State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Navneet Kaur vs Sri Guru Harkrishan Sahib on 5 May, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1135 of 2011
Date of institution: 25.7.2011
Date of Decision: 5.5.2014
Navneet Kaur D/o Jaswant Singh through father Jaswant Singh, 2525/B,
Sector 47C, Chandigarh (UT), Pin 160 047, Mobile No. 9888-65056
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Sri Guru Harkrishan Sahib (C) Eye Hospital Trust (Regd.) through
its Manager, Sohana, Tehsil & Distt. Mohali, Punjab.
2. Dr. Vivek Gupta, Orthodontist, SCO 169 (FF), Sector 37C,
Chandigarh.
3. Dr. Saruv Goel Orthodontist, Sri Guru Harkrishan Sahib (C) Eye
Hospital Trust (Regd.), Sohana, Tehsil & Distt. Mohali, Punjab.
4. Dr. J. Nagaraj, Oral Surgeon, Sri Guru Harkrishan Sahib (C) Eye
Hospital Trust (Regd.), Sohana, Tehsil & Distt. Mohali.
5. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 109-111, Sector 17D,
Chandigarh.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated 16.6.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Jaswant Singh, Father of the appellant
For respondents No.1-4: Sh. M.S. Rana, Advocate
For respondents No.5: Ms. Nancy, Advocate for
Sh. Amit Rawal, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.6.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter referred as "the District 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 Forum") in consumer complaint No.168 dated 13.4.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant through his father on the allegations that respondent No. 1 is the hospital and respondent No. 2 as its Doctor. It was alleged that it was the imperative duty of the respondents, who are running medical services to take prompt diagnostic and curative steps, which the opposite parties had failed to act in accordance with the standard of reasonable competent men and are guilty of several deficiencies in their services.
3. It has been alleged that in the year 2006 when the complainant was about 16 years of age, her milk teeth number 13 at right side from upper jaw had fallen down. She waited that natural tooth will appear. When the complainant was student of B.A., LLB 5 years course, in the year 2009, to give good look to facial appearance, she sought medical advice of the respondents. She was examined by Dr. Vivek Gupta, Orthodontics (respondent No. 2) and Dr. J. Nagraj, Oral Surgeon (respondent No. 4) clinically. Complainant's mouth X-ray including Ortho Pentomogram Radiograph (OPG) was done and they confirmed the presence of missing tooth and said the presence of the canine, which had erupted in wrong direction, can be brought on at the right place by Orthodontics treatment within a period of 1 to 1½ years. At the age of 18 years, fixing of artificial tooth was not recommended. It was further explained that the treatment will cost Rs. 14,000/-, which will be paid in instalments. The complainant had agreed to suggested 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 Orthodontics treatment and the treatment started from 6.7.2008 by fixing plates, fixed Orthodontic appliances, wires, bracings, brackets etc.. On 11.11.2008, respondent No. 4 exposed the space of invisible tooth, canine in upper jaw by surgery and then respondents No. 2 & 4 put pulling cord and bracket to pull the exposed malpositioned tooth whereas the malpositioned tooth came out completely towards the wrong direction within two months. With the treatment of putting of wires, surgery and pulling cord the complainant suffered too much pain, headache, which was not bearable. Paid several visits to respondent No. 2 for tightening the pulling cord. However, the malpositioned tooth did not change its direction then the complainant reported to Dr. Saruv Goel-respondent No. 3, who was appointed in place of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 put new bracings/wires on the whole tooth of upper jaw by removing the earlier one and she visited with respondent No. 3 on 15.3.2009, 19.4.2009, 17.5.2009 and on every visit respondent No. 3 was tightening the cord. The malpositioned tooth did not move at all. On 21.6.2009, respondent No. 3 removed cord, E chain cord was fixed on the last 4 teeth to pull the malpositioned tooth but no movement in the malpositioned tooth whereas the complainant was suffering completely from unbearable pain and headache and ultimately, E chain pulling process did not give any result. It was removed on 21.9.2009. Respondent No. 4 placed LA 2 mm stainless steel screw in between 14 & 15 tooth and fixed cord between screw and malpositioned tooth to put the same by using force to bring at right place by charging Rs. 800/- but ultimately, 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 on 10.1.2010 these screws were also removed without any advice on the future course of action.
4. Then the complainant of his own consulted Orthodontic Dr. Jagjit Singh in Mohali and explained the whole episode alongwith papers, which referred for Denta Scan. On 15.1.2010, Denta Scan was done. On seeing the Denta Scan report, Dr. Jagjit Singh advised to again contact respondent No. 3 and show him the Denta Scan for further action. The complainant again went to consult respondent No. 3 on 17.1.2010 alongwith Denta Scan and respondent No. 3 told that malpositioned tooth cannot be brought on right place and it will be removed by surgery and on 15.2.2010, respondent No. 4 had removed the malpositioned tooth No. 13 and further told that another tooth was in the jaw, which was also required to be removed and oral consent was taken to remove that tooth. The complainant paid Rs. 13,800/- to respondent No. 1 for the treatment. Since the complainant had lost faith with respondents No. 1 to 4, therefore, she did not go to these respondents for implanting the new tooth. Ultimately, it has been stated that there was gross negligence on the part of the Ops to give proper treatment and assessing the presence of another tooth alongwith tooth No. 13, which hampered the positioning of malpositioned tooth No. 13 to its correct place. In case it was so it could be adjudged at the initial stage and in case it was not possible to put by way of Orthodontics then the tooth could be removed at the initial stage and new tooth could be implanted at the initial stage and for deficiency in services, he has demanded Rs. 36,310/-, which he had spent for the treatment. The complainant was forced to keep in 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 mouth the foreign material i.e. wiring, brackets cord etc. for about two years and Rs. 50,000/- has been demanded for that; for headache, pain etc. she has demanded Rs. 1 lac and in all he has demanded Rs. 1,86,310/- alongwith interest and litigation expenses.
5. The complaint was contested by the Ops. OP Nos. 1, 3 & 4 and filed written statement taking preliminary submission that respondent No. 1 had taken policy for professional indemnity from the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., therefore, insurance company is necessary party. Preliminary objections were taken that complaint is not maintainable as he has concealed the material facts. There was no evidence of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and that the complainant had no cause of action to file this complaint. On merits, it was stated that the respondents after exercising due diligence and care had diagnosed the case well by explaining the procedure evolved after getting the due consent by the complainant. Respondent No. 1 had engaged very senior and qualified doctors having vast experience and expertise in the field. The treatment is a matter of record. Respondent No. 2 had suggested the complainant for Orthodontics treatment instead of getting artificial tooth because the procedure by which natural tooth can be brought at the right place was best. However, it was denied she was assured of 100% success rate in the period from 1 year to 1½ years. It may take to 2½ to 3 years. It was denied that she suffered pain and headache. However, some discomfort was possible when wires were put and pulling of the cord. The changing of cord or braces with the old one was part of procedure and changes were not taken as any failure in the 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 treatment. The Denta Scan was expensive one, therefore, it was not prescribed otherwise the report of Denta Scan and X-ray is on the same lines. Even the surgery was conducted but despite surgery there was no movement of the both. However, in the Surgical procedure, it came to light that there was another tooth, which was not even visible in Denta Scan/X-ray and ultimately, the complainant was advised abrasion of the tooth, which was done. Therefore, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. The complaint is without merit and the same be dismissed.
6. Respondent No. 2 filed a separate written statement and the written statement is also on the same lines as filed by respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4.
7. Respondent No. 5 filed separate written statement by taking preliminary objections that respondent No. 1 Hospital was insured with policy cover note No. 432970 dated 19.11.2009 from the period 22.11.2009 to 21.11.2010, therefore, in case there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, respondent No. 5 is not responsible. On merits, it has been stated that cause of action has arisen against respondent no. 1 in the year 2008 whereas the policy was taken in the year 2009, therefore, the alleged deficiency, if any, is not covered under the policy.
8. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
9. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. CW-1/1, X-ray copy Ex. C-1, certificate Ex. C-2, cards Exs. C-3 & 4, cash memo Ex. C-5, Denta 7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 Scan report Ex. C-6, X-ray reports Ex. C-7 & &/1, cash receipts Exs. C-8 to C-17, power of attorney of the complainant Ex. C-18, cash receipts Ex. C-19 & 19/1, certificates Ex. C-20 to C-26, treatment card Ex. C-27. On the other hand, opposite party No. 5 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajesh Sharma, Sr. Div. Manager Ex. RW- 5/1, insurance policy Ex. R-4. OP Nos. 1 to 4 had tendered into evidence affidavits of OP Nos. 1 to 4 as Exs. RW-1/1 to Ex. RW-4/1, letter Ex. R-1, policies Ex. R-2 & 3.
10. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the respondents, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order observed that the treatment given by the Ops was according to the standard medical practices, there can be no 100% success rate. The Orthodontics procedure was adopted so that the natural tooth could be brought to its place but when it was not successful then it was extracted, therefore, nothing bad in the treatment and ultimately, it was found that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. The complaint was without merit and the same was dismissed.
11. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
13. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the appellant that order is cryptic, vague and non-speaking and that learned District Forum has not applied the judicious mind as the arguments raised by the appellant alongwith medical literature was 8 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 not considered. The complaint has been dismissed merely on the ground that the appellant had enough time to have a 2nd opinion and that the extraction of tooth No. 13 was not uncalled for. The OPG X- ray taken on 4.7.2011 was of another child pertains to a child between 9 to 10 years and even an ordinary man differentiates position of tooth as well as impacted tooth in the jaw and their position. The respondents failed to properly analyse the photographs of the teeth, face and X-rays, therefore, the respondents failed to properly diagnose the teeth at initial stage as well as at a later stage particularly when treatment was not responding. The respondents also failed to get the OPG Denta Scan, which accepted practice before starting the Orthodontics treatment. They also failed to locate the additional tooth, which was obstructing the way of tooth No. 13. When the respondents did not see any movement of tooth No. 13 during the period 16.2.2009 to 21.6.2009, removed pulling cord and placed E chain cord. At this stage also they failed to replan the mode of treatment keeping in view the response of tooth No. 13. Then on 21.6.2009, they fixed anchorage LA 2 mm stainless steel screw in between tooth No. 14 & 15, at that stage they also failed to replan the mode of treatment keeping in view the response of tooth No. 13 and ultimately, the screws were also removed on 10.1.2010. Again they failed to replan the mode of treatment keeping in view the response of tooth No. 13, therefore, the whole procedure adopted by the respondents from 11.11.2008 to 28.2.2010 was wrong and was not matching with Orthodontic industry and respondents failed to revise diagnosis/procedure, which was not expected from medical expert. 9 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 To cover up their mis-deed first they remove tooth No. 13 and then they also removed the additional tooth without making any effort whether that tooth can take the place from where tooth No. 13 was extracted. The appellant had to undergo pain, stress and her valuable time was also wasted specifically when she was student of the 5 years LLB course, therefore, it has been requested that the order so passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
14. In case we go through the pleadings and evidence brought on the record by the parties, tooth No. 13 of the appellant/complainant was missing and she approached the respondents for the treatment. Respondents No. 2 & 4 examined the complainant critically and take X-ray including OPG and confirmed the presence of missing tooth and advised that it can be set right with Orthodontic treatment within a period of 1 to 1½ years. The treatment was started in the hospital of respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 6.7.2008 and Orthodontics appliances i.e. wires, bracings etc. were fixed. On 11.11.2008, respondent No. 2 exposed the space of invisible tooth. However, the malpositioned tooth did not change its direction despite visit of the complainant to the respondents for several months. On 21.6.2009 pulling cord was removed and E chain cord was fixed on last 4 teeth, which was also removed on 21.6.2009 and LA 2 mm stainless steel screw in between 14 & 15 was fixed and that was also removed on 10.1.2010. Then she approached another Dr. Jagjit Singh of Mohali, who referred for Denta Scan and after Denta Scan the complainant was again referred to respondent No. 3 and after seeing the Denta Scan respondent no. 3 told that the malpositioned 10 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 tooth cannot be brought at the right place, therefore, it has to be removed and on 15.2.2010, respondent No. 4 extracted the malpositioned tooth and other invisible tooth in the Jaw.
15. Seeing the abovesaid history, it has been contended by the appellant that the respondents did not read the test, X-ray, OPG properly otherwise in case tooth No. 13 was not properly coming forward despite Orthodontic treatment, they must visualise that there must be something, which was hampering the placement of tooth No. 13, which was made clear from Denta Scan, which could be done at initial stage and at this stage it can be processed by the respondents whether the malpositioned tooth can be positioned at the proper place or in case invisible tooth in between tooth No. 13, will not allow to change the position of tooth No. 13 then at the very inception of the treatment, tooth No. 13 or invisible tooth, could be extracted, which was done after a gap of about two years, during which the complainant suffered a lot of pain, harassment, wastage of time and money, which was only due to the improper diagnosing by the respondents. Even after initiating the treatment, in case the treatment was not responding then at that stage after a gap of six months or so when the malpositioned was not coming to his place then they should go for repeating the tests to see what were the reasons that the malpositioned tooth was not coming to its proper place.
16. The appellant has referred to the 'Dental Braces' taken from the Wikipedia, where it has been mentioned how the braces work, in which it has been observed as under;-
"How Braces Work 11 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 The application of braces moves the teeth as a result of force and pressure on the teeth. There are four basic elements that are needed in order to help move the teeth. In the case of traditional metal or wire braces, one uses brackets, bonding material, arch wire, and ligature elastic, also called an "O-ring" to help align the teeth. The teeth move when the arch wire puts pressure on the brackets and teeth. Sometimes springs or rubber bands are used to put more force in a specific direction. Braces have constant pressure, which over time, move teeth into their proper positions. Occasionally adjusts may need to wear headgear to keep certain teeth from moving. When braces put pressure on your teeth, the periodontal membrane stretches on one side and is compressed on the other. This movement needs to be done slowly otherwise the patient risks losing his or her teeth. This is why braces are commonly worn for approximately two and a half years and adjustments are only made every three or four weeks. This process loosens the tooth and then new bone grows in to support the tooth in its new position which is technically called bone remodelling. Bone remodelling is a biomechanical process responsible for making bones stronger in response to sustained load- bearing activity and weaker in the absence of carrying a load. Bones are made of cells called osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Two different kinds of bone resorption are possible which are called direct resorption, starting from the lining cells of the alveolar bone, and indirect or retrograde resorption, which takes place when the periodontal ligament has become subjected to an excessive amount and duration of compressive stress. Another important factor associated with tooth movement is bone deposition. Bone deposition occurs in the distracted periodontal ligament and without bone deposition, the tooth will loosen and voids will occur distal to the direction of tooth movement. A tooth will usually move about a millimetre per month during orthodontic movement, but there is high individual variability. Orthodontic mechanics can vary in efficiency, which partly explains the wide range of response to orthodontic treatment."
17. The perusal of the abovesaid medical literature will indicate that with the help of braces as a result of force pressure, the malposition tooth could be brought to its proper place and it takes approximately 2 ½ years depending upon the age of the child. In case the child is less than 16 years it may be earlier to 2½ years and in 12 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 case the child is more than that then the time period can be more than that. It will further reveal that a tooth will usually move about 1mm per month during the Orthodontic movement.
18. Under the Treatment Modalities, it has been observed as under;-
"Treatment modalities Initially, it is always an individual's or his/her family's observation of the smile that makes him/her realise that something is not right. Only after this observation, one visits a dentist or orthodontist with clinical expertise to name this deviation. Besides clinical examination, dental radiographs like Orthopantomogram (OPG) and lateral cephalogram, cone beam Computed Tomography (CT) Scan, dental arch study models and intra and extra oral photographs are used in making the right diagnosis by the treating dentist.
19. He has also referred to the 'Role of Orthognathic Surgeries', which suggests as under:-
"Surgery is a new dimension that has been added to orthodontics. This is a combination procedure carried out by the orthodontist and the oral & maxillofacial surgeon to produce the best possible result for the patient. There are some defects that may require surgery to correct to perfection. These are generally related to large jaws and open bite cases." He further adds, "with the number of cases of adult treatment rising for orthodontic treatment, the number of cases going for final surgical correction is also increasing. Teeth can be moved with braces. But when the problem involves the bones of the face, they have to be set surgically. The need for final correction with surgery is generally determined at the diagnosis stage. However, it is always treatment with braces before surgical correction."
20. When the treatment of the complainant was started by the respondents, there is only one X-ray Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2 is the report and then the Orthodontic treatment was started in the hospital of the respondents. But the proper treatment modalities as referred above were not adopted wherein it has been observed that beside clinical 13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 examination, dental radiographs like Orthopantomogram (OPG) and lateral cephalogram, cone beam Computed Tomography (CT) Scan, dental arch study models and intra and extra oral photographs are used in making the right diagnosis by the treating dentist and except OPG no other modalities were adopted by the respondents for proper treatment.
21. Then as per the observations referred above, with the basic work, a tooth will usually move about 1mm per month, therefore, after start of the treatment in the month of July, 2008 and upto February, 2010, the complainant remained under the treatment of the respondents. During that period surgery was also conducted on tooth No. 13 to leave a space for positioning to make a space for tooth No. 13 to come at a proper place but in fact there was another invisible tooth, which was not allowing tooth No. 13 to come at a position, which came to the knowledge of the respondents when Denta Scan as referred by Dr. Jagjit Singh of Mohali was taken and referred to the respondents. Then they advised for extraction of tooth No. 13 and the invisible tooth alongwith tooth No. 13 was also extracted. Therefore, in case we analyse the entire set of circumstances under which the treatment continued firstly it can be said that proper diagnosis was not done. Apart from OPG, X-ray, the other modalities referred above were not taken by the respondents including the Denta Scan. In case these would have been done at the initial stage then the respondents would have come to know about the invisible tooth alongwith tooth No. 13 and at that time the treatment can be planned whether Orthonotic will be appropriate to 14 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 position the malpositioned teeth or only extraction is possible. Then as referred above how the Orthodontic treatment works as has been clarified in the medical literature referred above. In the Orthodontic literature the teeth will move 1mm every month with the force of braces/wires but when it did not move then atleast after a gap of about six months they should have reviewed their treatment why the treatment is not working, whereas in ordinary process it should have worked; they could go for fresh test including Denta Scan, which was not done and they continued with the said treatment until Denta Scan was referred to them when they came to know that there is another hidden tooth alongwith tooth No. 13, which does not allow to position tooth No. 13 at a proper place and then they had gone for extraction of tooth No. 13 alongwith the said hidden tooth. Certainly, during the period of one year 8 months, sufficient amount was spent by the complainant and she has also undergone lot of pain and suffering and wastage of her precious time when she was a student of 5 year's Law Degree.
22. Now we have to see whether in these circumstances, we can say that there is any deficiency in services on the part of the respondents. The appellant has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun "Neeraj Sardana (Dr.) Vs. Rashmi Kakkar and Another", IV (2008) CPJ 243. In that case, Jaw injury was caused during process of extracting of wisdom tooth. Surgeon deposit possessing required skill, failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence. Fact of breaking of jaw not dutifully brought to 15 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 complainant's notice. Complainant suffered pain for long time. It was held that there is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.' Similarly, in the present case, the respondents have failed to exercise their reasonable competence why Orthodontic treatment was not working. It was perhaps due to deficiency on their part for not taking of proper test i.e. OPG and lateral cephalogram, cone beam Computed Tomography (CT) Scan, dental arch study models and intra and extra oral photographs including Denta Scan and then after a gap of sufficient time to say six months they should have reviewed what are the reasons why the malposition tooth is not moving to its position. Then they shall have reviewed their term to go for fresh test including the Denta Scan, which was not done and ultimately, when Dr. Jagjit Singh of Mohali referred for Denta Scan and from Denta Scan then the respondents came to know that there is hidden tooth alongwith tooth No. 13, which was obstructing tooth No. 13 to come at its place. In case the respondents would have exercise their reasonable competence in the circumstances stated above then they would have come to know about the hidden tooth alongwith tooth No. 13, then certainly, there would have been change in the treatment either to go for Orthodontic or extraction but when the Orthodontic was not working in view of the position of these two teethes referred above then they should have gone for extraction, which was done by them at a later stage.
23. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Doctor can be held responsible for medical negligence in case another mode of treatment has been followed. 16 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 There is no preposition why the respondents followed the method of Orthodontic treatment. The question is that proper tests before adopting this treatment were not done and as indicated by medical literature referred above in case the Orthodontic treatment was not working as it should have worked then they should have re-planned the treatment, which was not done by the respondents having reasonable competence. In case the Doctors does not do what should have been done then it amounts to medical negligence. In case the Doctor would have gone for proper test or would have reviewed its plan for treatment periodically then certainly, the treatment plan can be changed earlier and it would not have gone for a period of 1 year and 8 months for which the complainant had to go for lot of suffering and monetary loss. Therefore, we are of the opinion that certainly, there is medical negligence on the part of the respondents, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned District Forum. Although the medical literature referred above was also referred before the learned District Forum but it was not referred and the complaint was dismissed only on the ground that the complainant failed to go for 2nd opinion in case the patient has posed the confidence in any hospital and its Doctors then the patient is thinking that his treatment will be in the proper direction without knowing whether the respondents are exercising their reasonable competence or not. Ultimately, when the treatment did not work and the complainant took the 2nd opinion from Dr. Jagjit Singh, who referred for Denta Scan and after that the respondents came to know that there is hidden teeth alongwith teeth No. 13, which was 17 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011 obstructing the malpositioned teeth No. 13 to come at a proper place then that teeth alongwith teeth No. 13 was extracted. In view of these circumstances, the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum cannot be substantiated.
24. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted. The order of the learned District Forum is set- aside. The complaint so filed by the complainant is accepted with a direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as a compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment and also pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. The payments shall be made jointly and severally by respondents No. 1 to 4 to the appellant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order.
25. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, the insurance policy is for the period 22.11.2009 to 21.11.2010 whereas the treatment was started from July, 2008, therefore, this policy could not cover the treatment.
26. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 23.4.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
27. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
May 5, 2014. (Vinod Kumar Gupta)
as Member
18
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2011