have misdiagnosed and they have committed medical negligence are baseless and false.  Even though the OP1 to 4 have advised the deceased to come for review he has not at all attended and has not taken any further treatment from OP1 to 4. Even the deceased was in stable condition at the time of admission to Krims hospital Nagpur and his condition was deteriorating only on 20.10.2018 when he was taking treatment at Krims hospital Nagpur.
43. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the OP1 to 4 have treated the deceased by giving highest decree of professional medical care and doctors have treated the deceased are all highly qualified in their field. On this back ground we have also gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in 2023(4) CPR 186(SC) in Civil Appeal No.3975/2018 that

1. Torts – Medical negligence – Medical Practitioners will be held liable for negligence only in circumstances when their conduct falls below standards of a reasonably competent practitioner – Due to unique circumstances and complications that arise in different individual cases, coupled with constant advancement in medical field and its practices, it is natural that there shall always be different opinions, including contesting views regarding chosen line of treatment or court of action to be undertaken – In such circumstances, just because a doctor opts for a particular line of treatment but does not achieve desired result, they cannot be held liable for negligence, provided that said course of action undertaken was recognized as sound and relevant medical practice – A line of treatment undertaken should not be of a discarded or obsolete category in any circumstance – Top hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met – complainant should be able to prove a breach of duty and subsequent injury being attributable to the breach as well, in order to hold a doctor liable for medical negligence – On other hand, doctors need to establish that they had followed reasonable standards of medical practice.

44. It is clear from the very documents produced by the complainant himself the OP1 to 4 have treated the deceased only as an outpatient and they have subjected him for multiple medical tests and they have obtained the reports from the concerned laboratory. After thorough examination they have diagnosed that the deceased was suffering from sciatica and also gout and pulmonary hypertension and they have given medicines by advising followup treatments. The deceased instead of going for follow up treatment has consulted so many doctors in a short period of time. If the deceased have attended the follow up treatment with his problems the OP1 to 4 would have advised him for further medical tests and they have diagnosed the deceased in the earlier stage. When the deceased himself is very much negligent in approaching his health problems no doctors can help him. The procedure followed by the OP1 to 4 in treating the deceased is not of a discarded or obsolete category.
45. It is clear from the above decision that to hold a medical practioner liable for negligence a higher threshold limit must be met the complainant should be able to prove a breach of duty and subsequent injury being attributable to the breach as well in order to hold a doctor liable for medical negligence.  The treatment papers and the documents produced by the complainant himself has clearly discloses that the OP1 to 4 doctors who has treated the deceased have followed the reasonable standards of medical practice. Under these circumstances the complainant has failed to establish the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP1 to 4.
46. The OP6 is the company of the deceased who was working in the said company for a considerable period of time for two years. The complainant has made allegations that the company has not settled the death benefits and other benefits of the deceased immediately. Except issue of the notice to the OP6 there is no documents placed by the complainant in order to prove that the company had not settled the death benefits of the deceased. Even in the legal notice issued to the OP6 as Ex.P17 the complainant has stated that he has received some of the death claims and not yet received the claims of EPF, gratuity and family pension etc., which the deceased was entitle under the company policy. The complainant also failed to produce any documents before this commission regarding the claim settled by the OP6 and details of the claim. Under these circumstances the complainant also failed to establish the deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the OP6.  Hence we answer point No.1 and point No.2 in the negative.
47. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed. No costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 21^ST day of MAY 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party1 – R.W.1;

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party 4 – R.W.2;