5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though notice was served twice and received by the respondent there was no representation from the side of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the forum below is illegal and un-sustainable on the ground that the forum has filed in appreciating the evidence,  probabilities and the legal principles applicable in the case. It is his very case that the complaint   is not maintainable before the Forum  as there is no payment of consideration by the complainant. He argued that the complainant was treated free of cost and that the complainant had tried to mislead the forum below by representing that he had been under treatment from 12.2.01 to 15.6.01 as here as the actual fact and admitted by PW1 is that he was treated by the opposite party only from 12.2.01 to 12.4.01. The learned counsel invited our attention  the page 13 of the cross examination of PW1 where he had categorically admitted that there was no deficiency in service treatment from the side of opposite party and argued that the forum below had ignored the said admission of the complainant. He has also argued that the forum below was heavily relying on the evidence of PW3 who had been in antagonistic terms with the opposite parties/appellant.   He argued that there was a tussle between the Ayurvedic system of medicine and the =TC?bC_ /U*UOH style. It is his further case that the complainant had a fall during May 2001 for which he had undergone treatment and that can be a reason for the defects if any caused to the complainant and the opposite party cannot be mutated with any liabilities. He has also attacked the order for payment of Rs.8000/- towards medicines and the compensation of Rs.15,000/- with cost of Rs.1000/- submitting  that they are baseless and unsustainable.

          6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusing the records, we find that the complainant had been admitted by the opposite party for treatment on 12.2.01 after the complainant’s fall while he was playing  football.    It is also noted that the complainant was taken immediately to FathimaHospital where from he was taken to the opposite party as the said hospital had demanded Rs.10,000/- for immediate treatment. It is also seen that the complainant himself had admitted that he was taken  from the said hospital to the opposite party. The complainant has stated “ "Dca FCVC^ 8WJ/ba =WL8a8EkUeWtTBUCWkVDc `=9AFW`FXGBW[3 @T,ATBV "Dca\<[C=V3V/baE/ba ?TN\NL1a$ea[*eV& >TfUAT #FW=`8UBUO<VkW^ =8U[<TkT^ 8VB8U8[k 5UHa/TM1a[/Ba8W&   It is noted that the complainant was admitted by the opposite party only on 12.2.01.    The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant was treated in the opposite party hospital till 12.4.01 according to the traditional line of treatment and at the time of discharge the complainant had no complaints regarding the treatment. It is also noted that the complainant had raised the complaints regarding malunion of the born only much latter.  It is to be found that the complainant has made a mis-representation before the forum below that he was under treatment till 15.6.01 from 11.2.01. However, the same is seen corrected in cross examination. The complainant has later admitted that he was treated only from 12.2.01 to 12.4.01. On a perusal of the cross examination of PW1, the complainant, it is noted that the complainant had approached the opposite party fully knowing that he was rendering only parambariya chikilsa.   The complainant has deposed “!BTP =TC?C_/U* UOH <3fWk8a "ka A<HaHUDTBU& <Dc <UDBUO =TC?C_/U*UOOH [/BbWk #JTCT7a "k\<ZGU/b\gTKT7a "8Y*RU[B*WLU/ba EUEC^*UeUB8a  Hence It is to be found that the complainant and his relatives went to the opposite party knowing fully well that the opposite party was  a reputed person in the traditional treatment. On a further perusal, we find that the complainant has admitted that on starting the treatment the pain was reduced. He has himself admitted that \E:< =UkV3a `*AfU<<WHCU/ba *WLiWEkW& "8_*RUBW[3 \HE<^[*Tta !HW+^ ATLWk8TBV \8TkVBUCWkW& <TDwaATH^a #B\gT\KdW^ =CHITB^ *X3T[8 <3dT<Wm !EHa9BUO"fU& !8U<W\FG^ /V*VOH EVeUO 8W3MkTO A8U "ka"8_*RU=LiW& #FW=`8UBUOE/ba /U*UOHBUO =UK[ETkW^ EkUeUDc&     Hence we find force in the arguement of the learned counsel that at the time of discharge the complainant was not suffering any serious difficulties. The learned counsel invited our attention to page 14 of the complaint  where the complainant has stated   “ EVeUOEka CtaATH^ *KUi\gTKT7a HZHa9ATBU $CUdW\yTKW^\E:< %tTETN8W3hUB8a&   )CW :UEH^ \E:< [=eka *X3W*BT7a %tTB8a&    This statement of the complainant has to be read with the contention of the opposite party that the complainant had a fall after the discharge from the hospital. Though the complainant had not stated about the fall anywhere in the complaint, the very statement that it was on a particular day that the pain became very insufferable gives some force to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Moreover, it is  found that the complainant was treated by his parents also and the opposite party has a case that it is because of the improper handing of the bandage by the complainant that the complainant had suffered the alleged discomfort of the reduction of length by 3 cms.   The complainant had admitted in cross examination that it was his father and mother who used to redo the  bandage. The complainant has deposed “hospital -   O <UkaEkaCta ATH^ *KUiT7a $h[<[/BbTN 8W3hUB8a & !h[< )CW ATH\fTJ^ [/Ba8W !h[< [/Ba8WEC[EBT7a [=eka \E:<ECW*BW^ <VCWECU*BW^ [/Ba88a& In the back drop of the above deposition made by the complainant, we find that the complainant was discharged from the hospital after   satisfactory treatment   by the opposite party.     It is also found that it was much latter that the complainant had raised grievance of severe pain on the injured part. Though the witness 3 and 4 would support the case of the complainant that it was because of the treatment of the opposite party that the shortening of the length by 3 cms. had occurred to the complainant we find that the complaint himself has admitted that when he was discharged from the hospital of the opposite party he was comfortable and during the treatment the pain was decreasing and there was no deficiency  of treatment on the part of the opposite party. In the said circumstances, we find that the opposite party cannot be found fault with for the difference in length, if any, suffered by the complainant. It is observed that the forum has failed in appreciating the evidence of PW1, the complainant, in  the process of adjudication.