Order No. 28 dt. 09/10/2017
ant in brief is that the complainant since the year 2008 was suffering from acute dental problem and the complainant along with her parents visited the o.p. 1 for the first time on 19/08/2008. An appointment card was issued by the o.p. 1 to the complainant to that effect. The complainant thereafter went on regular dental treatment and proper setting of teeth and canai under the medical care of doctors of o.p. 1. The o.p.s 2 and 3 provided medical treatment to the complainant and advised the complainant for orthodontic treatment. They also advised for surgery exposure of the canai along with its alignment and extraction of supplementary teeth. The said doctors attached chain fitted with the teeth through elastic thread. They also told the parents of the complainant that the entire period of treatment shall take for 2 years and the complainant after completion of the said dental treatment shall become completely cure. During such treatment the complainant expressed her difficulties but those were ignored by the o.p.s 2 and 3. The complainant was advised for undergoing dental surgery in order to overcome the difficulties faced by her and accordingly she underwent dental surgery for proper alignment of canai. After such operation the complainant felt tremendous pain in her jaw and she noticed that after the said operation her teeth had started to become more and more loose and fragile. The complainant with the passage of time noticed that the shape of her face was gradually changing. But the doctors ignored the problem of the complainant.
The complainant further stated that during the treatment the o.p.s 2 and 3 had cut some portions of her teeth which were objected by the complainant but the same was ignored by the doctors. After the passing of some months while the condition of the patient became acute the o.p. 3 suggested the parents of the complainant for undergoing another operation at the institution of the o.p. 1. Accordingly another operation was held but no improvement was noticed. Subsequently the complainant noticed that due to such repeated operations and there was cavity resulting in excessive bleeding from the mouth of the complainant. The complainant being a singer failed to perform her practice regularly because of such acute trouble in her teeth caused by the o.p.s 2 and 3. Subsequently the o.p. 3 understood the negligence on their part and asked the parents to meet him at Guru Nank Dental Institute and remove the chain. The o.p. 3 also asked the complainant not to continue the treatment with the o.p. 1 and o.p. 3 also told the complainant that due to her bad luck dental incident was a failure. The complainant thereafter consulted one senior doctor who advised the complainant that the dental problem could be cured but due to lapse of time the dental problem became aggravated. The o.p.s 2 and 3 repeated operated upon the complainant but the problem became acute. Because of such long treatment the parents incurred huge medical expenses for which the o.p.s are jointly and severally are responsible and liable. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case for direction upon the o.p.s to repay the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
The o.p. 3 filed a w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the patient was suffering from hyperdontia. Hyperdontia is rare in people with no other associated diseases or syndromes. Many supplementary teeth never erupt, but they may delay eruption of nearby teeth or cause other dental or orthodontic problems. An anterior occlusal or priapicl radiograph using parallel technic and panaromic view are the most useful radiographic investigations to visualize supplementary teeth. Following standard treatment protocol the patient was advised for extractions of teeth. From October 2008 to December 2009 the maxillary and mandibular arches were leveled and aligned with fixed orthodontic alliances up to full size steel wears. The consultation was made with the o.p. 2 in rendering such treatment to the said patient. The doctors gave advise to the patient for further treatment they should consult Dr. Ashok Khurana, Dr. Rajiv Shil and others. The proper treatment provided to the patient and there was no medical negligence on his part. Thereby the o.p. 3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
The o.p. 2 filed a separate w/v and almost adopted the w/v filed by the o.p. 3. It was stated further that she is a qualified doctor and had done her MDS from government dental college at Thiruvanthapuram in the year 1997 and she has also done MOMS from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow, UK and she has also rendered treatment to the different patients with the similar types of complain faced by the complainant. There was no medical negligence on her part and accordingly the o.p. 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
The o.p. 1 also by filing a w/v adopted the same plea adopted by the o.p.s 3 and 4 and prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant was treated by the o.p.s 2 and 3 at the institute of o.p. 1 ?
- Was there any medical negligence on the part of the o.p.s ?
- Was there any wrong treatment provided by the o.p.s ?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant since the year 2008 was suffering from acute dental problem and the complainant along with her parents visited the o.p. 1 for the first time on 19/08/2008. An appointment card was issued by the o.p. 1 to the complainant to that effect. The complainant thereafter went on regular dental treatment and proper setting of teeth and canai under the medical care of doctors of o.p. 1. The o.p.s 2 and 3 provided medical treatment to the complainant and advised the complainant for orthodontic treatment. They also advised for surgery exposure of the canai along with its alignment and extraction of supplementary teeth. The said doctors attached chain fitted with the teeth through elastic thread. They also told the parents of the complainant that the entire period of treatment shall take for 2 years and the complainant after completion of the said dental treatment shall become completely cure. During undergoing such treatment the complainant expressed her difficulties but those were ignored by the o.p.s 2 and 3. The complainant was advised for undergoing dental surgery in order to overcome the difficulties faced by her and accordingly she underwent dental surgery for proper alignment of canai. After such operation the complainant felt tremendous pain in her jaw and she noticed that after the said operation her teeth had started to become more and more loose and fragile. The complainant with the passage of time noticed that the shape of her face was gradually changing. But the doctors ignored the problem of the complainant.
Ld. Lawyer argued that during the treatment the o.p.s 2 and 3 had cut some portions of her teeth which were objected by the complainant but the same was ignored by the doctors. After the passing of some months while the condition of the patient became acute the o.p. 3 suggested the parents of the complainant for undergoing another operation at the institution of the o.p. 1. Accordingly another operation was held but no improvement was noticed. Subsequently the complainant noticed that due to such repeated operations and there was cavity resulting in excessive bleeding from the mouth of the complainant. The complainant being a singer failed to perform her practice regularly because of such acute trouble in her teeth caused by the o.p.s 2 and 3. Subsequently the o.p. 3 understood the negligence on their part and asked the parents to meet him at Guru Nank Dental Institute and remove the chain. The o.p. 3 also asked the complainant not to continue the treatment with the o.p. 1 and o.p. 3 also told the complainant that due to her bad luck dental incident was a failure. The complainant thereafter consulted one senior doctor who advised the complainant that the dental problem could be cured but due to lapse of time the dental problem became aggravated. The o.p.s 2 and 3 repeated operated upon the complainant but the problem became acute. Because of such long treatment the parents incurred huge medical expenses for which the o.p.s are jointly and severally are responsible and liable. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case for direction upon the o.p.s to repay the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
The Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that the patient was suffering from hyperdontia. Hyperdontia is rare in people with no other associated diseases or syndromes. Many supplementary teeth never erupt, but they may delay eruption of nearby teeth or cause other dental or orthodontic problems. An anterior occlusal or priapicl radiograph using parallel technic and panaromic view are the most useful radiographic investigations to visualize supplementary teeth. Following standard treatment protocol the patient was advised for extractions of teeth. From October 2008 to December 2009 the maxillary and mandibular arches were leveled and aligned with fixed orthodontic alliances up to full size steel wears. The consultation was made with the o.p. 2 in rendering such treatment to the said patient. The doctors gave advise to the patient for further treatment they should consult Dr. Ashok Khurana, Dr. Rajiv Shil and others. The proper treatment provided to the patient and there was no medical negligence on his part. Thereby the o.p. 3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant had the trouble in her teeth and visited the o.p. 1, the treatment centre. After examination by the doctors the complainant and her parents were assured that the patient would get relief but the treatment is to be continued for prolonged period. As per the advise of the o.p.s 2 and 3 she underwent several tests and also they advised her for undergoing operations. Even after such operation the condition of the patient was not improved. The complainant had to spent huge money for her treatment but instead of getting any relief she faced acute problems. The complainant’s teeth were reduced to a great extent and she at present is not in a position to bite even a single biscuit. Because of such negligence the complainant prayed for compensation, cost etc.
For establishing the fact regarding medical negligence we can rely on a book titling “ ‘Medical Negligence’ written by and shri S. P. Tyagi (Edition 2004) Reprint 2008, it has been mentioned at Page No. 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 regarding Medical Negligence, classification of medical negligence of mistakes.
It runs thus :-
"What is Medical negligence
The term medical negligence is nowhere defined in any Code or Act. No legislature, has so far, made any attempt to define it. Even the medico legal jurists have not come forward to provide a specific meaning to this express.
'Medical negligence' is always an outcome of doctor patient inter se conduct and relationship, which lacks uniformity. The issue of medical negligence is a complicated one as medical professionals deal with human body. They do not deal with the machine. Human body is not a mere composition of bones and flesh. It is susceptible to emotions also. Response of medicinal treatment varies from patient to patient. This phenomenon is also applicable to recovery aspect. Further recovery aspect is not solely dependent upon the appropriateness of treatment provided by the doctor. Response or recovery of a patient also depends on his individual anatomy and physiology. Possibility cannot be ruled out that a drug may be effective in case of one patient, it may not be effective in second and may cause reaction in third. Medico Legal experience also establishes that there exist inherent risk in every treatment, medicinal or surgical. Further possibility of unforeseen mishap may not be ruled out. Even the medicinal literature provides for failure rates particularly in surgery.
The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action adopted by a doctor treating a patient. Further the concept of medical negligence may be studied with reference to the extent of approach of a medical professional towards three under mentioned concepts, which generally work as guidelines to determine the factum of medical negligence or otherwise in a particular case.
- Duty of care in accepting the patient for treatment.
- Duty of care in providing appropriate treatment.
(3) Breach of duty or commission of negligence in any of them and damage cause by such breach.
In other words, medical negligence is result of some irregular conduct on the part of any member of the profession or related services in discharge of professional duties. Broadly speaking medical negligence means negligence resulting from the failure on the part of the doctor to act in accordance with medical standards in vogue, which are being practiced by an ordinary and reasonably competent man, practicing on the same branch of medicine or surgery.
Classification of medical negligence or mistakes.
Negligence in medical care may broadly be classified into four categories :-
- Medical negligence at the level of doctors / paramedical staff / hospital authorities. Liability for negligence may be fixed at individual level and / or jointly or vicariously where hospitals nursing homes are involved.
(2) Negligence at the level of patient himself or his attendants also known as contributory negligence.
- Negligence at the level of manufacturers of drugs, equipment etc. and dispensers.
- Composite negligence i.e. at more than one of the above 3 levels. Negligence of first category may further be sub-classified into two categories viz.
(i) Individual liability of a medical professional.
(ii) Vicarious liability of an individual doctor or hospital for the Medical negligence may also be classified as under :
1. Medical mistakes.
2. Clinical negligence.
3. Surgical mistakes
4. Misplaced injection."
16. In Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr Trimbak Bapu Godbole and another, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 128 (V 56 C 27), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"11. The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires : (cf. Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed. Vol. 26 p. 17). The doctor no doubt has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency..........."
17. In this context it is relevant to cite case of Kusum Sharma & ORS. Vs. Batra Hospital & Research Centre & ORS., I (2010) CPJ 29 (SC) in which the conclusions under different case laws on the subject of medical negligence have been summarized as under :-
‘Para” 90” In Jacob Mathew’s case (supra), conclusions summed up by the Court were very apt and some portions of which are reproduced hereunder :
(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which is a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh) referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: ‘duty’, ‘breach’ and ‘resulting damage’.
(2)Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
(3) The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence. Para “94’. On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries especially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.
IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which is honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances
of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.
X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.
XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.”
In Dr. Sanjay Gadekar Suprathet Hospital and Surgical Research Institute Ltd. Vs. Sangamitra @ Sandhya Khobragade, 2016 (3) CPR 270 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"11 In this context we place reliance upon few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Jacob Mathews Case (2005) 6 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as :
"When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions."
In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (1996) 2 SCC 634, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
"in the very nature of medical profession, skills differ from doctor to doctor and more than one alternative course of treatment are available, all admissible. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor, so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable, if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others (2010) 3 SCC 480; the bench comprising Hon'ble Justices Dalveer Bhandari and H.S. Bedi while dismissing the complaint held that :
"Consumer Protection Act, (CPA) should not be a "halter round the neck" of doctors to make them fearful and apprehensive of taking professional decisions at crucial moments to explore possibility of reviving patients hanging between life and death."
It further observed as, "It is a matter of common knowledge that after some unfortunate event, there is a marked tendency to look for a human factor to blame for
an untoward event, a tendency which is closely linked with the desire to punish."
In Hucks v. Cole & Anr (1968) 118 New LJ 469, Lord Denning speaking for the Court, observed as under :
"a medical practitioner was not to be held liable, simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference of another. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner, in his field."
In Smt. Tilat Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. 2012 (4) CPR 565 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for removal of stones in Gall Bladder. Injury to Bile Duct during operation. CBD injury was caused and detected during Laparoscopic dissection procedure and said procedure was converted into open cholecystectomy to rectify complication. CBD injury is a well-known complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure and frequency of such complications has increased with advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Incidence of CBD injury is a well-known risk when a patient undergoes a laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure. Same cannot be correlated as act of negligence or carelessness on part of operating surgeon. Merely because laparoscopic cholecystectomy had to be converted to open cholecystectomy procedure, it cannot be said that laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure adopted by surgeon was counter indicative. Once it is shown that due medical protocol was followed, no case of medical negligence is made out against opposite parties. Complainants have failed to establish their case about medical negligence and/or deficiency in service against opposite parties."
The skill of a medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor and it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove that doctor was negligent in the line of treatment that resulted in the life of the patient.
The OPs have filed copy of consent letter dated 06.11.2015 of the complainant. In the said consent letter the name of complainant and the name of the doctor is mentioned. In the consent letter it is mentioned that risk in anaesthesia and risk of other procedures were explained to the complainant and the complainant gave his consent to the OPs for conducting operation of his daughter. In the consent letter it is specifically mentioned that “Matter in other language”.
In A.K. Vishwakarma (Dr.) Vs. Kiran Sinha & Anr. and Kiran Sinha Vs. A.K. Vishwakarma (Dr.), II (2016) CPJ 204 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
“ What constitutes medical negligence is well settled through a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC) = VI (2005) SLT 1 = 122 (2005) DLT 83 (SC) = III (2005) CCR 9 (SC) = (2005) 6 SCC 1, a three-Judge Bench decision, Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Others., III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) = 1995 (SLT Soft) 561 = (1995) 6 SCC 651. Noted from these judgments, the broad principles to determine what constitutes medical negligence, inter alia, are : (i) Whether the doctor in question possessed the medical skills expected to an ordinary skilled practitioner in the field at that point of time; and (ii) Whether the doctor adopted the practice (of clinical observation diagnosis – including diagnostic testsand treatment) in the case that is accepted as proper by a responsible body of professional practitioners in the field. In this connection, in Jacob Mathew (supra), the three-Judge Bench, elaborating on the degree of skill and care required of a medical practitioner quoted Halsbury's Laws of English (4th Edn., Vol. 30, para 35) as follows :-
"35. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operation in a different way…"
Even if for the sake of argument if it is found that there was ‘an error of judgement on the part of professional is also not negligence per se ,’ was held in the case of Dr. Mahadeb Prasad Kaushik vs. State of U.P., in criminal appeal no. 1625 of 2008. The bench headed by justices C. K. Thakker and D. K. Jain while quasing the prosecution initiated against a doctor, the bench explained, “the standard to be applied for judging whether a person charged has been negligent or not would be that often ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that person”. The court granted a breather to doctors, who, are living under the constant in threat of being dragged to course of “erroneous” treatment these days, are hounded by ambulance chasers, a category of lawyers who convinced patients who file cases against any treatment “gone wrong”.
Hon’ble Supreme Court said “medical profession often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which a doctor honestly believes as providing better chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow would depend on facts and circumstances of a given case”.
Even if for the sake of argument if it is found that there was ‘an error of judgement on the part of professional is also not negligence per se,’ was held in the case of Dr. Mahadeb Prasad Kaushik vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal no. 1625. The bench headed by Hon’ble Justices C. K. Thakker and D. k. Jain while quasing the prosecution initiated against the doctor the bench explained, “ the standard to be applied for judging whether a person charged has been negligent or not would be that often of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession”. The court granted a breather to doctors, who, are living under the constant threat of being dragged to courts for ‘erroneous’ treatment these days, are hounded by ambulance chasers, a category of lawyers who convinced patients to file cases against any treatment ‘gone wrong’.
Hon’ble Supreme Court said, “Medical profession is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which a doctor honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow would depend on facts and circumstances of the given case”.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that mere stray allegation against doctors cannot substantiate the claim of the complainant. Each and every step taken by the doctor is not at all possible for the patient party to know and to question the activities of the doctors. On the basis of the facts and circumstances stated above as well as relying on the judgement as mentioned herein above we hold that the case filed by the complainant is for only get some financial advantage from the o.p.s.
In view of such facts and circumstances stated above we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that there was medical negligence on the part of the doctors or they rendered wrong medical treatment to the patient for which the complainant suffered. As such we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no. 335 of 2014 is dismissed on contest against the o.p.s without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
