Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/79/2014

Shaik SARDAR Son of Kalesha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Director. Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospitals P Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

D.Hanumantharao

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

 

                                                                      Date of Filing     :18-11-2014

                                                                  Date of Disposal:11-10-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the  11^th day of   OCTOBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

                         Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., LL.M., Member

 

C.C.No.79/2014

Shaik Sardar,                           

S/o.Kalesha, Indian Muslim,

22-3-79, Aged 56 years,

R.T.C. Conductor (Sick),

Residing at Panakala Road,

Hallthaliam Street,

Janda Street, Nellore-1.                                                               ..… Complainant      

                                                             Vs.

 

The Executive Director, Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial    Hospitals (P) Limited, Ambuja Centre, Nellore-3.                                                                                  ..…Opposite party

                                                        .    

          This complaint coming on 09-10-2017 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri D. Hanumantha Rao and Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, advocates for the complainant and Sri  V. Upendra Rao,  advocate for the opposite party  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

The complaint filed by this complainant under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party that  to pay operation charges  and medical bills amount of Rs.1,99,743/-   and to award compensation, damages for causing  mental agony of Rs.17,50,000/- with subsequent on Rs.19,49,743/- @          24% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization   and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

2.   The brief averments of the complaint  are as follows that:-  the complainant submits that on 23-04-2012 the complainant suffering with chest pain admitted in opposite party hospital and they had given a UMR No.UMR 000018591 for medical checkup and paid an amount of Rs.13,329/-  for medical tests and discharged on 24-04-2012  and result of testing diagnosis the decease “Coronary artery disease-distal LMCA 90% + serve TVD” valves was blocked and the  doctors advised complainant to undergo for  bypass surgery.

The complainant submits that on 29-04-2012 the complainant admitted in opposite party hospital for bypass surgery on a package of Rs.1,76,661/-  and complainant paid the above said amount to the opposite party for bypass surgery i.e., “Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting x off Pump CABG  done LIMA-LAD, SVG-Diagonal OM, Distal RCA” on 02-05-2012, the surgery was conducted by the opposite party and the complainant was discharged on 12-05-2012 after  that the doctors of the opposite party hospital told   to the complainant your operation was successes and gave a guarantee for a period of 30 years after that the  complainant taking regular checkup for every month and every three months and collected additional consulting   fees  also  and in addition to that the opposite party  had collected another Rs.9,753/-  for medicines   from 23-04-2014 to 17-11-2014.

The complainant submits that  the complainant went to his duties from September, 2012  to November, 2013. In the end of November, 2013,  the complainant got pain in the chest and immediately he rushed   to the opposite party hospital and the doctors were used medicines but in vain and chest pain was not decreased due to negligence   of the doctors  of the   opposite party and the operation was failed. Since then  the complainant  was not attend his duties in APSRTC  as conductor.

The complainant submits that on 03-04-2014 the complainant went to APSRTC Hospital at Taranaka, Hyderabad for medical checkup.  The  doctors of APSRTC Hospitals conduct  all tests and told to complainant that the three valves were damaged i.e., CAD POST CABG, it has to be replaced and they gave a letter  credit reference form for emergency medicare and credit reference number 201402142, dated  14-05-2014 to Sunshine  Heart Institute, Paradise, Secunderabad to conduct the operation to the complainant.  Then the complainant admitted in the Sunshine Heart Institute, Secunderabad on the same  day i.e., 14-05-2014 and they made test and discharged on the same day.  The doctors nformed the complainant about suffering of negative double vessel decease,  heart three valves  damaged and they  advised to complainant to change the valves.  Then complainant was admitted on 26-05-2014  in Sunshine Heart Institute Hospital at Secunderabad and operation was held for two stents   on 29-05-2014 and successful PTCA+2 STENTS TO LAD AND POBATO D1 DONE on 29-05-2014 MIDLAD 2.75x12 MM SUPRALIMUS STEND PROXIMAL LAD 35 x 16 MM SUPRALIMUS STENT  were replaced and discharged on 02-06-2014 and again  complainant was admitted on 31-07-2014 and  the operation was held on 04-08-2014 for another stent i.e., PTCAT STENT TO SVG  AND OM 3.5  X 32 mm and discharged on 06-08-2014.  SUPRAPLEX STENT  and they  gave discharged summary.

The complainant further submits that  after three stents were changed to the complainant, the doctors of the Sunshine Heart Institution Hospital were advised him not to working as a conductor in APSRTC  and  the complainant is not fit for conductor duty and the doctor gave a certificate.

The complainant submits that he undergone heart operation again and again, the complainant suffered a lot of mental tension, mental worry and financially also.  Although the opposite party has conducted the operation to the complainant in the opposite party hospital, Nellore as opposite party done it negligently, the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.1,99,743/- for operation charges, medical tests and medicines, the complainant spent previously in opposite party hospital and a compensation ofRs.17,50,000/- to the complainant towards damages and mental agony.

The complainant submits that the complainant gave legal notice to the opposite party through his advocate  on 12-09-2014 calling upon to pay medical bills an amount of Rs.1,99,743/-  and compensation amount of Rs.17,50,000/- and the notice was served on the  opposite party and acknowledged the same and kept quite neither  sent any reply nor paid any payment to the complainant.  Complainant underwent  suffered lot of mental tension, mental worry and  financially also. As the opposite party conducted  the operation at his hospital negligently and without taking of any care the opposite party  shall pay the operation charges and medical bills amount of Rs.1,99,743/-  and compensation ofRs.17,50,000/-  to the complainant towards damages as the opposite party  unnecessarily done illegal operation which causes the complainant again underwent to operation was done 2^nd time on the same problem at Sunshine Hospitals, Secunderabad.

The complainant submits that due to negligence  of the opposite party doctors the complainant again underwent to heart operation due to that he suffered physically, mentally and spent huge amounts at Taranaka hospital at Hyderabad and  Sunshine Hospital at Secunderabad for him and his   attendants and travelling expenses and lodging and boarding expenses all the things were happened only negligence of the opposite party.  The complainant humbly submits that the opposite party hospital negligently and without  taking any care  and  thereby committed deficiency in service and dereliction of the duty, the complainant underwent lot of mental strain and mental worry and hence the complainant submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

3.    The opposite party filed written version with the following averments that:- The  opposite party submits that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party hospital on 23-04-2012 with chest  pain  and the complainant was treated with medical management diagnosed as CAD, Unstable Angina, Dyslipidemia, but the   complainant was discharged on 24-04-2012 at his request against medical advice. 

The complainant has undergone Angiogram at Narayana General Hospital, Nellore on 24-04-2012 as per complainants version and it is true that again on                29-04-2012 the complainant got  admitted in the hospital of opposite party and on 02-05-2012 and basing on Angiogram report, bye pass surgery was conducted.  LIMA-LAD  and SVG-Diagonal, OM, Distal RCA grafts are arranged during CABG operation and the complainant was discharged on 12-05-2012 by prescribing medicines. 

The opposite party denies that the complainant went to his duties  from September, 2012 to November, 2013 and in the end of November, 2013 the complainant got pain  in the  chest  and  he immediately rushed to the opposite party hospital and the doctors used medicine, but his chest  pain was not decreased and  his surgery was failed. The opposite party  has no knowledge about the absence of the complainant to his duties as a conductor in APSRTC.

The opposite party has no knowledge that  on 03-04-2014 the complainant went to APSRTC Hospital at Tharnaka for medical checkup  and the doctors of APSRTC Hospital conducted all tests  and  informed that three valves in the heart  of the complainant were damaged and the same has to be replaced and they gave  a letter of credit reference form for emergency medicare, the credit reference No.201402142, dated  14-05-2014 to Sunshine  Heart Institute, Paradise, Secunderabad to conduct surgery to the complainant.  The opposite party has no knowledge about the admission of the complainant on 14-05-2014 in Sun-Shine Hospital, Secunderabad  and discharged on the same day with an advice that the damaged three valves in the heart of the complainant have to be replaced.

The opposite party has no knowledge that the complainant again got admitted on 26-05-2014 in Sun Shine Heart Institute, Secunderabad and the doctors conducted surgery and fixed  two stents on 29-05-2014 and discharged on                      02-06-2014.  The opposite party has no knowledge that the complainant again admitted on 31-07-2014 and surgery was held on 04-08-2014 and fixed another stent and discharged  on  06-08-2014.  The opposite party is also not having any knowledge about the vessels to which stents were arranged.

The opposite party has no knowledge  that the doctors advised the complainant not to work as a conductor and he is not  fit to work as conductor  in APSRTC and issued a certificate to that effect.  The opposite party submits that at the time of surgery on 02-05-2012  in opposite party’s hospital, the age of the complainant was 52 years and the opposite party conducted surgery  successfully by taking all precautions and discharged  the  complainant with an advice to him to have regular checkup.  But the complainant without following the advice of the doctors, attended to his duties as conductor.  The complainant is a chronic smoker, Dyslipedemic  and had hypothyroidism.  Even though CABG  operation is successful, the above mentioned complainant’s risk factors can cause progression of native vessel disease and it had happened precisely in this complainant leading to recurrence  of symptoms. Success of CABG operation is determined by not only the technique of the surgeon but also by the extent  of the  disease, risk factors for CAD  and their control.  CABG operation is not  a curative operation, but  a  palliative operation and  no body can really give  guarantee for 30 years or so. At the time of CABG operation, the opposite party took the consent of the complainant and his relatives and conducted the surgery successfully and  discharged him from the hospital.  The complainant  has progression of native vessel  disease and no mention was made about patency  or blockage of grafts by Sun Shine Heart Institute.  The opposite party submit that native vessel disease progress is unrelated to surgeon’s   technique or hospital care and hence the question of negligence or careless surgery on the part of the opposite party does not arise.  Thus there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.  Without following  the  advice of the doctors, the complainant acted negligently.  As per the complaint, the complainant again underwent operation on 29-05-2014 in Sun-shine Heart Hospital, Secunderabad.   If there is any negligence on the part of the opposite party, the  complainant ought to have made complaint against  this opposite party in the year  2012 itself and there is no proof that the opposite party conducted operation negligently and that the opposite party is responsible for the damage of three valves  in  the heart of the complainant.  The doctors of Sun Shine Heart Institute, Secunderabad also  did not give  any certificate about the damage  of three valves in the heart of the complainant due to the  negligent act of the opposite party.  Due to the  negligence and carelessness of the complainant, only he had undergone surgeries again and again.

The opposite party received notice but  the same was misplaced as such the opposite party has not sent a reply within time and non submission of reply is not an admission that the opposite party has acted negligently.

There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and as per the allegations mentioned   in the complaint and the case does not come under the purview of  this Forum.  There is no cause of action for this complaint and the alleged cause of action is invented for the purpose of this case only.  The complaint  is also  barred by limitation.  When there is no negligence on the part of  the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled  to any compensation and damages.  This hospital is having 15 long years of experience in medical field and conducting  several cardiac procedures and heart surgeries without any remarks and also catering to the medical and surgical needs of the patients of not only Nellore but also from neighboring districts in 22 super speciality and multi speciality services with 32 consultants and  35 Junior Doctors.  With an intention to harass and defame the opposite party, the complainant has filed this complaint   with false and baseless allegations without proof  of evidence that the opposite party did surgery in a negligent manner and hence submits for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

  4.     On behalf of the complainant the affidavit and the additional affidavit of  P.W.1 was received in evidence and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked.

 5.      On behalf  of opposite party, chief affidavit of  R.W.1 was  received in evidence and no documents were marked.

          6.       Written arguments on behalf of complainant and opposite party filed.

          7.       Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of complainant and opposite party.

          8.       Arguments on behalf of both parties heard.

 

.         9        Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the  opposite party under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 alleging the deficiency  of service by the opposite party is maintainable?
2. To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

           10.   POINTS 1:The learned counsel for the complainant  submits by relying upon the decisions reported in

	Suresha Nanda Vs. DR.Anoop Kumar reported in                 II (2012) CPJ  228 (NC)
	In Dr.Gangadharan Vs. K.A. Abdul Salam reported in 2004 CTJ 688 (CP) (SCDRC)
	In   Reji Mathew and another Vs. Dr.Radha Krishnan  and another  (NCDRC) reported in 2004 CTJ 55 (NC) (CP)

 

 and by relying  upon evidence of PW.1  and Exs.A1 to A16   that on                             02-12-2012, the complainant undergone  surgery in the hospital of opposite party  and joining duty  in the month of  September, 2012 and worked till November, 2013 and when the complainant went to APSRTC Hospital, they found  that  three valves  of the complainant was damaged and after taking the letter of credit, the complainant  undergone surgeries in Sunshine  Heart Hospital, Secunderabad and as the opposite party’s doctors  conducted surgery in negligent manner, the complainant  was suffered  and eventhough as there  is no other in support of his evidence  P.W.1,  the Forum can draw influence   about the negligent  act of the  opposite party and hence  he submits that the complaint filed by the complainant for payment of the amount  and hence the complaint  filed by the complainant against the opposite party  and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

                 On the other hand written arguments filed by the opposite party shows that  the complainant was undergone surgery on 02-05-2012  and discharged on              12-05-2012  after collecting surgery  charges and without taking  precautions  and without following the duties again the complainant joined in duty and  worked as a conductor in APSRTC  from September, 2012 to November, 2013  and as the surgery  of the complainant is successful one and the opposite party  doctors conducted  surgery with efficient  qualified  doctors and discharged from the hospital on 12-05-2012.   Hence there is no negligence  on the part of  the opposite party and in the absence of  any other evidence by the expert to prove about the negligence act of  the opposite party, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party  is not maintainable  and submits for the dismissal of the complaint against the opposite party with costs.

               In view of the arguments submitted by the  learned counsels for both parties and as seen from the records, there is  no dispute that the complainant was  undergone surgery  in opposite party hospital on 02-05-2012 and discharged from the  hospital on 12-05-2012 after collecting  the surgery charges and later the complainant  who is  working as conductor in APSRTC joined in duties  APSRTC from September, 2012 to November, 2013  and as there was pain again, the complainant went to APSRTC Hospital at Taranaka, Hyderabad for medical check up  and there they found that three valves  of the complainant was damaged and on issuing of letter of credits, the complainant  undergone  surgery for two valves on 29-05-2014 and undergone surgery for one valve on 04-08-2014.  The surgery of the complainant in the hospital of opposite party was conducted on 02-05-2012 and discharged on 12-05-2012   and after taking sufficient  rest, the complainant, who is working as conductor in APSRTC  joined duty from September, 2012 to November, 2013.  The discharge of the duties for more than 13 months  itself shows that the  surgery conducted by the opposite party is a success one  and because of the  successful surgery, the complainant was attended the duties and discharged  as  conductor  for  more than 13 months.  Hence, we are of the opinion that  there is no deficiency  of service as stated by the complainant against the opposite party.

 

In,  Kusum Sharma & others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others reported in                        I (2010) CPJ 29 (SC)

            Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that   when the  doctor not guilty of medical negligence  as  long as they perform their duties and  exercise ordinary  degree of professional skills    and  competence,   medical negligence not proved   in view of settled principles of medical  negligence – No relief entitled.

 

 

In  Achut Rao  Haribhan  Khodwa Vs. State of Maharashtra   and others  reported in AIR  1996 SC 2377 =  1996 (2) SCC 634.

 

               The Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows;  that  for establishing negligence or deficiency in service there must be sufficient evidence that a doctor or hospital has not  taken reasonable care while treating the patient.  Reasonable care  in discharge  of duties by the hospital   and doctors varies from case to case,  and expertise expected on the subject, which a doctor or a hospital has undertaken.  Courts would be slow  in attributing  negligence on the part of  the doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability with due care and caution.

 

In   K.S. Bhatia Vs. Jeevan Hospital and another reported in  2004 CTJ 175  (NC) (CP)

 

             The Hon’ble  National Commission held, it is for the complainant   to allege and prove negligence by expert  evidence or by producing medical reports.

In    Marble City Hospitals and the Research  Centre Vs. V.R.Soni reported in 2004  (2) CPJ (102) (Rajasthan)

 

               The Hon’ble   State Commission held  that negligence has to be proved, it cannot be presumed.

                 By relying  upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion that as  the  complainant undergone surgery on  02-05-2012  and discharged on 12-05-2012  and after taking of rest, the complainant who is working as   conductor in APSRTC  joined in duty in the month of September, 2012 and worked till November, 2013  as the  complainant has attended his duties without any inconvenience till he went to  APSRTC  Hospital,  Taranaka, Secunderabad,  we are of the opinion that  there is no negligence on the part of opposite party against the complainant.

 

 

In    Shibshree Banerjee  Vs.  Pearless Hospital & B.K.Roy Research Centre and others reported in               III (2009)  CPJ 88 (NC).

 

               The Hon’ble Apex Court held that  when expert evidence not produced,  negligence, deficiency in services not proved.

                

	In Rajkumar Gupta and others Vs.  Dr.P.S.Hardia  and others reported in  2007 (3) CPJ 146 and
	In  Shikha Vs. Dr. Ashoka Jindal reported in 2003 (1) CPJ 239 (NC).

 

             Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held   that when the complainant could not produce any expert evidence to prove medical negligence, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed.

 

                 By relying  upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion  that as the complainant  attended the duty for more than one year after taking rest and discharged his duties as conductor for more than 13 months.  In these circumstances, it cannot be  said  that the opposite party has acted in a negligent manner towards the complainant and services provided by the opposite party  is deficiency of service   and it cannot be possible to say  that  the opposite party  has acted  in negligent manner towards the complainant.

 

              The learned  counsel  for the complainant submits  by relying upon a decision reported in  

Suresha Nanda Vs. DR.Anoop Kumar reported in                 II (2012) CPJ  228 (NC)

 

that  as the doctor has acted in a negligent manner,  it amounts to deficiency of service and submits to allow the complaint with costs.  But the facts in  the decision submitted by the learned counsel  for the complainant is that the person died due to cardiac arrest and the doctor has not produced E.C.G.  report  and not  consulted the cardiologist to  manage the medical position of the patient and once she is suffered, the cardiac arrest  is a serious omission on the part of the doctor.  But the facts in the  above decision are  different  one with the facts of the present case .  In the present case, the complainant   discharged from the hospital, the complainant  undergone  surgery on 02-05-2012  and discharged  on 12-05-2012  and later he attended for his duties as conductor from September, 2012 to November, 2013.  In these circumstances,  we are of the opinion that the facts of the above case are different one. The decision  submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

           The learned counsel for complainant submits by relying upon the decisions in

	Dr. Gangadharan Vs. K.A. Abdul Salam reported in 2004 CTJ 688 (CP) (SCDRC).
	In   Reji Mathew and another Vs. Dr.Radha Krishnan  and another  (NCDRC) reported in 2004 CTJ 55 (NC) (CP)

that  when  direct evidence is not  available to  substantiate the plea of negligence  against a doctor  for risks beyond  the control  of  a complainant, the doctrine of             res ipsa loquitur  comes into play and submits to allow the complaint with costs.  But  we are of the opinion that  the facts of the above  decisions are different  from the facts of the present  case. In these case, the complainant after sufficient time he worked as conductor  and  discharged his duties   in the APSRTC  and after undergone surgery, the complainant attended the duties for 13 months and after the complainant went to APSRTC, Taranaka, Secunderabad then only he came to know about the  damage of the valves.  Further there is no evidence by the  complainant or a medical officer who examined the complainant  in APSRTC, Taranaka, Secunderabad gave  evidence that  the act of the opposite party  is a negligent manner.  In view  of the facts of the present case,  the decision submitted by the learned counsel for the  complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

 

              By relying upon the above decisions and discussion made above, we are of the opinion that there is no negligence  or deficiency of  service by the opposite party towards the complainant and hence  the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.  In view of the above said discussion, we answered this point  against the complainant and in favour of opposite party.

 

11.   POINT No.2: In view of our answering  on point No.1 against   the complainant and in favour of the opposite party, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed.

           In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances no costs.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  11^th day of  OCTOBER, 2017.

 

 

          Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                        Sd/-

      MEMBER                                MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

17-06-2015    and 03-12-2015

Sri Sk.Sardar, S/o.Kalesha, R.T.C.Conductor, Nellore-1 (chief affidavit and additional chief affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party

 

R.W.1  -

13-08-2015

Sri Thalluru Giri, S/o.Penchalanaidu, Executive Director, Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospitals Private Limited, Nellore (Chief affidavit filed).

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	-	Photostat copy of  Appendix-II application for claiming refund of medical expenses for Rs.13,329-14 Ps. in  favour of complainant.
Ex.A2  -	-	Discharge Summary in favour of  complainant issued by the opposite party,  complainant discharged on              12-05-2012.
Ex.A3  -	12-05-2012	Photostat copy of package bill summary issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A4  -	-	Medical bills  issued by the opposite party (Eighteen bills).
Ex.A5  -	14-05-2014	Photostat copy of APSRTC Hospital Credit Reference Number 201402142 Credit Reference Form for emergency medicare.
Ex.A6  -	14-05-2014	Coronary Angiogram Report in admission No.SH14-002861 and Discharge summary in favour of complainant issued by the Sunshine Heart Institute, Secunderabad-03.
Ex.A7  -	-	Discharge Summary (discharged on 02-06-2014)in admission No.SH14-003003 and in favour of complainant issued by the Sunshine Heart Institute, Secunderabad-03.
Ex.A8  -	-	Coronary Angiogram Report  admitted                        dated 26-06-2014 in favour of complainant issued by the Sunshine Heart Institute, Secunderabad-03.
Ex.A9  -		Discharge Summary (discharged on 06-08-2014)in admission No.SH14-004457 in favour of complainant issued by the Sunshine Heart Institute, Secunderabad-03.
Ex.A10  -	-	Photostat copy of Certificate in favour of complainant issued by the Sunshine Heart Institute, Secunderabad-03.
Ex.A11  -	12-09-2014	Legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the opposite party alongwith registered post receipt.
Ex.A12  -	-	Postal acknowledgement received from the opposite party sent by the complainant’s advocate.
Ex.A13  -	-	C.D.   in IP.No.2861 on 14-05-2014 in favour of complainant issued by the Sunshine Heart Institute.
Ex.A14  -	-	C.D.   in c.th.No.2418 & 7789 dated 05-05-2015 to          09-05-2015 in favour of complainant issued by the Sunshine Heart Institute regarding CAG & PTCA along with  others cash bill – cum – receipt dated 05-10-2015.
Ex.A15  -	25-04-2012	Coronary Angiogram Report issued by Narayana Hospital, Nellore in favour of complainant.
Ex.A16  -	-	Out Patient Card in favour of complainant issued by the opposite party.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY

-Nil-

 

                                                                                                             Id/-

 

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri D. Hanumantha Rao and Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocates, Nellore.
2.	Sri V. Upendra Rao, Advocate, 26/2/1664,Chaintanya Nagar, Opposite to Lakshmi Venkataramana Kalyana Mandapam, Vedayapalem,                      Nellore-524 004.

 

Date when free copy was issued: