Date of filing :     04.06.2008

                                                                                                                                         Date of disposal: 29.08.2023                                                                                               

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                        .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc., BL.,                                                                           …….MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                                       ......MEMBER-II

CC. No.43/2008

THIS TUESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

Mr.T.Selvaraj, S/o.R.Thiraviyam,

No.4, Subiksha Apartments,

St.Mary’s School Road,

Sembium, Chennai 600 011.                                                                   ……Complainant.  

                                                                            //Vs//

1.St.Antony’s Hospital,

   Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.

2.Dr.Amudha,

   C/o.Antony’s Hospital,

   Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.

3.Dr.L.Lakshmanan Saravanan,

    C/o.St.Antony’s Hospital,

    Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.                                                  …..Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                      :   Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2                     :   M/s.AAV Partners,

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party                             :   Exparte.

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 03.08.2023 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, counsel for the complainant and AAV Partners, counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence against the opposite parties along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service for the death of the complainant’s wife due to the negligent act of the opposite parties along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the death of the complainant’s wife due to the negligent act of the opposite parties the present complaint has been filed.

3. The complainant’s wife aged 33 years approached the 1^st opposite party for fibroid in her uterus. On the advice of 2^nd opposite party got admitted on 06.06.2007 at 9.00am and was taken to the operation theatre on the next day for removing the fibroids.  Though the operation was fixed only for a period of an hour the patient was not brought out from the operation theatre till 4.00pm. Hence when the complainant became restless enquired about the same, he was informed that the patient had cardiac arrest within 10 minutes of commencing the operation and due to low pressure and no supply of oxygen to the brain the patient had myoclonic fits and was unconscious.  The complainant became anxious and started repeatedly enquiring about the patient which made the opposite parties to shift the patient from the 1^st opposite party’s hospital to Apollo Hospital at 9.30pm on the same day. At Apollo Hospital the patient was provided with ventilator and life support through supply of oxygen.  However, there was no improvement in the health condition of the patient and she continued to be in the stage of coma. As the complainant could not bear the expenses and charges at Apollo Hospital he discharged his wife on 14.06.2007 and got admitted in Government Stanley Hospital where she continued to be in the same condition and was battling for her life.  It was submitted by the complainant that the opposite parties did not take any steps to cure the cardiac arrest which occurred within 10 minutes after starting the operation and it is understood that the 1^st opposite party had no facility in their hospital to manage the emergent condition that occurs during operation.  When the opposite parties did not have the facility they should have immediately transferred the patient to the hospital having the facility without continuing the operation.  Further it is understood that the deceased also suffered diffuse brain injury and octonic condition during operation but the opposite parties did not care for the same and had not made any attempt to cure it.  Further for 4centimeters sized fibroid no surgery was required for a 33 years old female. No consent was obtained for removal of the Uterus, Ovaries and Tubes.  When the complainant tried to pay the charges at Apollo Hospital he came to know that the 1^st opposite party had paid Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque.  After giving Police Complaint to take Criminal Action the present complaint was filed.  Subsequently after filing of the complaint on 15.10.2007 the complainant’s wife expired on 04.11.2007.  Thus the complaint was filed alleging Medical Negligence against opposite parties for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

4. The complaint was heard and an exparte decree was passed on 07.07.2015 as all the opposite parties did not appear and remind exparte and the same was challenged by way of Appeal before Hon’ble SCDRC, Chennai. Vide order dated 15.02.2023 the matter was remanded back for fresh disposal after setting aside the order dated 07.07.2015 by providing opportunities to the opposite parties.

5. On remand the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared before this Commission and filed Vakalath, Written Versions, Proof Affidavits and Written Arguments. However, the 3^rd opposite party did not appear on the day mentioned by the SCDRC, but appeared subsequently and filed a memo requesting to provide an opportunity for him to appear and contest the case but the same was dismissed as this Commission has no power to extend the time limit fixed by the Appellate Authority.  The same was not challenged and hence he reminds to be exparte during the second round of adjudication also.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 1^st opposite party:-

6. The 1^st opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complainant’s wife approached the 1^st opposite party with complaints of dysmenorrhea for the past 6 months and that she had already been treated elsewhere.  That scans report brought by the patient revealed 2 fibroids each of size 5.6 cm & 3.8 cm respectively. The patient was diagnosed to have fibroid uterus and was advised tests.  On 26.05.2007 the patient came back to the 1^st opposite party Hospital with test reports. The patient was seen by the 2^nd opposite party Doctor, all the reports were normal, sought for physician’s opinion, ECG was taken and the same was normal.  The patient was seen by the physician on the same day and had opined that the patient was fit for surgery and suggested to give oral iron supplements. On 07.06.2007 after all pre operative investigations the patient was seen by the anesthetist and the patient was assessed (ASAI) minimal risk and declared fit for surgery. At 11.00am as per standard medical protocol the patient was taken inside for surgery, the patient’s abdomen was opened by the 2^nd opposite party and an enlarged uterus was found with multiple fibroids. Both the ovaries were also found to be enlarged and cystic.  The patient’s blood pressure and heart rate was continuously monitored.  During surgery the patient’s pulse rate was going down to 50 per minute and BP was 70/40.  Injection atrophin 1amp IM and ephedrine 1 amp were given. Intra operatively patient suffered a cardiac arrest.  Surgery was stopped.  Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation was started as per ACLS protocol.  Injection Andrenelin 1 amp was given. Cardiac message was given. The patient was intubated and resuscitated by the anesthetist, the 3^rd opposite party with great care.  CPR was started as per ACLS protocol.  There was return of sinus rhythm within 10 minutes.  After achieving hemodynamic stability anesthetist advised the 2^nd opposite party Doctor to go ahead with surgery.  The surgery was resumed and completed successfully.  Removal of uterus with removal of ovaries was done by the 2^nd opposite party. The patient was continued on ventilator support and was unconscious but responding to painful stimuli and the urine output was normal.  The patient had myoclonic jerks.  Injection sodium valporate 20 mg IV fluids and injection mezolam IV was given on hourly basis and advised to repeat the same. On 07.06.2017 the patient was shifted to Apollo First Med Hospital subsequently along with the medical team of the 1^st opposite party Hospital for further management. The complainant had discharged the patient against medical advice from Apollo First Med Hospital on 14.06.2007 and admitted his wife at Government Stanley Hospital and the patient died on 04.11.2007.  The patient had been alive for 5 months after being discharged from the 1^st opposite party hospital.  Throughout her stay in the 1^st opposite party hospital, the patient had been treated as per standard medical protocol.  Moreover the patient had been resuscitated within 10minutes of the surgery and the 1^st opposite party by no stretch of imagination be held liable because patient had suffered a cardiac arrest during the surgery as she did not have any complications and was given a go ahead for the surgery by the anesthetist. Since the 1^st opposite party had not been negligent nor deficient in the service there was no case of action for the instant complaint as against the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay any sum of money, more so the amount mentioned in the prayer of the complaint as the entire case of the complainant is based on assumptions and presumptions and deserves to be dismissed in limine.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 2^nd opposite party:-

7. The 2^nd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complainant’s wife approached the 1^st opposite party with complaints of dysmenorrhea for the past 6 months.  She had already been treated and advised surgery.  Scan report brought by the patient revealed 2 fibroids each of size 5.6 cm & 3.8 cm respectively.  The patient was diagnosed to have fibroid uterus and was advised tests.  The patient was seen by the 2^nd opposite party Doctor, all the reports were normal, sought for physician’s opinion, ECG was taken and the same was normal.  The patient was seen by the physician on the same day and had opined that the patient was fit for surgery. On 07.06.2007 after all pre operative investigations the patient was seen by the anesthetist and the patient was assessed (ASAI) minimal risk, hence was declared fit for surgery. At 11.00am as per standard medical protocol the patient was taken up for surgery, the patient’s abdomen was opened and an enlarged uterus was found with multiple fibroids. The patient had sudden cardiac arrest and hence Anesthetist 3^rd opposite party informed to stop the surgery. The surgery was stopped immediately. Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation was started as per ACLS protocol.  Injection Andrenelin 1 amp was given. Cardiac message was given. The patient was intubated and resuscitated by the 3^rd opposite party. After achieving hemodynamic stability the 3^rd opposite party had advised the 2^nd opposite party to go ahead with the surgery.  Thereafter the surgery had been resumed and completed successfully.  Removal of uterus with removal of ovaries was done by the 2^nd opposite party.  As the patient had continuous myoclonic jerks and unconscious, as discussed by the medical team and the family members it was decided to shift the patient to Apollo First Med Hospital for further management.  Patient was on ventilator support, hemodynamically stable, abdomen was soft and clear urine was draining and no bleeding per vagina.  The complainant had discharged the patient against medical advice from Apollo First Med Hospital on 14.06.2007 and admitted the patient at Government Stanley Hospital who died on 04.11.2007.  The patient had been alive for 5 months after being discharged from the 1^st opposite party hospital.  Throughout her stay in the 1^st opposite party hospital, the patient had been treated as per standard medical protocol.  Moreover the patient had been resuscitated within 10minutes of the surgery and the 2^nd opposite party by no stretch of imagination be held liable because patient had suffered a cardiac arrest during the surgery as she did not have any complications and was given a go ahead for the surgery by the anesthetist. The 2^nd opposite party had satisfied the 3 tests laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs TrimbakBapu Godbole name

a) That the 2^nd opposite party exercised duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case of the patient,

 b) That the 2^nd opposite party exercised reasonable degree of care in deciding what treatment to be given to the patient as per the established medical norms,

c) That the 2^nd opposite party exercised a duty of care in the administration of that treatment.

Since the 2^nd opposite party had not been negligent nor deficient in the service there was no cause of action for the instant complaint as against the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party was not liable to pay any sum of money thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

8.  On the side of complainants proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were submitted.  On the side of 1^st opposite party proof affidavit was filed and document marked as Ex.B1 was submitted. On the side of 2^nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no document was filed on their side. The Medical opinion which was considered and relied upon during the earlier round of litigation was not marked as a document in the earlier round and hence CMP.No.74/2023 was filed in the present proceeding and the same was allowed after hearing both sides and the same was marked as Ex.C1. No objections was filed by any of the opposite parties for Ex.C1.

9.Points for consideration:

1. Whether the alleged medical negligence with regard to the total hysterectomy operation performed to the complainant’s wife resulting in death of the patient leading to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Hospital and Doctors has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
2. If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainants in support of their contentions;

1. Copy of receipt for Rs.550/- dated 26.05.2007 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Copy of receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 06.06.2007 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Copy of receipt for Rs.415/- dated 06.06.2007 was marked as Ex.A3;
4.  Discharge Summary of the complainant’s wife dated 07.06.2007 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Cheque No.545351, Union Bank of India, Madhavaram Branch in favour of Apollo Hospital dated 12.06.2007 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Copy of Discharge against medical advice, General Information dated 14.06.2007 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Complaint given by the complainant to Inspector of Police Manager-1, Police Station, Madhavaram dated 18.06.2007 was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Acknowledgment given by the M-1 Police Station dated 18.06.2007 was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party dated 06.08.2007 was marked as Ex.A9;
10. Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A10;
11. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 01.10.2007 was marked as Ex.A11;
12. Acknowledgment cards for proof of delivery to the opposite parties 1 & 2 was marked as Ex.A12 & Ex.A13;
13. Returned cover from the 2^nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A14;
14. Death Certificate issued by Dr.V.R.Mohan Rao, Stanley Medical College & Hospital dated 04.11.2007 was marked as Ex.A15;
15. Death certificate of Mala (deceased) issued by the Corporation of Chennai dated 27.11.2007 was marked as Ex.A16;

The following document was filed on the side of 1^st opposite party in proof of their defence;

1. Case Sheets was marked as Ex.B1;

            10. Heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2.

11.   The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant is that the complainant’s wife had undergone surgery with the opposite parties for removal of Uterus and that they had not exercised due care which resulted in the death of the patient.  It is submitted by him that the deceased when sustained cardiac arrest was not treated properly resulting in brain damage. Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

12. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1 & 2 argued that the fibroid in the uterus of the deceased was large in size measuring 5.6 cm and 3.8 cm. Further the patient had a bulky uterus necessitating hysterectomy. ECG was also taken which was in normal sinus rhythm.  During surgery the BP was 70/40 and the pulse was 50 per minutes. Injection atrophin 1 amp IM and ephedrine 1 amp were given. The surgery was stopped when the patient suffered cardiac arrest.  Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation was started and cardiac message was given. Patient was intubated by the anesthetist and only when the anesthetist advised to continue the surgery the surgery was resumed and completed successfully.  Clear urine was draining post operatively.  The patient attenders were informed about the happenings inside the operation theater at 1.30pm and 2.30pm.  The patient was seen by physician and as the patient had continued myoclonic jerks it was decided to shift the patient to Apollo First Med Hospital for further management. Patient was on ventilator support, hemodynamically stable, abdomen was soft and clear urine was draining.  However, the complainant against advice had discharged the patient from Apollo First Med Hospital on 14.06.2007 and got the patient admitted at General Stanley Hospital and subsequently patient died on 14.11.2007.  It is pertinent to mention that the patient was alive for five months after the surgery and patient was treated with at most care and diligence by the 1^st opposite party.  He cited the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew and Dr.Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs Dr.Trimbak Bapu Godbole in support of his contentions.  Thus he sought for the dismissal of the complaint.  

13. We perused the pleadings and material evidences submitted by both parties.  This Commission after careful appreciation of the entire facts is of opinion that the complaint has to be allowed for the following reasons.

1. 4On the first and foremost it is seen that vide Ex.B1 a General Consent has been obtained on 06.06.2007.  However, no specific consent for removal of uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes by way of hysterectomy has been obtained from the complainant or from his wife after informing the implications of removing the same. Thus the allegations of the complainant that total hysterectomy was done by removing the uterus as well as ovaries and tubes without the deceased or complainant’s consent and knowledge has to be taken as proved.
2. On 26.05.2007 and 07.06.2007 the opposite parties had taken all pre operative tests including ECG and everything appears to be normal even as per the version of the opposite parties.  Further as per the version of the opposite parties 1 & 2 the patient was found fit for surgery and seen by the anesthetist and the risk was assessed as minimal risk (ASAI) and declared to be fit for surgery.  When the victim had no morbidities or complications before surgery but was said to have had cardiac arrest within 10 minutes of the commencement of the surgery, this Commission could attribute some suspicion and default on the part of opposite parties in providing anesthesia or any other allied surgical procedures.  When the case of the complainant is that he was not informed until 4.00pm about the surgery, the case sheets shows that even at 11.00am the patient attendars were informed about the cardiac arrest and further at 1.30 pm the condition was explained to the complainant seems to be an afterthought and was written in the case sheets only to defeat the contentions of the complainant for the purpose to conceal the wife’s condition. If at all the opposite parties has particularly informed about the status of the surgery, the complainant need not plead that at 4.00pm he became anxious and restless and enquired with the opposite parties about the surgery and condition of his wife.
3. It is the case of the complainant that when the surgery period was only one hour, nearly the procedure took about seven hours until 4.00pm, the complainant became restless and anxious. The opposite parties did not deny the same but contended that the deceased was given injection atrophin 1 amp IM and ephedrine 1 amp. But when during the surgery the patient underwent an cardiac arrest and the surgery was stopped, CPR was given and after the patient returned to normal, they continued the surgery were all seems to be concocted statements for the purpose of concealing what happened inside the operation theatre as there arise no emergent necessity for completing the surgery for a cardiac patient.
4. If at all the patient suffered cardiac arrest what necessitates the opposite parties to complete the surgery when it is admitted that the patient was shifted to Apollo Hospital at Poonamallee for ventilator facility which proves that patient still under a critical condition.  As per the case sheet at 4.00pm it has been specifically mentioned that “The need for ventilating support is explained to patient attendars.  Discussed with patient’s husband and decided to shift the patient to Apollo First Med Hospital. Called to Apollo First Med Hospital as there is no ventilator currently patient was continued on ventilating support”. Therefore it is evident that no ventilator facility is available with the opposite parties on that particular date which fact falsifies all the defence raised by the opposite parties that CPR was provided to the deceased and was kept in ventilator after the surgery and all vitals were normal. Thus the particulars mentioned in the case sheets produced by the opposite parties could not be believed to be true.   
5. As per the established legal principles what happened inside the four walls of the operation theatre has to be explained only by the person present with the patient.  The burden of proof entirely falls upon them to prove that nothing adverse happened to the patient by their act.  In such scenario the opposite parties has the bounden duty to explain what caused cardiac arrest when the patient was declared fit for surgery, what are all the facilities available inside the operation theatre and what procedures carried out by them to overcome the cardiac arrest and what necessitates them to continue the surgery even after the patient suffers cardiac arrest removing the uterus, ovaries and tubes.  When no plausible explanation was given by the opposite parties the allegation of the complainant that due to cardiac arrest there was low pressure and there was no supply of oxygen to brain and consequently the patient had myoclonic fits and was unconscious has to be accepted.  if the patient was brought out in a normal condition as found in the case sheets and in their version, the complaint allegations that the patient went it to coma during surgery and continued to be in the same state when taken to the Apollo First Med Hospital and then to Government Stanley Hospital until her death would not have arisen. Nowhere the opposite parties disputes that the deceased was in a coma stage when discharged from Apollo Hospital and until her death.
6. When the complainant alleges that no surgery was required to be performed i.e., total hysterectomy of removing uterus, ovaries along with fallopian tubes, it was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to produce Medical literature or an expert opinion to substantiate their defence that a complete hysterectomy is an established Medical Procedure for removal of fibroids. In said circumstances the opposite parties had failed to establish that they had exercised the standard necessary skill and knowledge in treating the patient.
7. It is contended by the complainant and not rebutted by the 1^st opposite party that on admitting the patient with the Apollo First Med Hospital they paid Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque.  If at all there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties what necessitates them to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- on behalf of the patient.  Only as something went wrong due to their act, to overcome the same they had paid the said amount. No explanation was given by opposite parties for the said payment.
8.  Even as per the pleadings by the opposite parties “negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued.” In the present case due to the negligent acts of the opposite parties cardiac arrest was caused to the deceased. Also they failed to manage the same but continued the surgery causing further damage to the brain leading to coma stage and resultantly death.  The opposite parties had failed to perform their duty resulting in damage i.e. death of the patient which clearly amounts to medical negligence leading to deficiency in service. Thus the direct nexus between dereliction of duty and damage is proved.
9. The expert opinion provided by the Medical Board, Institute of Social Obstetrics 7 Govt.Kusturba Gandhi Hospital for Women and Children, Chennai clearly shows that the opposite parties acted in a delayed manner in managing the cardiac arrest resulting in neurological damage in it words as follows:

“According to discharge summary dated 07.06.2007 by the Anesthetist she was a fit (ASA) patient planned for a elective open operation with normal pre-op baseline investigations.

Patient developed cardiac arrest within 20 minutes at 11.20am of starting surgery at 11.00am.

Presumably this is due Hypotension going uncorrected promptly then and there as there is no mention about any undue bleeding or sepsis and drug reactions which are other causes of sudden hypotension and shock.

We also don’t understand why the elective surgery was persisted with the after correcting cardiac restorating of heart beat took 10 minutes

According to

1. Chief Anaesthetist, ISP & Govt.KGH Professor Nellaikumar, M.D., DA the reason for complication could be due to high level of spinal biockade.
2. There is delay in restoring heart beat.
3. Cardiac arrest and resultant neurological damage in due to non rectification of complication immediately then and there.
4. The Board Member concurs with his opinion.

We the Medical Members also agree with this opinion but we feel that obviously these complications were not anticipated adequately with full preparedness and tackled inadequately leading to cardiac arrest and its resultant neurological damage”.

14. Thus direct nexus between dereliction of standard care by the opposite parties in not managing the cardiac arrest inside the operation theatre and resultantly causing damage i.e. coma stage and subsequent death has been successfully proved. We could safely conclude that lapses on the part of the opposite parties have been successfully established. Medical evidence by way of expert opinion also supports and corroborates the case of the complainant.  Therefore when it is clearly established that a patient with no complications while fixing the operation went into the operation theatre for a simple surgery but came out as a coma patient and died subsequently, we could safely apply the Principle Res Ipsa Loquitor to hold that the opposite parties responsible for the happenings inside the operation theatre and the damage to the patient resulting in death.

15. We could find support of our view in the recent decision rendered by the NCDRC in Somraj Sen &Anr.  Vs Kothari Medical Centre & 7 Ors dated 13.01.2023 wherein in a similar situation death occurred for a 31 years old female and the Hospital Authorities were held negligent.  In the present case the Doctors i.e. opposite parties 2 &3 negligence was also successfully proved and hence they also should be held liable jointly.

16. Hence for the above reasons we could safely conclude that the opposite parties 1 to 3 were jointly and severally had committed medical negligence and deficiency in service resulting in death of the patient. Thus we answer the point accordingly holdings that opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly liable.

Point No.2:-

17. As we have held above that opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable complainant is entitled for compensation. It is unfortunate that the deceased was just 33 years old at the time of her death who had left two minor children and her husband which aspect has to be taken into consideration for awarding compensation.  It is also to be taken into account that she had just came for treating fibroids in uterus but had due to the negligent act of the opposite parties went into coma and died subsequently after five months.  The husband/complainant lost his loving wife and the two minor children had lost the affection of their mother in their growing stage.  Considering all the above facts we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- as he prayed for and to be paid by the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally along with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed against the opposite parties 1 to 3 directing them jointly and severally

a) To pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

b)  To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

c) Amount in clause (a) if not paid in six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% 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 29^th day of August 2023.

          -Sd-                                                      -Sd-                                                           -Sd-

 MEMBER-II                                            MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

            Court Document:-

        -Sd-                                                           -Sd-                                                    -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                MEMBER-I                                       PRESIDENT