BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.18 of 2015

Date of Instt. 16.01.2015

Date of Decision: 12.07.2017

Harbans Kaur aged about 70 years W/o S. Pritam Singh R/o 425, New Civil Line, Hoshiarpur. ..........Complainant

Versus

1. Orthonova Joint & Trauma Hospital (P) Ltd. Nakodar Road, New Nari Niketan Jalandhar City. Through its Prop.

2. Dr. Harpreet Singh C/o Orthonova Joint & Trauma Hospital (P) Ltd. Nakodar Road, Near Nari Niketan Jalandhar City

3. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office-II, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Adv Counsel for complainant.

Sh. MK Jain, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Sh. RK Sharma, Adv Counsel for OP No.3.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint presented by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is about 70 years old being suffering from pain in her both knees and was having problem while walking approached to Dr. Harpreet Singh respondent No.2 on 11.05.2014, who advised for the replacement of both her knees and demanded Rs.2,80,000/- as his fees/full package for the said replacement which includes pre operation and post operation charges and has told that the complainant had to admit herself in the hospital for six days for which the complainant agreed. The complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- to Dr. Harpreet Singh on 12.05.2014 and a nurse working with him issued a Kachi receipt on the signal of Dr. Harpreet Singh.

2. That on 12.05.2014, Eco of heart was got conducted by the doctor from Kap Centre, which reported heart working up to 55% and the doctor told the complainant that the operation would be conducted on 13.05.2014. That on 13.05.2014, the said doctor got conducted cardiologist test from Tagore Hospital which reported the complainant fit for operation and the doctor demanded one bottle blood and the same was provided by him from his said hospital after charging Rs.3250/- vide a Kachi receipt. On 13.05.2014, the doctor took the complainant for operation and after about 2 hours the doctor came out and stated that he tried to inject anesthesia on back bone but could not be injected and due to this reason, the blood pressure of the complainant shoot up and she started shivering and due to this, the operation was postponed for 14.05.2014 and the said doctor i.e. respondent No.2 operated the knees of the complainant and kept her in I.C.U. On 16.05.2014, the health of complainant deteriorated at about 2:0 P.M suddenly and inspite of repeated requests Dr. Harpreet Singh has not come for checkup and on 17.05.2014, health of the complainant more deteriorated in the morning as her blood pressure shoot up to 216 and the complainant was then shifted to I.C.U by ward boys. It is pertinent to mention here that in the I.C.U there is a space of only four beds but at that time, there were already nine beds on which nine patients were lying out of which one was the complainant and on repeated request, when the doctor has not come and on enquiry, it was revealed that the doctor was neither in the hospital nor in the city and on repeated request nurses of hospital called three other unknown doctors, who prescribed number of medicines which was purchased from outside. The payment to all the said three doctor was made by the complainant and same was out of the package.

3. That on 16.05.2014 and 17.05.2014, five unit blood was arranged as per the instruction of doctors from Ohri Hospital (Blood Bank) for the complainant and a unit blood already lying with the complainant was not used till 17.05.2014. On 20.05.2014 at about 2:30 midnight the complainant was sent in a room from I.C.U and told that no space has been left in ICU for keeping the other patients and health of the complainant deteriorated more in the room and she started taking vague and even failed to recognize the other family members which shows that the treatment even made a very bad effect on her brain. That on 22.05.2014, in the morning some employees of hospital in which there is one Mac came and turned out the other family members of the complainant from the room forcibly and started complaining complainant to walk by holding her forcibly and when the complainant requested them that she is under severe pain and is unable to stand and walk they refused to listen and compelled the complainant for walk on which she suffered severe pain and started crying the said persons told that Dr. Harpreet Singh had ordered for doing this and has further ordered that the patient should be discharged at any cost so that the room could be allotted to other patients and has also send Kachi receipt of Rs.3,27,000/- and told the son of the complainant not to take her away after making the payment. However, said Mac after noticing the critical condition of the complainant advised her to get the X-ray and scanning of her right Leg before going back to her house. On this the applicant and her son requested the doctor to check her right leg on this the doctor got violent and shouted that the operation conducted by him cannot be challenged anywhere in India and he need not to get any X-ray or scan. Then the applicant told her that he has demanded Rs.2,80,000/- and now he has been raising bill of Rs.3,27,000/- on this the doctor again became violent/furious and on repeated request he agreed to take total Rs.2,95,000/- and on 22.05.2014 at about 8:30 P.M, after getting Rs.95,000/- the applicant was forcibly turned out from the hospital and at that time the applicant was under severe pain and on reaching home the mental health of the applicant deteriorated more and her health became more deteriorated on 26.05.2014 and immediately doctor Aman Kapoor Neuro Surgeon was concerted and on his advice C.T Scan of head and blood test was got conducted from Sanjivni Lab, Hoshiarpur and after getting the said reports, the doctor started treatment but on 27.05.2014, the health of the applicant became serious and she was immediately referred to PGI but the blood pressure of the applicant was so low that it was difficult to take her PGI and she had to take treatment of low BP from Narad Hospital from where the applicant was taken to PGI under the supervision of doctor of Narad Hospital with Oxygen in ambulance.

4. That on 27.05.2014 at about 1 PM, the PGI doctors started the treatment of complainant and the treatment continued till 07.06.2014. During this period, doctors got the X-Ray of both the knees of the complainant after seeing the X-Ray, the doctors told that the bone of right knee is broken and the left knee which was implanted by Dr. Harpreet Singh is also not correct they further told that there is gap from up and down level of knees and Dr. Harpreet Singh has not implanted the knees correctly rather in a very negligent manner on 07.06.2014, the complainant was discharged on PGI.

5. On 17.06.2014, the complainant again visited PGI for cheque up as per the advice of PGI who again re-admitted the complainant and was discharged on 19.06.2014. The doctor called the complainant again on next month by stating that if he found the complainant fit then he will conduct surgery on the broken bone of the knee of the complainant. They advised rest to the complainant. The complainant again visited PGI on 21.07.2014 and remained admitted there till 31.07.2014 and during this period, number of test were got conducted on her i.e. ECO of heart, X-ray, Scanning and engo C.T, the doctor has not advised surgery as blood veins in adjoining to the broken bone and due to the critical position/high risk, after seeing the engo CT report.

6. The doctor after quoting Rs.2,80,000/- has taken Rs.3,27,000/- and has kept the complainant for nine days instead of six days as told by him which shows that during her stay in hospital, during her treatment serious lapses and negligent treatment was given on the part of the doctor. Regular physiotherapy of the complainant is being conducted and she has to employ permanent attendant and she has become bed ridden as her right side has damaged and has spend huge amount. Normally during operation only one unit blood require which was not used the demand of more blood indicates that wrong has happened to the complainant due to the negligence of the complainant and the complainant was forcibly discharge premature by the respondents in order to save their skin. The respondent No.2 was criminally and professionally negligent in his diagnosis and treatment and as such the present complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.15 lacs on account of negligence, unfair trade practice and for suffering pain and discomfort, by the complainant beside Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

7. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly both the OPs appeared and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and further averred that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering OPs and further alleged that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. All the claims against the OPs are insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited, Jalandhar under Policy Schedule for Professional Indemnity Insurance (Doctor). Insurance company is a necessary party, which has not been impleaded and further alleged that there is no deficiency in service as defined in Section 2(1) (G) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. The answering opposite parties have neither over-charged the complainant nor there is any mistake or deficiency in her treatment. The OP No.1 and 2 have not received any excess amount as agreed. The OPs have only received the actual amount payable by the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant has concealed real facts and has made false allegations in order to claim false compensation by misusing the law. The OP No.1 and 2 have demanded the documents from the complainant, but she failed to produce any document to show any negligence or malpractice on the part of the OP No.1 and 2. The complainant has also failed to produce any expert opinion regarding any lapse on the part of the OP No.1 and 2. The complainant has made a false and concocted story. The complainant has not filed any document to support her claim, put forth by her in the present complaint. The OPs have provided the best services as the OPs have got vast experience in replacement of knees. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant left the Hospital walking normally and has also issued a certificate to the Hospital that she is quite satisfied with the services and she has not been over charged. She has also stated that she is fully satisfied with the treatment, given by the OP No.1 and 2 and further averred that the age of the complainant was 70 years. She was admitted in the Hospital on 11.05.2014. Her Cardiac consultation was done on 13.05.2014 for fitness of surgery. After receiving Cardiac consultation, surgery was scheduled for 14.05.2014. The operation/surgery was quite successful and the patient was kept in ICU and was shifted to room on 16.05.2014 in a stable condition. On 17.05.2014, the patient got fever and there was in Oxygen level, so she was immediately shifted to ICU and was examined by the OP No.2, who suspected some heart problem and immediately called Dr. Nitish Garg, well known Cardiologist. The complainant was not admitted with disease of heart rather all the precautions were taken before bringing the patient for surgery. The heart problem started after two days of the surgery. There is no connection of surgery with the heart ailment of the complainant. The patient was fully treated and was given Oxygen and medicines. The complainant became comfortable. The complainant went home in a happy and comfortable condition which is fully proved in the Feed Back Form dated 22.05.2014. After that the complainant never reported any complaint. If there was any fracture in the bone of the complainant that might be result of falling down of the complainant after going to her home. The patient never report any problem in respect of Surgery during course of treatment in the Hospital. There is no negligence on the part of the OPs, rather the OPs have given the best treatment to the complainant. The allegations contained in the complaint are totally false, misconceived and without any evidence. The Cardiac problem or the alleged fracture has got no concern with the treatment given to the complainant. Since the complaint is not maintainable, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any damages as claimed from the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is 70 years old and suffering from Knees pain and she also admitted in Hospital and it was also agreed that a lump sum amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was fixed to be paid as a package for six days. It is also admitted that the Eco of heart was got conducted from KAP Centre and even Cardiac test was got conducted from Tagore Hospital but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

8. OP No.3 filed its separate written statement, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP No.3 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd as the complainant is not a consumer qua the OP No.3, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP No.3/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The OP No.3 is not a necessary party in the present complaint, as such the complaint against the OP No.3 is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that without admitting any liability, it is submitted that the OP No.3 has got insurance of OP No.2 for limited liability of Rs.12.5 lacs for any one accident and Rs.50 lacs for any one year and under the Professional Indemnity policy for doctors for indemnifying the insured in the claims arising out of bodily injury and/or death of any patient caused by or alleged to have been caused by error, ommission or negligence in professional service rendered or which should had been rendered by the insured. In the present case, there is neither any error nor any omission or negligence on the part of the OP No.2, as such there is no liability of the OP No.3 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, all the averments made in the complaint are categorically denied for want of knowledge and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant against OP No.3 may be dismissed.

9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-58 and closed the evidence.

10. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence two affidavits Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP1/B alongwith documents Ex.OP1/C (containing of Pages 1 to 49) and thereafter the evidence of the OP No.1 and 2 was closed by order. Similarly counsel for the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Darbara Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager as Ex.OP3/A, certified copy of insurance policy Ex.OP3/B and terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.OP3/C and thereafter the evidence of the OP No.3 also closed by order.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

12. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant Harbans Kaur was suffering from pain in her both Knees and accordingly she approached to Dr. Harpreet Singh OP No.2 for the replacement of both her Knees and in lieu of that the OP No.1 and 2 demanded Rs.2,80,000/- as fee/full package for the said replacement including pre-operation and post-operation charges and has also told the complainant to admit herself in the hospital for six days only for which she agreed and accordingly deposited Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.05.2014 and she was admitted in the hospital on 11.05.2014 and after getting Eco of the heart from Kap Centre on 12.05.2014 as well as report of the Cardiologist test from Tagore Hospital was obtained on 13.05.2014 and then operation of the complainant was conducted on 14.05.2014 instead of fix date i.e. 13.05.2014 but after operation, the health of the complainant became deteriorated on 16.05.2014 and 17.05.2014 but Dr. Harpreet Singh OP No.2 did not come present to check up the complainant and ultimately the staff of the complainant called three other unknown doctors, who prescribed number of medicines which was purchased from outside and after noticing the condition of the complainant, she was shifted to ICU by the Ward Boys and thereafter on 20.05.2014, the complainant was sent in a room from ICU and ultimately on 22.05.2014, the complainant was discharged forcibly from the hospital, after retaining her 12 days instead of agreed 6 days and also charges instead of Rs.2,80,000/- a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- and after discharge, the complainant came to her home and mental health of the complainant became more deteriorated on 26.05.2014 and immediately she was got checked from Dr. Aman Kapoor, Neuro Surgeon, who advised for CT Scan of head and blood test which was got conducted from Sanjivni Lab, Hoshiarpur and after getting the reports, the doctor started the treatment on 27.05.2014 but the health of the complainant become serious and she was immediately referred to PGI but due to bad condition of the complainant, she could not to carry PGI Hospital rather treatment was taken from Narad Hospital, where from the applicant was taken to PGI under the supervision of doctor of Narad Hospital with Oxygen ambulance and then the complainant got treatment from PGI and came to know after getting X-Ray that both the Knees of the complainant are not properly implanted rather the bone of the right Knee is broken and as such Dr. Harpreet Singh has committed a negligence and due to negligence of the Dr. Harpreet Singh i.e. OP No.2, numerous complications came to the complainant later on and now she is bed ridden and in support of the version of the complainant, the learned counsel for the complainant referred the affidavit of the Complainant Harbans Kaur Ex.CA, whereby she re-asserted the entire facts as detailed in the complaint. Apart from that a slip of the Narad Hospital, Hoshiarpur is Ex.C1 and bill of the medicines, issued by the Chemist are Ex.C2 to Ex.C21 and Ex.C23 to Ex.C25 and Ex.C29 to Ex.C56. Apart from that the complainant also brought on the file two bills, issued by PGI Hospital Ex.OP22 and Ex.OP57 and receipt for payment of the Eco is Ex.C26 and receipt of the fee of Ultrasound Ex.C27 and other bill of the other clinical test Ex.C28 and X-Ray bill of the Shivam Hospital, Hoshiarpur Ex.C40 to Ex.C43.

13. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the negligence of the OP No.2 is established from the aforesaid evidence and there is no requirement to examine any medical expert witness and in support of this submission, he made reliance a pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, cited in 2010(5) SCC 513 “V Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Another and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and compensation may be awarded to the complainant as prayed.

14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 urged that no cause of action accrued to file the present complaint against the answering OP because there is no negligence, mistake or deficiency in treatment rather the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant just to grab a money from the OPs and further submitted that the complainant has concealed the real facts rather in reality, the complainant has made a false and concocted story because the complainant has not filed any document to support her claim, put forth by her in the present complaint. The OPs have provided the just possible services as the OPs have got vast experience in replacement of Knees and even the complainant left the hospital by walking normally and has also issued a certificate to hospital that she is quite satisfied with the service and she has not been over charged.

15. The next contention of the learned counsel for the OP is that the complainant is aged about 70 years and she was admitted in the Hospital on 11.05.2014. Her Cardiac consultation was done on 13.05.2014, for fitness of surgery and after receiving Cardiac consultation, surgery was scheduled for 14.05.2014 and accordingly operation was conducted which was quite successful and the patient was kept in ICU and thereafter shifted to room on 16.05.2014 in a stable condition. But on 17.05.2014, the patient got fever and there was low Oxygen level, so she was immediately shifted to ICU and was examined by OP No.2, who suspected some heart problem and immediately called Dr. Nitish Garg, well known Cardiologist, infact the complainant was not admitted with the disease of heart rather all the precautions were taken before bringing the patient for surgery. The heart problem started after 2 days of the surgery. There is no connection of surgery with the heart ailment of the complainant, the patient was fully treated and was given Oxygen and medicines. The complainant became comfortable. The complainant went home in a happy and comfortable condition which is fully proved in the Feed Back Form dated 22.05.2014. Even the complainant never reported any complaint after operation, infact if there was any fracture in the bone of the complainant that might be result of falling down of the complainant after going to her home, the patient never report any problem in respect of surgery during course of treatment in the Hospital or even thereafter, there is no negligence on the part of the OPs, rather the allegations contained in the complaint are totally false, misconceived and without any evidence. The cardiac problem or the alleged fracture has got no concern with the treatment given to the complainant and further submitted that the package was only for six days for replacement of Knees and patient suffered other problems. So, due to that reason, complainant was liable to pay additional amount occurred due to complication of heart problem. Even X-Ray was got done after operation which is in perfect shape and there was no complication or fault in the surgery and when the complainant was discharged, he was in perfect walking condition and accordingly found he was fit for discharge. The complainant never turned to hospital of the OP for getting any treatment after her discharge. But the problem in heart could occur at any time due to old age but the patient did not inform the Hospital about any problem after going home. So, under these circumstances, the OPs are not liable for any negligence and moreover the OP is well qualified skill doctor having a good reputation but the complainant want to entangle him in a false and frivolous litigation which is not allowed by the law of land. In support of this version, the counsel for the OP referred a pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court cited in 2010(1) CPC 460 SC Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others, wherein his lordship held as under:-

“Patient suffering from blood pressure was admitted by respondents for treatment-Ultrasound and CT Scan of abdomen was done when its was found that surgery for removal of left adrenal was imperative-Abdominal tumor was removed after obtaining consent of appellants-Body of pancreas was damaged during opeartion but it was treated but flow of fluids did not stop and second surgery had to be conducted-Patient was discharged on 23.06.1990- On 09.10.1990 the patient started vomiting at home then he was shifted to hospital where he died on 11.10.1990-huge claim of Rs.45 lacs was made against respondent- The National Commission rejected the claim as respondents were not guilty of medical negligence- Appeal filed- in cases of medical negligence, certain principles have been laid down in some leading cases decided by the U.K. Courts such as breach of duty by the doctor, commitment of gross negligence in treatment not merely based on an error of judgment, application of reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, good conduct, proper diagnosis and treatment, adopting a procedure involving lesser risk, proper administration of medicine etc.- It was further held that society should not harass and humiliate doctors to enable them to discharge their duties without any fear or apprehension of filing baseless complaints-They should be protected to do their medical profession- Malicious proceedings must be discarded- By applying these principles and after going into the facts of the case, order of National Commission rejecting any relief to the appellant was upheld-Appeal dismissed”

and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

16. We have considered the respective submission of the party and also gone through the entire record as well as judgments and find that as per the judgment referred by the counsel for the complainant (Supra) 2010 (5) SCC 513, no doubt the medical expert witness is not compulsory to be examined in like this case but in the same judgment, it is also held that each case had to be judged on its own facts. So, accordingly in this case, initially the onus is upon the complainant to prove the negligence of the OP and if proved so, then duty casted upon the OP to discard the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence that there is no negligence but in order to prove the allegations as made in the complainant that the operation of the complainant was scheduled to be conducted on 13.05.2014 but on that day, the condition of the complainant become deteriorated and operation was postponed for next day i.e. 14.05.2014 then on 14.05.2014, the operation was conducted but thereafter the condition of the complainant was became deteriorated due to negligence of the OP No.2 because he himself was not available in the hospital on 17.05.2014 but if we go through the documents available on the file, it is clear that on 17.05.2014, Dr. Harpreet Singh i.e. OP No.2 was very much present in the hospital and he referred the complainant to be got checked from Cardiologist Dr. Nitish Garg. The reference note made by OP No.2 is available on the file at Page No.15 of the Medical Record File Ex.OP1/C and visit of the Dr. Nitish Garg on the same day i.e. 17.05.2014, is also available on the file at Page No.35. Apart from above, it is clearly established from the document i.e. Ex.OP1/C Medical Record File (containing 1 to 49 pages) that all precautions in regard to pre-operation and post-operation, all the precautions have been taken by the OPs. It is also clear that before getting start the operation of the complainant Eco of the heart was got from Kap Centre on 12.05.2014 and opinion from the Cardiologist from Tagore Hospital was obtained on 13.05.2014. These facts have been mentioned by the complainant in her complaint and thereafter an X-Ray was got conducted and all the other formalities and clinical test was got which is available on the file then operation was conducted. So, it means that the OPs have took all precautions which are very much necessary for pre-operation, if so then, we cannot say that there is any negligence on the part of the OPs.

17. Further more, it is admitted that the complainant was agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2,80,000/- but admittedly the OP has charged Rs.3,27,000/-. The reason for charging excess amount is itself explanatory on the file Ex.OP1/C medical record that there was some other physical complication incurred to the complainant after operation and due to that reason, a doctor was called from outside and due to that reason, the complainant was retained in the hospital more than six days and due to that reason the charges was increased and as such, we think no excess charges was taken from the complainant. Moreover, the complainant himself gave a certificate which is available on the file Ex.OP1/C at Page No.41 that no excess amount was charged from her and she is also satisfied with the treatment given to her. So this certificate itself is sufficient to establish that there was no negligence on the part of the OP No.3, whenever any operation is conducted then obviously some post operation complication may arises which were very well brought to the notice of the complainant and his relative which is described in the consent letter, which is available in the file Ex.OP1/C at page No.48 and so for the schedule of operation on 13.05.2014 is contended by the complainant is concerned, the same is very much clear from the document available on the file Ex.OP1/C at Page No.27, wherein specifically mentioned that report of the cardiologist received and schedule for operation is 14.05.2014. Apart from above, if any post operation complication arises to the complainant as alleged in the complaint then it is the duty of the complainant to inform the OP and to get the check patient from OP but admittedly the complainant never turned up after 22.05.2014 i.e. date of discharge rather the complainant approached to Aman Kapoor, Neuro Surgeon, who advised the CT Scan and other blood test, where from he was referred to PGI but the complainant has miserably failed to bring on the file any noting of the Dr. Aman Kapoor or doctor from PGI that there is any negligence on the part of the OP while conducting replacement of Knees. We are of the opinion that if there is any bone fracture of right knee after the operation then it is required for the complainant to immediately informed the OPs even there is no iota of evidence came on the file in the shape of X-Ray report or any medical report of the doctor that there is a bone fracture of the right knee, if so then, the allegation of the complainant are itself not proved and further in view of the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the OP (Supra) 2010(1) CPC 460 “Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others” is apparently applicable in the present case. So with these observations, we came to conclusion that the complainant miserably failed to establish the allegations and therefore complaint is fail and accordingly the complaint is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

18. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

12.07.2017 Member President