STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal Case No.FA/181/2003(Pb) Date of institution: 13.02.2003 R.B.T. No. 641 of 2008/9.8.2008 Date of decision : 04.03.2011 Saini Hospital, Model Town, G.T.Road, Amritsar, through its partner, Sh.Satnam Singh. …Appellant Versus 1. Rekha Sharma widow of Sh.Rajinder Singh Sharma.2. Rimple 3. Dimple 4. Rajni, all daughters of Sh.Rajinder Sharma 5.Ratneer (minor) son of Sh.Rajinder Sharma, All residents ofHouse No.2277, Cemetry Road, Gali Des Raj, Putligarh, Amritsar, through their mother Respondent No.1.6. New India Insurance Company Limited. Rayya Branch, G.T.Road, Amritsar, thorugh its Branch Manager. ….. Respondents Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dated 1.1.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Amritsar. BEFORE : Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Presiding Member Sh.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member Argued by: Sh.B.J.Singh,advocate proxy for Sh.Updip Singh,advocate for the appellant Sh.V.K.Sachdeva, advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Sh.Parminder Singh,advocate for respondent No.6 JUDGMENT Per Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member 1. This appeal has been directed by Saini Hospital,Amritsar one of the opposite parties against the order dated 1.1.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Amritsar vide which complaint case bearing No.20 of 2002 filed by Rekha Sharma was allowed with costs of Rs.1000/- and OP NO.1/appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs to the complainants. The said amount was directed to be shared equally by all the complainants being legal representatives of the deceased Rajinder Singh Sharma. The amount falling to the share of minor Ratneer- complainant No.5 was directed to be deposited in the fixed deposit in a schedule bank through complainant NO.1 and he was held entitled to get released the same on attaining majority. OP NO.1 was held entitled to get indemnification from the New India Assurance Co. – OP NO.2 in accordance with the insurance policy issued by the company. 2. Briefly stated the facts as set out in the complaint are that Rajinder Singh Sharma (now deceased) husband of the complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 to 5 who was a practicing lawyer was having the problem of Hernia and he used to be treated for the said problem from the Saini hospital OP No.1 as is evident from the Ultrasonography of the patient which was got done from Advanced Diagnostics Centre on 18.3.1998. On 24.12.2000 he was admitted in the Saini hospital and complainant NO.1 was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- for conducting an operation. She was assured that her husband would be perfectly alright within a period of 24 hours of the operation as the operation of her husband would be performed by competent surgeon in OP hospital which was equipped with basic facilities for such operation and was having regular visit of competent surgeons. Dr.J.S.Saini himself pointed out that he was the M.D. and never disclosed that he was simply B.A.M.S. and did not even possess the degree of MBBS and created false impression in the mind of complainant that he was MD. At the time of admission of Rajinder Singh Sharma, there was no surgeon available in the hospital. The complainant was told at a later stage that the operation would be performed by Dr. Atul Mittal who would come from Jalandhar for the said purpose. The patient was admitted in the hospital at 9.00 A.M and was taken to operation theatre at 9.10 P.M. but Dr.Mittal came at 11.00 P.M. and the operation was conducted in a hasty manner without performing requisite pre-operative tests and even proper anesthesia was not administered to the patient. No precaution was taken by the anaesthetist for examining the patient before the operation and he also did not make it sure that the patient was empty stomach before the administration of anaesthesia. The doctor who performed the operation immediately left for Jalandhar and there was no one to look after the patient after the operation and to provide him most intensive care which was needed at that time. The OP hospital did not possess life saving drugs and there was no proper arrangement for blood, its testing and matching. The complainant contacted Dr.Saini and asked him to provide proper medicines as he was crying with pain but no doctor was deputed to attend the patient, only a nurse came who gave two sedative pills to him. The condition of Rajinder Singh Sharma became bad to worse on the next day but he was not properly attended to by the hospital, rather a demand of Rs.50,000/- more was raised. On the following day, Rajinder Singh Sharma complained of respiratory problem and there was no arrangement of ventilator. He was again taken to the operation theater and an artificial pipe for respiration was inserted and it was assured that he would recover soon. Neither the complainant No.1 nor any of her relatives was told that the patient had expired, it was only on the insistence of complainant NO.1 to see the face of her husband that the dead body of Rajinder Singh Sharma was brought out of the operation theatre. OP hospital completely failed to provide proper treatment to Rajinder Singh Sharma and acted in a negligent manner in the performance of the operation of Hernia. The matter was also reported to the police on 29.12.2000 and the complaint was entered at Sr. No.3020 with the office of SSP, Amritsar but no action was taken by the police .Hence, complainant filed this complaint before the learned District Forum, Amritsar claiming compensation of Rs.4.5 lacs 3. Both OPs contested the complaint and filed their separate replies. The OP-1 in its reply inter-alia stated that Sh.Rajinder Singh Sharma visited the hospital on 22.12.2000 with the complaint that he was suffering from prostate enlarged and the OP hospital advised him to undergo tests. He was having hypertension and was referred to Dr.K.R.Tuli who examined him and advised him to take medicines for two days. After taking medicines for two days, Dr. Tuli examined the patient on 24.12.2000 and declared him medically fit for undergoing surgery after checking the blood sugar level. Rajinder Singh Sharma was admitted to the hospital on 24.12.2000 at 3.00 P.M. and he was advised for ultrasound to confirm the illness. He went for ultrasound test and report was obtained. All the pre-operative tests and precautions had been taken and after the doctor declared him fit for surgery, he was taken for operation. Dr.Sunil Chawla, MD Anaesthesia and Dr.Mittal, MS,MCH conducted the operation which was successful and without any complication. The patient remained stable upto 26.12.2000 and suddenly on 27.12.2000 his V.B.T started dropping and the condition was fully explained to the wife of the patient from time to time. On 26.12.2000 at 8.30 a.m. the patient was having loose motion, breathlessness and V.P 95%. He was then shifted to ICU and Dr.Tuli suspected that he was having pulmthrombolism. Accordingly treatment was given to the patient for the suspected illness. Dr. Mittal also advised the same treatment as advised by Dr.Tuli and explained that the complication was not related to the surgery. At 4.00 p.m. Dr.Chawla also attended the patient and he was satisfied with the treatment given to the patient. All possible medical aid was given to the patient keeping in view the condition and seriousness. On 27.12.2000 inspite of all the efforts of OP hospital and treatment given to the patient, his condition deteriorated and he was put on ventilator due to the oxygen saturation falling to 88%. On 28.12.2000 again the seriousness of the patient was explained to his attendants and again at 8.30 a.m. the attendant was explained the risk of mortality. The patient was having cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was done by Dr.Chawla and cardiac activity was restarted. Again at 3.00 P.M. the patient had suddenly cardiac arrest and inspite of best efforts, he could not be saved. It was pleaded that the OP hospital had taken all the care while treating the patient and all the qualified doctors attended the patient and all the regular tests and nursing care had been taken. OP never demanded Rs.50,000/- from the complainant, rather Rs.9,400/- were still to be recovered. The OP hospital had all the facilities to perform the surgery and the patient was under the treatment of the competent doctors and there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP hospital. 4. In its separate written reply, the OP-2 denied all the allegations and controverted all the pleas taken in the complaint. It was pleaded that the learned Forum was only to determine if OP No.1 was liable to pay the compensation and it was to be decided by the insurance company whether such alleged carelessness/negligence was covered under the policy obtained by OP NO.1 from the insurance company. In case it fell within the purview of the said policy only then insurance company would consider the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant has no right to claim any amount from the insurance company. 5. After going through the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaint as indicated above. Aggrieved against the said order, OP No.1 has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the file including the written arguments. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the observations of the learned District Forum that the report (Annexure R-5) dated 22.12.2000 is tailor-made to suite their wishes and that Dr. Atul Mittal never advised any test and the operation was conducted in a hasty manner. His contention is that these observations are contrary to record and therefore, should not sustain. This contention is opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent. 8. The case of the complainant is that Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma came to the OP Hospital on 24.12.2000 for the operation of Hernia. It is not their case, if he had visited the said hospital on 22.12.2000 and if any tests were conducted. Annexure ‘B’ is purported to be the result of some tests allegedly conducted on Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma on 22.12.2000. It is not proved as to by whom the said tests were prescribed and who had conducted the same. The prescription slip advising the tests has not been placed on file. The technician or the person who conducted the tests or the person who prepared Annexure ‘B’ dated 22.12.2000 has not been examined with the result that Annexure ‘B’ has not been proved at all. The OPs did not even produce the record/Register of their hospital to prove that such tests had been conducted on Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma and the same are entered in their register maintained by the Laboratory Technician. The OPs were free to introduce any such sheet like Annexure ‘B’ at any time and allege, after the death of the patient that these tests had been conducted. In fact, if Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma did not appear before the OP on 22.12.2000, the question of conducting any such tests did not arise. 9. The OP/appellant has also referred to Annexure ‘C’, which is the fitness report issued by Tuli Heart Care Centre as to whether the patient was fit for surgery or not. This document also suffers from the same defects as mentioned above. Dr. K. R. Tuli who is alleged to have prepared this report has not been examined nor his affidavit produced on file. There was no occasion on 22.12.2000 to obtain any such report from Dr. K. R. Tuli because till then, the patient had not come to the OP Hospital for getting the operation conducted. The learned District Forum rightly observed that this document was introduced subsequently to fill up the gaps and the story propounded by the OP that they conducted the operation after getting the tests conducted and obtained a fitness certificate from the competent medical specialist is totally false. 10. The report dated 22.12.2000 submitted through Annexure ‘C’ was that the patient was fit to undergo surgery after checking blood sugar level. The operation was conducted on 24.12.2000. There is no such report of the medical specialist to suggest if blood sugar on 24.12.2000 was under normal limits due to which the patient was fit to undergo surgery. It shows that the operation was conducted even without checking the blood sugar level on 24.12.2000. These two documents, therefore, were rightly discarded by the learned District Forum. 11. The OPs have produced their treatment record (Annexure D). The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant is that this record was fabricated subsequently after the patient died. The OPs admit that after the death of Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma, their entire treatment record was taken away by the police. They have even produced the copy of the receipt to this effect, purported to have been issued by A.S.I Krishan Kumar, Incharge P.P., Circuit House, Amritsar on 28.12.2000, the date on which the patient died. The said record is not proved to have been returned to the OP Hospital so far. The OPs, therefore, could not have the photocopy of the record nor is it their case, nor have they explained as to how and when they prepared the photocopy of the said record. These facts cast doubt on the veracity of the record, copy of which is Annexure ‘D’. 12. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent referred to various entries in Annexure ‘D’, which go contrary to the nursing care record produced by them. There is an entry dated 25.12.2000 at 7:30 p.m. that the BP of the patient was 100/90. A perusal of nursing care record shows that the BP recorded therein at 7:30 p.m. is 80/50. On 26.12.2000, the BP was recorded 90/70 at 8:30 a.m. in Annexure ‘D’. However, in the nursing care record, it is 80/(-), which means that systolic BP was not recordable at all. Again at 6:30 p.m., it is recorded in Annexure ‘D’ as 90/60 whereas in the nursing care record, it is mentioned as 80/50. On 27.12.2000 at 9 p.m., BP is mentioned to be 90/70 in Annexure ‘D’ but in the nursing care record, it is mentioned to be 90/60. Again at 9:20 p.m. on that day, the BP is mentioned to be 110/70 whereas in the nursing care record, at 9:15 p.m., it was 90/60 and at 9:30 p.m., it was unrecordable though in Annexure ‘D’ it is mentioned at 9:20 p.m. as 110/70. In the nursing care record, the BP is mentioned ‘unrecordable’ on 28.12.2000 at 7 a.m., 7:10 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. However, no such fact has been mentioned in Annexure ‘D’. In the treatment record (Annexure D), BP is mentioned as 100/70 on 28.12.2000 at 7:40 a.m. whereas in the nursing care record, the systolic BP was unrecordable and has not been mentioned at all. Even the pulse was not recordable from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. In Annexure ‘D’, the BP is 90/70 on 28.12.2000 at 8 a.m. whereas in the nursing care record, it was 70/(-) (lower BP not recordable) at 8:10 a.m. Apart from these wrong entries, there was other defects also. There are cuttings and initially the date was written as 25.12.2000 when the TURP was done but subsequently, it was changed to 24.12.2000. There are no signatures of Dr. Atul Mittal on the said entry. The patient was reported to have been seen by Dr. K. R. Tuli at 7:30 p.m. on 24.12.2000 or 25.12.2000 (since there are cutting in the date) but again Dr. K. R. Tuli has not signed the same. The patient is alleged to have been seen on 26.12.2000 at 9:30 a.m. by Dr. Atul Mittal but his signatures do not appear on the progress report. There is then observations alleged to have been made by Dr. K. R. Tuli on 26.12.2000 at 6:30 or 6:50 p.m. (there is cutting in time) but the same have not been signed by Dr. K. R. Tuli. Neither Dr. Tuli has been examined nor his affidavit produced on record to suggest if he was ever associated in the treatment or post operation care of the deceased. The learned District Forum, therefore, rightly held that the record (Annexure ‘D’) has been subsequently prepared and is not the copy of the original one. If the OPs had obtained the original record from the police, they should had produced the original before the District Forum but they did not. It shows that after the death of Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma, the OPs prepared the record and they were in such a hurry that they had no time to contact Dr. Atul Mittal or Dr. K. R. Tuli, so as to obtain their signatures. 13. The manner in which the treatment started is also grossly negligent. Dr. J. S. Saini is admittedly holding the decree of B.A.M.S. He claimed to be M.D and examined the deceased because according to him even if he is B.A.M.S, he was competent to prescribe not only allopathic medicines but allopathic treatment to the patient who according to him was suffering from Prostrate problem. The learned counsel for the OP/appellant has referred to a letter dated 18.6.2004 issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh clarifying that the rights of practitioners of Indian System of Medicine to practice modern scientific system of medicine (allopathic medicine) are protected under Section 17(3) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970. it was provided that holders of B.A.M.S and B.U.M.S Degrees are competent to use modern technological innovations e.g. Radiology, Ultra sonography, E.C.G. etc. in their clinical practice. This letter, however, nowhere authorizes the B.A.M.S doctor to prescribe allopathic medicines, even if they can use modern scientific system of medicines such as Radiology, Ultra sonography, E.C.G etc. In his respect, we may refer to the case of Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2111. In that case, it was held that a homeopathic doctor is under statutory duty to practice in homeopathy only and not to enter the field of any other system of medicine. In the case Prof. P. N. Thakur and another Vs. Hans Charitable Hospital and others, 2007 INDLAW NCDRC 52, it was held that Dr. Rehan (in that case) who held a degree in Unani medicine –BUMS was in no way qualified to give allopathic treatment to a serious patient having repeated attacks of Epistaxis, which was a serious condition. In view of these facts, the authority of Vishal Poly Clinic & Nursing Home & another Vs. Satnam Singh, 1992 (2) CLT 281 cited by the counsel for the Appellant/OP is of no assistance to them. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued on the basis of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 that in the absence of expert opinion, no finding should have been recorded against the OPs. We are sure in this regard that when the learned counsel for the appellant dug out Jacob Mathew’s case, he must have also come across V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and another, 2010 INDLAW SC 364 in which case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dissented from the law given in Jacob Mathew’s case. It was held that expert opinion was required only in the cases before proceeding with criminal complaints/police cases and not in the cases under Consumer Protection Act. This argument of learned counsel that in the absence of expert opinion, no finding could be recorded against the OP hospital, therefore, cannot succeed. 15. The facts of the case also give a horrible state of affairs. The OP Hospital is managed by a B.A.M.S. doctor who claims to be M.D and he cannot prescribed allopathic medicines. In the case Dr. Janak Kantimathi Nathan Vs. Murlidhar Eknath Masane, First Appeal No.739 of 1994 decided by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi on 7.4.2002, the ICU managed by doctor qualified in Ayurvedic medicine was held to be a deficiency in service on the part of the hospital. 16. When Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma approached the OP Hospital, he was examined by Dr. J. S. Saini, B.A.M.S. He admitted that there is no doctor who is their permanent employee. Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma was examined by him who diagnosed the patient personally and found him suffering from Prostrate enlargement. He claims to have consulted Dr. Atul Mittal on telephone. Dr. Atul Mittal did not see the patient personally but Dr. J. S. Saini claims that Dr. Mittal told him the treatment on phone, which he mentioned on the treatment chart. As mentioned earlier, his blood sugar level was not tested on 24.12.2000 before admitting him for operation. He further admitted that the tests were not performed on Sh. Rajinder Singh Saini by any qualified doctor but were done by a qualified laboratory technician, however, no affidavit of laboratory technician was produced before the learned District Forum nor was he examined as a witness. Even his qualifications was not placed on file to suggest that he was holding any such diploma or degree. In this manner, the tests conducted by such a person should not have been taken into consideration. He further admitted that Dr. Atul Mittal did not prescribe any tests on Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma prior to operation. The operation itself was conducted at about 9 p.m. though according to Dr. Saini the patient had been admitted in the hospital at 3 p.m. The operation took about 1 ½ hours and about half an hour thereafter, Dr. Atul Mittal left back for Jalandhar leaving the patient to his fate. The post operative care of Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma was not up to the mark as would be discussed in the next paragraphs. 17. Dr. Atul Mittal who performed the operation claims to be M. S. holding the degree of M.C.H, he has not produced any proof thereof. He has never worked regularly in any hospital. He does not have his own clinic. He did not produce any certificate about his medical qualifications or competence to conduct the operation. Dr. J. S. Saini has admitted that there was another doctor namely Dr. Parveen Devgan on the role of the OP who was based at Amritsar and had his own clinic. He is also M.S in general surgery but for the reasons best known to the OP/appellant, he was not called to contact the patient and rather the OP called Dr. Atul Mittal from Jalandhar for this purpose who after conducting the operation went back to Jalandhar with the result that there was none to look after the patient after his operation. Dr. Mittal claims to have worked as Consultant with Lajwanti Hospital but he did not produce any document to that effect. In the absence of this evidence, we cannot say if Dr. Atul Mittal was competent to conduct the operation. 18. Dr. Atul Mittal adopted a unique procedure of examining Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma. He reached Saini Hospital, Amritsar at about 8:30 or 8:45 p.m. He had not suggested or advised any pre-operative clinical tests to the patient before the operation because according to him, the tests had already been conducted. He admitted that the operation of Prostrate Glands is conducted on patients who are fasting before the operation. He, however, did not remember if he enquired from any person regarding fasting of Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma. Dr. Atul Mittal admitted that Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma was suffering from diabetes and therefore, the patient was to be referred to medical specialist and only thereafter, he could be operated. Dr. Atul Mittal did not refer Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma to medical specialist advice before the operation because according to him he was already declared fit by the medical specialist. Dr. Atul Mittal lost sight of the fact that the report submitted by them though not reliable being fabricated yet mentions that the blood sugar has to be checked before starting the operation, which in the present case was not checked. In this manner, the conduct of Dr. Atul Mittal was also not satisfactory. 19. According to Dr. Atul Mittal, there was no written consent of Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma or his family members for conducting the operation. Dr. J. S. Saini has alleged that the consent was taken and in support of his contention, he produced Annexure ‘D’, a photocopy of the alleged consent but the place for obtaining the signatures of the patient is lying blank. The person who wrote the contents of the consent has not been produced in the witness box. The original document has not been produced, which is alleged to have been taken away by the police. A perusal of the consent shows that the signatures of Sh. Rajinder Singh Sharma have been copied on the consent from some other paper and in fact, the consent of the patient had not been taken before starting his operation. This by itself is a grave deficiency in service on their part. 20. Though the treatment record (Annexure D) is not a genuine one, yet it by itself shows grave deficiency in service on the part of OPs. On 26.12.2000 at 8:30 a.m., the condition of the patient deteriorated, loose motions started and he was feeling breathlessness. The BP fell down to 90/70. What the OP did was to prescribe certain medicine and explain the seriousness of the patient to his attendants. After 8:30 a.m., the patient was alleged to have been seen by Dr. Atul Mittal at 9:30 a.m. but the writing is not signed by Dr. Atul Mittal and the learned District Forum rightly did not believe if Dr. Mittal traveled to Amritsar on that date to see the patient. The next endorsement is at 1:30 p.m. when the seriousness of the patient was told to Mrs. Rekha wife of the patient. Without doing anything else till 4 p.m., the patient remained in their hospital without any treatment. He was then seen by a doctor at 4 p.m. and thereafter at 6:30 p.m. He is stated to have been seen by Dr. Tuli but his signatures also did not appear on the writing to this effect. The condition of the patient continued to be critical and this fact was intimated to the attendants but the patient was neither shifted to a specialty hospital nor any cardiologist was called to treat him. The OPs continued dillydallying and unfortunately, it appears they were just waiting for the death of the patient. He is stated to have been seen on 27.12.2000 in the evening but no time is mentioned. Thereafter, he was seen at 7:20 p.m. and the same treatment continued. On 27.12.2000, the patient was last seen at 10:50 p.m. The next entry is at 2 a.m. on 28.12.2000 when the seriousness of the patient was explained to the attendants. The patient is reported to have been put on ventilator. Thereafter, at 5 a.m. when the BP fell down to 80/50, the patient was continued on ventilator again. The next entry made at 6:30 a.m. on 28.12.2000 says that the seriousness of the patient was explained to the attendants. The next entry is at 10:30 a.m. when the critical condition of the patient was explained to the attendants. The risk of mortality was explained to the attendants in clear words. The patient suffered cardiac arrest at 7:40 a.m. and it shows that the OPs had not done anything substantial during this period to save the patient. They were only intimating the seriousness to the attendants instead of calling some specialist or shifting the patient to a specialty hospital. They neither examined Dr. K. R. Tuli nor his affidavit was produced. They did not even produce his certificates and Degrees to prove if he was a cardiologist or was competent to treat the patient. This also proves serious deficiency in service on their part. 21. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. There is no illegality in the order and no merit in the present appeal. 22. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the compensation awarded is very low being only Rs.3 Lakhs, the case is pending since 2000 and even after a lapse of 10 years, the complainant has not got any compensation so far. His contention is that the Commission is competent to assess the compensation at its own even if the complainant had demanded a smaller amount, the Commission can enhance the same. We, however, do not find any merit in this argument for the simple reason that the complainant has not preferred any appeal and has not prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It is true that the appeal has been delayed unnecessarily because it was initially instituted before the State Commission, Punjab and was received on transfer. Even before this Commission, a number of adjournments were obtained by the counsel for the appellant on one pretext or the other, which were not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. We, therefore, do not find any merit to enhance the amount of compensation. 23. The result is that the appeal is hereby dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.20,000/-. If the amount of Rs.3 Lakhs is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, OP – Saini Hospital would pay interest @12% per annum since the date of the impugned order i.e.1.1.2003 till the amount is paid to the complainant/respondent. 24. The compensation amount shall be paid in the first instance by Saini Hospital (OP/appellant) as ordered by the learned District Forum, which may thereafter get indemnification from the Insurance Company (OP No.2) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 25. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room. Pronounced. 4th March 2011. Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION Appeal Case No.FA/181/2003(Pb) (R.B.T. No. 641 of 2008/9.8.2008) Argued by: Sh.B.J.Singh,advocate proxy for Sh.Updip Singh,advocate for the appellant Sh.V.K.Sachdeva, advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Sh.Parminder Singh,advocate for respondent No.6 Dated the 4th day of March,2011 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.20,000/-. (Jagroop Singh Mahal) (Neena Sandhu) Member Presiding Member
STATE COMMISSION Appeal Case No.FA/181/2003(Pb) (R.B.T. No. 641 of 2008/9.8.2008) Argued by: Sh.B.J.Singh,advocate proxy for Sh.Updip Singh,advocate for the appellant Dated the 28th day of February,2011 ORDER Consequent to the opportunity afforded to the appellant vide order dated 23.2.2011 for submitting his oral as well as written arguments, Sh. B. J. Singh, Advocate appeared as proxy for Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate, Counsel for the appellant and filed written arguments on behalf of the appellant. Arguments on behalf of OPs have already been heard on the last date. The case stands already reserved. (Jagroop Singh Mahal) (Neena Sandhu) Member Presiding Member
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | |
