Date of filing : 05.07.2013
Date of order : 20.09.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
TUESDAY THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 43/2013
S. Nagarajan,
S/o V. Sambasivam,
No.23, Kalaivanar Nagar,
Sainathapuram,
Vellore – 632 001. ... Complainant
-Vs-
1. M/S. Narayani Hospital & Research,
Rep. By its Director,
Thirumalaikodi, Vellore.
2. Medical Superintendent,
Narayani Hospital & Research Centre,
Thirumalaikodi, Vellore.
3. Duty Doctor (in-charge),
Narayani Hospital & Research Centre,
Thirumalaikodi, Vellore.
4. United India Insurance Co Ltd,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, “RAMANAS”,
No.84, II Floor, 14th East Cross Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore-632006. …Opposite Parties
Amended as per order in I.A. No. 30/2022 dated 20.07.2022
Counsel for the complainant - Thiru. B. Devaraj
Counsel for the first and second opposite parties - Thiru. J. Chittibabu
Counsel for the third opposite party - Thiru. T.S. Gowri Shankar
Counsel for the fourth opposite party - Thiru. L. Pandurangan
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant prays to this Honorable Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.19,90,000/- as damages for mental agony, inconveniences, loss and hardship due to gross deficiency love and affliction and exemplary damages and unfair wrong diagnose and wrong treatment of the opposite party along with 12% interest from the date of surgery 03.05.2013 and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this complaint.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant is husband of one deceased N. Vijaya who has the complaints of irregular heavy cycle’s menstrual period since one year. So, she was admitted in Narayani Hospital and Research Centre, Thirumalaikodi, Vellore on 02.05.2013 as inpatient as per the instruction of the third opposite party duty doctor Dr. Kavitha Balaji. Before admitting as inpatient the complainant’s wife underwent for body check up examination for the period of one week as outpatient, with the third opposite party Dr. Kavitha Balaji after finding the check up results were normal and fit for the operation and asked the complainant to get admitted as inpatient in the hospital, a small operation would performed and they can discharge well and shall go home after four days. So the complainant trusted the Doctor’s word and admitted his wife for treatment. The operation was done by the third opposite party on 03.05.2013 morning at 10.00 A.M. After finishing the operation doctor says “we did the operation, but then the complainant asked about what happened, Doctor replied “Nothing else” and she went to continue her duty. After surgery his wife was affected with severe illness and felt acute pain in her abdomen while she was staying in the hospital. She was crying due to continuous pain in abdomen. The neighbour patient operated by other doctors was quiet and normal in their bed. The complainant asked the third opposite party about continuous pain she briefed that the pain has been existing like that only and put two injections for pain relief and went out. On 05.05.2013 night, pain in the abdomen was not reduced but annoyed and tremendous, she was not able to tolerate that pain so the complainant told about tremendous pain and swelling of abdomen to the third opposite party through phone call. The third opposite party replied that she will come only on the next day morning at 8.00 A.M. to the duty and the duty nurse will take care of the patient. But next day on 06.05.2013 morning the abdomen become swelling enormously. The third opposite party came at 8.15 A.M on 06.05.2013 and visit the patient and said she thought something problem might had occurred and should diagnose the patient was shifted to intensive care unit. The third opposite party said after one hour that ‘A big operation should be done because the blood circulation does not circulate to some organs, we should make another surgery in abdomen to diagnose what problem is happened in it. After two hours of operation the third opposite party show the decomposition of a portion of large intestine, A portion of small intestine, liver and gallbladder which is placed in a plastic tray and explained those organs were removed from abdomen because of all mentioned internal organs were decomposed on account of non-circulation of blood to that organs, at present time the patient is not able to survive her life, she was already 90% dead now remaining life is survived by machine. The complainant asked the third opposite party, whether he can take the patient to C.M.C Hospital for further treatment to save her life. But the opposite party said “what will you do by taking the dead body to another hospital and how will you save her life”. Since the opposite parties did not save her life finally opposite party states that do not worry about. That is an ordinary thing one patient will die out of three or four operations is a common one. He transferred his wife to CMC on 07.05.2013 for further treatment to save her life. In C.M.C they verified the history of patient on examination they found that the removal of uterus and neck of uterus, the removal of bilateral fallopian tube and ovaries, removal of part of large intestine and removal of middle portion of small intestine. Presence of pathogens in the blood tissues, a focus of infection affects the blood flow to the vital organs the onset of multi organ failure. She was evaluated and was found to have multi organ dysfunction with acute kidney failure, deranged liver functions and impaired consciousness suffered a cardiac arrest at 23.05 hours on 08.05.2013 and in spite of all efforts she expired at 23.12 hours on 08.05.2013. The complainant submits that who had the basic feelings of doctor as their god, but the third opposite party without holding the responsibility she acted as massacre. The attending duty doctor in charge responded with the type of lethargic and careless attitude towards the complainant’s wife. Being a responsible profession, doctor did her service without mercy and humanity towards the patient and in human ways of response to the queries as well as sub-standard medical treatment causes suspicious in the mind of general public that if this the way of service these doctors behave, will there be any relief at all to the poor patients visiting such hospital. The complainant’s wife is a sample of such atrocity being carried out by the doctors and staff of the said hospital. The age of complainant’s wife was 46 years, she could have lived furthermore 30 or 40 years with good health. The doctors in the said hospital in the name of medical treatment have caused severe harm to him which cannot be compensated in the terms of money. The complainant was put into lurch; stress undergone mental torture and both economical and physical problems. The balance of convenience is in his favour, he has every right to see for careless deliberate mistake resulted him incurring suffered to the extreme due to deficiency of service of the third opposite party and have right to claim compensation for the irreparable loss. The action of in the interest of justice the first, second and third opposite parties should be directed to pay for their negligence, careless, deficiency in service and also to pay damages for the mental agony, hardship, loss, economic loss of earning, future loss of earning, love and affection exemplary damages, hospital expenses compensation etc., to the tune of Rs.19,90,000/-. Hence this complaint.
Pending disposal of the above case the fourth opposite party is the insurer of the first, second and third opposite party being impleaded.
2. The written version of first and second opposite parties are as follows:
This opposite parties states that a patient named N. Vijaya was admitted with the complaints of irregular heavy cycles menstrual period (menorrhagia). She was admitted in the hospital on 02/05/2013 as inpatient for Total abdominal hysterectomy. The Doctor Mrs. Kavitha Balaji has appraised of all the problems and complications that may arise in the operation and after that she was advised for hysterectomy. This Opposite parties states that on 03/05/2013, Total abdominal hysterectomy was done to the said Vijaya. The operation was normal and no complications arose in the operation. She was normal till 05.05.2013. This opposite parties states that as per the records the patient complained of stomach pain on 5.5.2013. On Examination Abdomen was soft and the plain x- ray of the abdomen was normal. In view of pain she was started on iv fluids and adequate analgesic was given and continuously monitored. Laparotomy was done on 06.06.2013, the operation was done by Dr. Saravanan a qualified surgeon along with this opposite parties. The laparotomy revealed no direct complication of surgery like haemorrhage causing hemoperitoneum or bowel perforation. It was found that Thrombus in a blood vessel is the finding of the laparotomy which is no way is a result of negligence of the doctor. The emboli has resulted in bowel gangrene and sepsis and it cannot be taken as direct primary complication ‘of the surgery. This opposite parties states that during laparotomy Intra-operative extensive gangrene of small bowel (proximal and distal ileum) extending up to the hepatic flexure was noted. Gall bladder was gangrenous and thrombus noted in the superior mesenteric artery. Resection of gangrenous bowel and jejuno-transverse anastomosis was done. Post operatively the patient was shifted to ICU. In the ICU, the patient was continued-on high supports and ventilation. A bedside echo was done which snowed evidence of old left ventricular clot. “She was discharged at request and the care transferred to Christian Medical College Hospital Vellore on 7/5/13 at 3 pm. This opposite parties states that it was found that the problem is not due to the operation but due to Acute mesenteric ischemia due to a thromboembolic occlusion of superior mesenteric artery that resulted in extensive “small and large bowel gangrene. The source of embolus is the left ventricular clot as seen in the echo. The said issue is not due to direct complication of the surgery or as a result of negligence. This opposite parties states that the Dr. Kavitha Balaji is having experience of 22 years and she is senior most doctor in the Hospital. Not even a single complaint was lodged against her so far and she is highly qualified and she has high professional standards. Hence the remarks about her is unwarranted. This opposite parties states as per record on the request by the complainant had referred the patient to the C.M.C Hospital. This opposite parties is not aware of the treatment given in the CMC Hospital and the diagnosis in the C.M.C Hospital. This Opposite parties are also not aware of the death of the patient in CMC Hospital on 08.05.2013. This opposite denies the allegation stated against the Doctor in para 6 of the complaint and the same is defamatory. This opposite parties states that the doctor and her team has taken adequate care of the patient. This opposite parties also denies substandard treatment to the patient. This opposite parties denies para 7 of the allegations. This opposite parties states as per records the patient was completely normal till 05.05.2013. There was no carelessness or any mistake on the part of Opposite parties, hospital, staffs. The opposite parties are taking undue advantage without any basis. As there is no dereliction of duty by the Opposite parties and no omission of acts the complaint cannot be sustained. The relief sought for by the complainant to the tune of Rs.19,90,000/- is not substantiated and hence cannot be granted. This opposite parties states that the complainant has not followed any guidelines to be filed as against the doctors. Hence this complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs. This opposite parties states that death occurred due to left ventricular clot and it has caused her death. It was pre existing problem. Hence the patient didn’t die due to the operation. This opposite party denies that the complainant was put into lurch, stress, undergone mental torture and both economical and physical problems and the complainant states that the balance of convenience is in his favor, he has every right to sue for careless deliberate mistake resulted him incurring suffered to the extreme due to deficiency of service of the opposite parties and have right to claim compensation for the irreparable loss are all false and denied. This opposite parties states that the complaint is itself not maintainable in this Honourable Forum. There is no evidence to prove the negligence of the Doctor as it never happened. The patient died of pre-existing problem. This petition is only to harass the opposite parties and hence the same is not maintainable. This opposite party denies that there is no negligence or deficiency in service. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. The written version of third opposite party is as follows:
This opposite party states that a patient named N. Vijaya was having complaints of irregular heavy cycles menstrual period (menorrhagia) since one year. She was admitted in the hospital on 02.05.2013 as inpatient for Total abdominal sale This opposite party states that she never informed the patient that she was normal and she had no problems. This opposite party further states that it is not a small operation as stated by the complainant in his complaint since all operations involves complications. This Opposite party states that on 03.05.2013, Total abdominal hysterectomy was done to the said Vijaya. The operation was normal and no complications arose in the operation. She was normal till 05.05.2013. This opposite party states that since the patient complained of stomach pain on 05.05.2013. on Examination Abdomen was soft and the plain x- ray of the abdomen was normal. In view of pain she was started on iv fluids and adequate analgesic was given and continuously monitored. Laparotomy was done on 06.06.2013, the operation was done by Dr. Saravanan a qualified surgeon along with this opposite party. The Laparotomy revealed no direct Complication of surgery like hemorrhage causing hemoperitoneum or bowel perforation. Thrombus in a blood vessel is the finding of the laparotomy which is no Way is a result of negligence of the doctor. The emboli has resulted in bowel gangrene and Sepsis and it cannot be taken as direct primary complication of the surgery. This opposite party states that during laparotomy Intra-operative extensive gangrene of small bowel (proximal and distal ileum) extending up to the hepatic flexure was noted. Gall bladder was gangrenous and thrombus noted in the Superior mesenteric artery. Resection of gangrenous bowel and jejuno-transverse anastomosis was done. Post operatively the patient was shifted to ICU. In the ICU, the patient was continued on high supports and ventilation. A bedside echo was done which showed evidence of old left ventricular clot. She was discharged at request and the care transferred to Christian Medical College Hospital Vellore on 7/5/13 at 3 pm. The problem is not due to the operation, but due to Acute mesenteric ischemia due to a thrombo embolic occlusion of superior mesenteric artery that resulted in extensive small and large bowel gangrene. The source of embolus is the left ventricular clot as seen in the echo. The said issue is not due to direct complication of the surgery or as a result of negligence. This opposite party denies the allegations stated in the para 3, para 4 of the complaint that she told that after finishing the operation doctor says "we did the operation, but “the complainant asks about the happened “Nothing else". This opposite party further denies that after surgery his wife was affected with severe illness and felt acute pain in her abdomen while remaining life is survived by machine. This opposite party also denies that the complainant asked “whether shall he took the patient to C.M.C. Hospital for further treatment to save her life but opposite party said "what will you do by taking the dead body to another hospital and how will you save her life". Since the opposite parties did not save her life finally opposite party state that do not worry about. That is an ordinary thing case patient will die out of three or four operations is a common one. It is a blatant lie. No Doctors will tell like that, the complainant not only is Stating false things but also Stating defamatory remark about the third opposite party. This opposite party on the request by the complainant had referred the patient to the C.M.C Hospital. This opposite party is not aware of the treatment given in the CMC Hospital and the diagnosis in the C.M.C Hospital. This Opposite party is also not aware of the death of the patient in CMC Hospital on 08.05.2013. The opposite denies the allegation stated against her in para 6 of the complaint and the same is defamatory. The complainant has stated in the complainant that that who had the basic feeling of Doctor as their god but the third opposite party without holding the responsibility she acted as massacre. The attending duty Doctor in charge responded with the type of lethargic and careless attitude towards the complainant's wife. Being a responsible profession. This opposite party states that she and her medical team was taking adequate care of the patient. This opposite party also denies substandard treatment to the patient. The opposite party or anyone is not responsible for the death of the patient. This opposite party denies para 7 of the allegations. This opposite party states that the patient was completely normal till 5.5.2013. There was no carelessness or any mistake on the part of his Opposite party, hospital, staffs. The opposite party is taking advantage of the death of his wife for gaining monetary benefits from this respondent. As there is no dereliction of duty by the Opposite party and no omission of acts the complaint cannot be sustained. Moreover the monetary relief sought for by the complainant under various heads totaling to the tune of Rs.19,90,000/- is not substantiated and hence cannot be granted. The complainant has not followed any guidelines to be filed as against the doctors. Hence this complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs. This opposite party states that the treatment and the operation were done in a normal manner. The complications occurred due to left ventricular clot and it has caused her death. Hence the patient didn’t die due to the operation. This opposite party denies the para-7 of the complaint in toto. The allegations stated in the complaint that the complainant was put into lurch, stress, undergone mental torture and both economical and physical problems and the complainant states that the balance of convenience is in his favour, he has every right to sue for careless deliberate mistake resulted him incurring suffered to the extreme due to deficiency of service of the 3rd opposite party and have right to claim compensation for the irreparable loss are all false and denied. This opposite party states that the complaint is itself not maintainable in post mortem or obtained opinion from Doctors before filing this petition. This petition is only to harass the opposite parties and hence the same is not maintainable. The Opposite party has satisfied the three tests laid by the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole namely:
a) that he exercised duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case of the patient:
b) that he exercised reasonable degree of care in deciding what treatment to be given to the patient as per the established medical norms.
c) That he exercised a duty of care in the administration of that treatment
This opposite party states that there is no negligence or deficiency in
service, which this opposite party undertakes to adduce proper evidence in this Honorable Forum. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The written version of fourth opposite party is as follows:
This fourth opposite party humbly submits that there is no privity of contract with the complainant. Hence, initially at the time of filing complaint by the complainant not brought as a party. Any how the opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared very well at the initial stage of the case in the first hearing and then the opposite party 1 and 2 jointly and opposite party 3 separately filed their counter in the month of August 2013 itself sailing on the same pleadings in denying their alleged liability to the complainants relief on the point as “No Medical Negligence, carelessness or any mistakes on their part” and the death of the complainant’s wife N. Vijaya died of pre existing problem. Further, the proof affidavits of concerned parties also filed on or before 12.03.2018 itself and posted for arguments. In the above circumstances that a notice in C.M.P No: 30/2022 in C.C. NO. 43/2013 with petition and affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 and Sec.151 C.P.C. it is served on this opposite party to appear on 07.07.2022. But the, application was allowed since that the fourth opposite party did not appear in time and Set exparte. This fourth opposite party brought after amendment of the complaint. In a Nut-Shell that this fourth opposite party humbly submits that in gone through the affidavit of second opposite party. In the above said C.M.P (Implead application) in para 3 through she stated that on 02.05.2013 the Hospital doctors are covered under medical indemnity policy under the insurer i.e. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd (fourth opposite party) as such no policy number or a copy of the policy submitted for reference. Any how this fourth opposite party is bringing the following valuable points before this Honourable forum for kind consideration. This fourth opposite party humble submits that the opposite party issued professional indemnity policy to Sri Narayan Hospital and Research Centre under policy No:013000/46/12/32/00000132 insurance for the period of 05.08.2012 to 04.08.2013. As per the policy condition of the above policy issued based on AOA : AOY (means - Any One Accident, Any One Year). But the indemnity limit to indemnify the opposite party even if any is restricted to maximum of 25% of the alleged claim amount Rs.19,38,750/- Restricted to Rs.4,84,687/- only. Then, also apart from the said limit of alleged indemnity that there is an excess less of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the above said amount of Rs.4,84,687. Hence, ultimately the alleged indemnity limit to opposite party 1 will be Rs.3,84,687/- (Rs.4,84,687-1,00,000) at one accident. The above said liability of this opposite party, only arose when the alleged Medical Negligence of opposite party 1 to opposite party 3 is proved by the complainant. Even, then the alleged restricted liability will not carry any rate of interest (%) and damages, pain and suffering etc., Since the opposite party 1 to 3 brought this opposite party 4 in belated stage knowingly on 07-07-2022 only. Further that there was or is “No Claim Form” is placed by the opposite party 1 before this opposite party 4 as on this date. Any-how in view of the policy, the scope of cover indemnity applies only to claims arising out of bodily injury (Bodily injury means - death, injury, illness or disease of or to any reason) or to death of any patient caused by or alleged to have been caused error, omission or negligence in professional services rendered “by the Insured” on Un-intended professional mistakes. Hence in the event of any liability is proved that this opposite party 4 is only limited as above and if any excess that the opposite party 1 to 3 were liable to bear and this opposite party-4 will not and cannot bound to indemnify them legally in view of the policy. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Forum has to dismiss the complaint with cost.
5. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. Written arguments of complainant filed. Proof affidavit of first opposite party filed. Documents not filed. Written arguments not filed. Proof affidavit of second opposite party filed. Documents not filed. Written arguments not filed. Proof affidavit of third opposite party filed, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked, Written arguments filed. Proof affidavit of fourth opposite party filed, Ex.B4 marked, written arguments not filed. both sides not filed.
6. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
7. POINT NOS.1 & 2: The complainant’s wife name is N.Vijaya who was having irregular heavy cycles menstrual period (menorrhagia) since one year. She was admitted in the first opposite party Hospital on 02.05.2013 as inpatient for total abdominal hysterectomy. On 03.05.2013 total abdominal hysterectomy was done to the said Vijaya by third opposite party. Since the patient complained of stomach pain on 05.05.2013. When the complainant informed to the third opposite party the third opposite party informed that she will come next morning 8.00 am only. Accordingly, she came on 06.05.2013 at 8.15 am. By the time the patient’s abdomen had swollen abnormally and she was also have breathing problem, which is seen in the Ex.B3 which also shows that patient had breathing difficulty and abdominal pain. Immediately she was admitted in the ICU and laparotomy was done by Dr. Saravanan a qualified surgeon. Admittedly the patient had a complaint of pain in abdomen on 05.05.2013 itself. This was communicated to the third opposite party the third opposite party also admitted in their written version that she has a complaint on stomach pain on 05.05.2013. But the third opposite party failed to take any emergency steps to investigate the above said problem by necessary tests like MRI or CT scan. She has visited only on the next day at 8.15 am in-between there is a huge delay of more than twelve hours. This is kind of gangrene. We have seen in the medical literature, we find that the gangrene will spread rapidly with other organs. If the opposite party had taken timely steps to do the necessary investigation and find out what causes the problem for the aforesaid abdomen pain. Her life could have saved and further she has not passed stools from 05.05.2013 at 5.00 P.M. onwards which shows that she has been affected with gas gangrene which according to the medical field will spread rapidly. Therefore, there is a negligence on the part of the third opposite party as well as the first and second opposite parties as well. Per contra the counsel for the opposite party contended that, the patient has pre-existing disease of thromboembolic occlusion. Due to above said pre-existing diseases only her blood vessels were blocked and gangrene was formed but the opposite party failed to produce any records to show that she has already have a pre-existing disease as claimed by the opposite party. Further the opposite party stating that there is a complicated question of law on this. Therefore, an expert should be examined. For which he relied upon the following dictum
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI
in Civil appeal No. 2641/2010
VK Kisan Rao
vs
Nikil Super Speciality Hospital
Held that,
There may be simple cases of medical negligent were expert evidence not required in para 33. Therefore, each and every case it is not condition precedent get a opinion of expert evidence. Further when the case records speak for itself. There is no need to examine the expert.
In the present case, admittedly the patient complaints about the abdomen pain and no stools in 05.05.2013 itself. But there was no examination as to further course of treatment, which itself shows that there is a lethargic attitude on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore Res ipea loquitur (the things speaks itself) will be applicable. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
8. Point No. 3: As we have decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties – 1 to 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,05,313/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Five Thousand Three Hundred and Thirteen only) and 4th opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,84,687/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Seven only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and each opposite party also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. Hence, this Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,05,313/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Five Thousand Three Hundred and Thirteen only) and 4th opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,84,687/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Seven only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and each opposite party also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till date realization.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20th September 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAIANNT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 – Copy of Discharge summary of Sri Narayani Hospital
Ex.A2 – Copy of Death summary of C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore
Ex.A3-08.05.2013 – Copy of Death certificate of C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore
Ex.A4 – Copy of Lab report of Sri Narayani Hospital, Thirumalaikodi
Ex.A5-02.05.2013 – Copy of Admit card of Sri Narayani Hospital, Thirumalaikodi
Ex.A6 – Copy of Lab Bill of Sri Narayani Hospital & Research Centre,
Ex.A7 – Copy of Medical Bill of Sri Narayani Hospital Research Centre
Ex.A8-17.10.2013 – Copy of Death certificate of Government Taluk Office
Ex.A9 – Copy of Medical Bill Of C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore.
LIST OF THIRD OPPOSITE PART SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1 - Copy of out patient record
Ex.B2 - Copy of operation record
Ex.B3 - Copy of progress sheet
LIST OF FOURTH OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B4 - Copy of Proof – Indemnity (Medical establishments) Policy
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
