Date of Filing : 01.08.2018
Date of Disposal: 14.06.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA.,ML, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU P.MURUGAN, B.Com, ….. MEMBER-II
CC. No.31/2018
THIS TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JUNE 2022
1.S.Murali,
2.M.Parthsarathi,
3.M.Dhanalakshmi,
4.M.Varadharajan,
No.8/104, First Cross Street,
Ramachandra Nagar, Iyyappanthangal,
Chennai -600 056. ……Complainants.
//Vs//
Sri Ramachandra Medical College & Research Institute,
Rep.by its Medical Superintendent,
Porur, Chennai -600 116. .........Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.V.Balaji , Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 31.05.2022 in the presence of Mr.V.Balaji Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Mr.A.R.Poovannan Advocate, counsel for the opposite party and upon hearing the arguments of the both sides and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties, this Commission delivered the following
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
The present complaint was filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service committed by the opposite party seeking direction to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 62,000/- towards hospitalization and medical expenses and to pay a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and negligence act and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainants.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
Present complaint has been filed by the husband and children of one deceased Mrs. Kanchana who was alleged to have died due to the Medical negligence committed by the opposite party. The first and foremost allegation of the complainants was that they were not provided with the medical records of the deceased in spite of paying the necessary fees. Hence the complainants alleged that non furnishing of medical records itself amounted to deficiency in service as per the various rulings of the National Commission more particularly the Judgment reported in 2006 (2) CPJ123 (NC). Thus it is submitted by the complainant that as they were deprived of medical records they are filing the present case on the basis of the death summary issued by the opposite party and the actual events which took place in the hospital in the presence of the complainants. Apart from non-furnishing of the Medical Records, the complainants also allege Medical negligence in the treatment provided by the opposite party.
It is submitted by the complainants that the deceased approached the opposite party for lower back pain on 12.05.2018 and the receptionist directed them to approach the Orthopedic Department. As per their advice the deceased got admitted in Orthopedic section on 10.00 am and till 01.00 pm she was not given any medicines. On Laboratory test report it was found that she was having Plasma Glucose at 483mg/dl and Creatinine level also 0.05mg/dl and the Platelet Count was 2.91 lakhs/cu.mm. Thus otherwise a diabetic, the deceased was clinically alright except the Glucose level. The complainant states that all along the doctors attached with orthopedic section concentrated on pain in the lower back and fail to diagnose that the pain might have aroused due to various other reasons. The doctors at orthopedic section failed to get any expert advice from Diabetologist, Urologist, Nephrologists and the General Medical Practitioner. Thus the complainant alleged that the opposite party has failed to take proper care and there was a breach of duty.
Further, the heart beat of the deceased Kanchana was abnormal and ECG was taken around 10.00 am which shows inconsistent heartbeat. Insulin was also given around 3.30 pm and when started breathing difficulty, Oxygen mask was given after a great struggle and again ECG was taken at 05.00 pm which shows inconsistent heart rhythm. But till such time no Cardiologist was consulted and no opinion was obtained but as per the death summary it seemed that the opposite party had taken opinion from the Cardiologist. The complainant was shifted to the ICU around 7.30 pm. On 14.05.2018 the sugar level of the deceased was 380 and the platelet count was 0.15 lakhs/cu mm and the creatinine level has increased to 1.6mg/dl. The condition of the deceased started deteriorating and BP began to drop. At around 01.00 pm only realizing their mistake the opposite party shifted the patient from Ortho to General Medicine on 14.05.2018 and thus the complainant states that on 12.05.2018 and 13.05.2018 no senior Doctors were available in the Ortho section and duty doctors also failed to take care of the patient. On 14.05.2018 CT scan was taken and the impression shows,“ Right enlarged kidney with perinephric stranding and thickening of para renal fascia, complete thrombosis of right renal vein, with finding suggestive of renal vein thrombosis with renal parenchymal infarct (Underlying cause of infection cannot be rules out), Fatty liver.”
The complainants thus submitted that the chest X-ray shows features of right lower zone pneumonia and the impression of CT Scan and X-ray revealed the build-up of acid in the blood stream and wide spread infection causing organ failure and dangerously low blood pressure affecting blood’s ability to clot and stop bleeding. Further she had hospital acquired pneumonia. The deceased was declared dead at 12.02 am on 15.05.2018 and the cause of death as per the report was given as acute Pyelonephritis, Septic Shock, Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of Hospital resulting in medical negligence, the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above.
Defense of the Opposite Party by way of Written Version:-
The allegations of medical negligence was denied by the opposite party contending interalia that the complaint was bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the complaint was not filed against the Doctors who treated the deceased Kanchana. The opposite party also stated that they were one of the Multi Specialty Hospitals and was well equipped and capable of treating patients with all kinds of illnesses and critical situations and also were experts in all branches of medicine. It is stated by them that they have an ICU with advanced facilities and experienced critical care consultants along with experienced Nurses and Paramedical staff to take care of the emergency services to the patients.
It is submitted that the administration of the hospital was maintained by the Medical Director, SRMC & RI and hence the letter was referred to the office of the Medical Director but the same was found missing. It was submitted that there was no willful negligence on the part of the opposite party in not furnishing the details and they were always ready to furnish the same at any point of time. With regard to the allegations of medical negligence in treatment it was submitted that the deceased Mrs. Kanchana 53 years old lady was admitted to the Orthopedic department on 12.05.2018 with complaints of pain in the lower back for a period of one day. The pain was gradual in onset and was progressive and no history of injury, no disturbance in passing urine or motion was reported but she had a known case of Hypertension on irregular treatment and also a diabetic patient. It was submitted that on examination she was found to have stable vital signs and examination of her low back revealed mild tenderness and there was no visible swellings or scars and also no neurological problem, thus the diagnosis made was only for mechanical low back pain. The opposite party submitted that investigation done at the time of admission showed very high blood sugar levels i.e., 483mgs% and increased HBA1C(13.2). Blood tests indicated good functioning of kidneys and liver, no infection found in the blood test. X-ray of the lumbar spine showed mild osteoporosis. The opposite party submitted that after admission in the female Orthopedic ward on 12.05.2018 at 10.00 am as per the instructions of the Doctor she was given pain killer injection (inj.Tramadon 100 mg intravenous). The patient felt better and she was given psychological support and was seen by the unit doctor on 06.00 pm who found to have decreased pain. Further the pain was also treated with physiotherapy. The opposite party submitted that the Physician attended the patient for high blood sugar at 10.50 p.m and insulin injection was also prescribed intravenously and the patient slept well with no further complaints. On 13.05.2018 at 08.00am the patient was seen by Ortho doctor who found the patient with breathlessness and immediately a Physician was referred to see the patient who examined the patient at 11.35 am and found adequate oxygenation of blood and ECG showed only increased heart rate, blood test was ordered to ascertain the normal functioning of the heart and CPK-MB which were found to be normal. A report of the ECG at 05.00 pm and arterial blood gas (ABG) values indicated good oxygen supply to the body. As mild ketoacidosis was found and therefore patient was advised to continue treatment with insulin and intravenous fluids were given and drugs were also given for abnormal heart rhythm to the patient by the physician. Repeat ECG showed abnormal rhythm pattern (supraventricular tachycardia). Thus a Cardilogist opinion was sought for and the patient was shifted to ICU at 06.50.pm and the patient was seen by the cardiologist and was started on medicine to control the abnormal rhythm. The treatment was successful. The patient was on insulin administration through continuous infusion for control of blood sugar. During the entire period of ICU stay, the patient’s condition was continuously monitored and treated intensively throughout. On 14.05.2018 repeat blood test showed low platelet count and urine examination showed ketones and pus cells. Thus possibility of urosepsis i.e., infection of urine and urinary tract was found. Blood and urine test were made and in the meantime the patient was started on intravenous antibiotics for treatment of the infection and as the patient’s breathlessness was not controlled patient was started on non-invasive ventilation to help breathing. Thus her case was transferred under General medicine consultant on 14.05.2018 at 1.00pm. Ultrasound scan and CT scan shows evidences of phelonephritis i.e., infection of the kidneys. As the patient’s respiratory condition did not improve she was intubated and at 11.00 pm the patient had a cardiac arrest. Immediate measures were taken to revive the functioning of the heart but at 11.50 pm she was declared dead. The allegations of non diagnosis, doctors concentrating only on the lower back pain, expert advice from Diabetologist, Urologist, Nephrologist and General medicine practitioner were not taken were all denied. The allegation that the patient was shifted belatedly is totally incorrect. It is submitted by the opposite party that the patient was given adequate treatment by the medical team and better treatment was given and there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainants, the 2nd complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5;
On the side of opposite party one Dr. Srinivasav Rajappa filed proof affidavit along with Ex.B1 which is the case sheet of the deceased Mrs. Kanchana.
Point for consideration:
1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service in not providing the Medical Records of deceased Kanchana when requested by the complainants?
2. Whether the complainants are successful in proving the allegations of medical negligence against the opposite party resulting in the death of the patient?
3. To what relief complainants are entitled?
Point:1
The complainant had filed the following documents in proof of their allegations of medical negligence against the opposite party;
- The Death Summary issued by the opposite party’s hospital dated 26.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A1 which showed the immediate cause of the death as ACUTE PYELONEPHRITIS, SEPTIC SHOCK, DISSEMINATED INTRA VASCULAR COAGULATION and TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS. This document provides the details about the treatment given to the deceased from the date of admission till date of death and the Medical Examination report done was also attached to this document;
- The death report dated 15.05.2018 issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A2 which gives the diagnosis and cause for the death;
- The series of medical bills for the treatment was marked as Ex.A3;
- The letter dated 07.06.2018 written by Late Kanchana’s son to the Medical Superintendent of the opposite party’s hospital to furnish the documents relating to the medical treatment of the deceased Late Kanchana was marked as Ex.A4;
- The letter dated 12.07.2018 by one of the complainant to the Medical Superintendent of the opposite party’s hospital was marked as Ex.A5, it is stated in the said letter that they have enclosed Rs.500/- towards the documentation charges and as per the medical ethics it is the duty of the hospital to give case records within 72 hours of the demand and also stated this is the last remainder for issuance of the documents;
On the side of the opposite party, Case Sheet relating to Late kanchana was marked as Ex.B1 which shows the line of treatment given to the deceased from the date of admission till her death.
Heard the oral arguments of both learned Counsels appearing for both parties and perused the written arguments filed by them.
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant pertains to mainly two issues.
Non-Furnishing of Records:
First issue is the non-furnishing of the documents relating to the treatment given by the hospital and the 2nd issue is relating to the medical negligence committed in the treatment given by the opposite party.
With regard to the non furnishing the document relating to treatment given to the deceased it is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that a letter was sent to the opposite party with a cheque for Rs.500/- and the same was not encashed till date and on 12.07.2018 a final letter was sent to the opposite party stating that if the documents are not furnished within three days an adverse inference will be drawn against them. Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the medical records including the documents of patient’s history, clinical findings, diagnostic test result, preoperative care, operation notes, postoperative care and daily notes of a patient’s progress and medications ought to be necessarily maintained by the hospital and the issue of Medical Record keeping has been addressed in the Medical Council of India Regulations, 2002 guidelines. Thus the complainant’s counsel states that non furnishing of medical records itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as per the various rulings of the National Commission. He cited an order reported in II (2022) CPJ 1(TN) rendered by the SCDRC, Chennai which has held that non furnishing of records amounts to deficiency in service by the Hospital/opposite party in their words as follows;
“In the case on hand, the complainants, who lost their beloved son, could only see the exhaustive records relating to the treatment given, only after it came to be produced before this Commission in July 2014 about 10 long years after the first request made by the complainants on 11.05.2004, seeking supply of copies. In this regard, it would be apt to cite below Regulation 1.3.2 of the Indian Medical Councel (Professional Conduct, Etiquettes and Ethics) Regulations, 2002,
“1.3.2 if any request is made for medical records either by the parties/authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours”
In Maharaja Agrasan Hospital’s case (cited supra), the Apex Court highly disapproved the act of belated furnishing of medical records and categorically held that such act would not only amounts to gross deficiency in service but also grave professional misconduct. In the case of hand, the opposite parties abruptly failed to comply with the obligation to furnish the medical records to the complainants in spite of several request. Therefore, deficiency in service by the opposite parties is glaringly apparent with regard to non-supply of copies of the medical record, as sought for by the complainants.
The learned counsel for the complainant also relied upon another judgment rendered by the SCDRC, Chennai in F.A.No.96/2013 in Rajeswari Vs The Managing Director, Shanmuga Hospital dated 02.03.2020 wherein, it has been held that “only because of the act of refusal on the part of the opposite party to furnish the treatment particulars to the complainant they have not been successful in getting adequate compensation by establishing the medical negligence“. In the said order the Apex Court Judgment rendered in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and others Vs master Rishabh Sharama and others reported in I (2020) CPJ 3 (SC) was quoted in support of their decisions. It was held that the omission on the part of the opposite party would amount to medical negligence constituting deficiency in service in as much there was noncompliance of the regulation issued by the Medical Council of India in tune with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Thus citing above judgements the learned counsel for complainant contended that even after paying the required fees by way of cheque towards furnishing the treatment records, the opposite party failing to furnish the same amounts to deficiency in service.
On the side of the opposite party the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not furnishing the documents for the reason that there is no designation as a Medical Superintendent in the hospital and hence it is not properly addressed and the same was referred and forwarded to the proper person, in the mean time the present complaint was filed and thus it was argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
With regard to the 1st allegation of the complainant and the 1st issue to be decided we are of the view that the complainants were successful in proving that inspite of request made by them for furnishing the treatment records, the same was not given to them though the necessary fees have been paid by them. This fact was also not denied by the opposite party but they submitted that it is not a deficiency in service stating that the request was made to a wrong person and when it is referred to the right person the present complaint was filed in the midst of the process. This defense of the opposite party is not acceptable by us for the reason that till today the case sheets of the patient was not provided to the complainants and even during the time of adjudication of the complaint before this Commission, the counsel for the complainants relied upon the case sheets produced by the opposite party as it was not available with the complainants. This act of the opposite party is to be considered as a clear deficiency in service as, as per the said Medical Council of India Regulations, "if any request is made for medical records either by the patient or the authorized attendant or local authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within a period of 72 hours". Thus we answer the point holding that opposite party had committed deficiency in service in not providing the Medical Records of deceased Kanchana when requested by the complainants.
Point No.2:
With regard to the second issue of Medical negligence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that Late Kanchana approached the opposite party for lower back pain on 12.05.2018 and except the fact that she was a diabetic, she was not having any abnormalities. On testing the said patient, she was found to have Plasma Glucose at 483 mg/dl and creatinine level 0.5mg/dl and the platelet count was 2.91lakhs/cu mm. Hence the said Kanchana was clinically alright in every aspect except glucose level and this fact is also admitted by the opposite parties.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party had not acted promptly to diagnoses the illness and delayed the treatment resulting in the death of the patient. The main allegation of the counsel for complainant is that no Cardiologist was consulted by the opposite party at the required time and they failed to get any expert advice from the Diabetologist, Urologist, Nephrologists and the General Medicine Practitioner due to which the patient’s condition deteriorated resulting in severe complications. Thus it was contended that only due to delayed wrong treatment the patient suffered complete Thrombosis and Pneumonia which was identified on 14.05.2018 through CT Scan resulting in the death of the patient at 11.50 pm.
The learned counsel for the complainant also relied upon the opposite party’s documents i.e., Case Sheet relating to treatment given to the deceased and pointed out that while at the time of admission the only complaint by the deceased was “Lower back pain for a period of one day” and due to the negligent delayed treatment the patient was made to sign the DIL form “Dangerously Ill-List” on 13.05.2018, the very next day of the admission on the patient.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for complainant that when the report of Clinical Pathology Hematology dated 14.05.2018 shows the increase in the pus cells i.e. between 8-10 and ketone 3+ still, no Urologist or Nephrologist was consulted even though the said report confirms that the patient’s kidney was affected badly.
Further when the heart rate was shown elevated by the ECG report still no Cardiologist was consulted. But in opposite party’s written version contrary to the document i.e. case sheet Ex.B1 it is submitted by the opposite party that on 14.05.2018, when ECG was done around 6.20pm, it shows abnormalities and a Cardiologist was immediately summoned and the patient was shifted to the ICU at 6.50 pm and that the Cardiologist administered the necessary drugs i.e., Inj.Adenosine and Inj Amiadarone by which the heart rhythm reverted back to normal. When the Doctors daily progress report shows that on 12.05.2018 the patient’s complaint was only Lower back pain and on examination the patient had been infected by uncontrolled sugar, the above test though shows the patient’s seriousness to take medical opinion immediately, due to the delay of three and half hours the same resulted in Persistent Sinus Tachycardie. Also though the heart rhythm was found with abnormalities, the patient was shifted to ICU with nine and half-hours’ delay. But the daily progress report dated 13.05.2018 was submitted in proof of the contention by the opposite party that a Cardio Team conducted examination on the patient and on ECG was taken and it was found that the patient had been affected by Sinus Tachycardio. It was submitted that a bogus report was prepared for the purpose of the complaint. Further it is submitted that when as per the Doctor Note on 13.05.2018 at 8pm when it is stated that the patient‘s vitals were assessed and several medicines were prescribed and Cardiologist opinion was obtained and the patient was shifted to ICU there is no necessity to call for the Cardio Team. Thus complainants submitted that there is a delay of 22 hours in obtaining the Cardiologist opinion. Due to the increased sugar level which was not controlled it lead to Hypoglycemic and Haematuria. Thus, the counsel for the complainant contended that due to uncontrolled high sugar level and the non-consultation of Neurologist in time leads to the critical condition of the patient and the same resulted in 140 BPM (Beats per minutes) and also renal failure due to the uncontrolled sugar level and non-treated urinary tract infection.
With regard to the treatment given it is submitted that for serious issues like Septic Shock, uroseptic, pyelonoephrities the patient was seen only by the ICU PG Doctors and not by any specialist on 14.05.2018. In such situation the counsel submitted that there is no necessity for production of any expert opinion or medical literature to prove the medical negligence committed by the opposite party. Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed.
We heard the oral arguments adduced by both counsels and also perused the medical evidence produced by the both parties and also the written arguments submitted by them. As we have elaborately discussed the facts of the case via the pleadings and evidence submitted by both the parties, we feel it is not necessary to reproduce the same here.
The opposite party in their version has raised an issue that the Doctors who treated the patient are the right persons who are personally aware of the facts and hence they are necessary parties to this complaint and thus complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. For the said submission the learned counsel for the complainant cited a decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India reported in IV (2004) CPJ 40 (SC) made in Smt. Savita Garg Vs The director, National Heart Institute, wherein the same issue was discussed and has been concluded that it is the duty of the hospital to satisfy that there is no medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of their doctors and that the complaint cannot be dismissed in lemini in their words as follows;
“but at the same time the hospital can discharge the burden by producing the treating doctor in defence that all due care and caution was taken and despite that patient died. The hospital/Institute is not going to suffer on account of non- joinder of necessary parties and commission should have proceeded against hospital. Even otherwise also the institute had to product the concerned treating physician and has to product evidence that all care and caution was taken by them or their staff to justify that there was no negligence involved in the matter. Therefore, nothing turns in not impleading the treating doctor as a party. Once an allegation is made that the patient was admitted in a particular hospital and evidence is produced to satisfy that he died because of lack of proper care and negligence, then the burden lies on the hospital to justify that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctor/ or hospital. Therefore, in any case, the hospital which is in better position to disclose that what care was taken or what medicine was administered to the patient. It is the duty of the hospital to satisfy there was no lack of care of diligence. The hospitals are institutions, people expect better and efficient service, if the hospital fails to discharge their duties through their doctors being employed on job basis or employed on contract basis, it is the hospital which has to justify and by not impleading a particular doctor will not absolve the hospital of the responsibilities.
We are in full agreement with the submissions made by the complainants as in the present case the allegations of non-providing of treatment records and medical negligence is not solely attributed towards the treating Doctors but as a whole on the line of treatment and act of the Hospital authorities. Thus, we hold that the submission of the opposite party that complaint bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is to be brushed aside.
With regard to the next allegation that proper procedure was not followed by the opposite party in treating the patient, the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that standard procedure was followed and proper attendance was given. Further the counsel’s main crux of submission is that there is no specific allegation with regard to medical negligence in the treatment given to the patient in the complaint. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted medical literature relating to Diabetes Mellitus in proof of his submission that diabetes mellitus increases mortality in the patients. For the allegation of the complainant that the patient was not treated by any specialist like Neurologist, Cardiologist, Nephrologist it is submitted that for the Lower back pain complained by the patient, the same was properly attended by an Ortho who is the right person for such treatment and there arose no necessity for consulting any specialist.
We perused the case sheet and the line of treatment given to the complainant. With regard to the allegation that no specialist like Neurologist, Cardiologist, Nephrologist were consulted at the appropriate time, the opposite party’s explanation that it is non necessitated is not seen convincing as the case sheet shows that the patient suffered with high rhythm of heart rate, diabetes which resulted in urinary tract infection and in septic shock. Once the heart rhythm was found with abnormalities the Cardiologist was to be consulted which is not done by the opposite party. Also for increase in creatinine level and pus cells which led to the kidney failure and high urinary tract infection no Nephrologist or Urologist was consulted and opinion was sought and no treatment was given accordingly. Thus we have no other option but to hold that the patient was not attended properly at the time of change in her health condition which is evident by way of the medical reports. We are in conformity with the submissions made by the complainant’s counsel that the patient who was admitted on 12.05.2018 for lower back pain was made to die due to the careless treatment given by the opposite party. In such circumstance we apply the principle of ’res ipsa loquitor‘to hold that there is no necessity for any expert opinion, literature or evidence to be produced by the complainant in proving the allegation of Medical negligence.
Resultantly, we have no other option but to hold that the opposite party/hospital has committed medical negligence in treating the patient resulting in the death of the patient thereby failed in performing their duty as per the established principles and in exercising proper care and duty. We answer this point accordingly.
Point No.3:
With regard to the relief to be granted to the husband and children of the deceased patient Mrs. kanchana it is said that she was 53-years-old at the time of her death and it is obvious that the family of the patient should have suffered severe mental agony and hardship due to her death and the same is to be compensated adequately. Further complainants are also entitled to be compensated for the deficiency committed by the opposite party in non-furnishing of the treatment Records. Hence we direct the opposite party to refund the Medical expenses made by the complainants towards the medical treatment and also to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by complainants due to the medical negligence and deficiency in service committed by the opposite party. We answer this point accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to pay
a) Rs.62,000/- (Rupees Sixty two thousand only) towards Medical expenses;
b) Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) towards compensation and;
c) Cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)
d) The amount mentioned in clause (a) to be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the said amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 14st day of June 2022.
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 15.05.2018 | Death Summary | Xerox |
Ex.A2 | 15.05.2018 | Death Certificate | Xerox |
Ex.A3 | ……………… | Series of Bills | Xerox |
Ex.A4 | 07.06.2018 | Letter of the complainant. | Xerox |
Ex.A5 | 12.07.2018 | Letter of the complainant. | Xerox |
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 | ............... | Case Sheet of Mrs.M.Kanchana | Xerox |
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
