State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Sandeep Singh Sandhu vs Resham Singh on 22 January, 2016
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014
Date of institution: 19.12.2014
Date of Decision: 22.1.2016
Dr. Sandeep Singh Sandhu C/o Sandhu Hospital, Near Bus Stand, Sri
Muktsar Sahib, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Appellant/Op No. 1
Versus
1. Resham Singh S/o Suraj Singh r/o Village Gurusar, Tehsil
Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. National Insurance Company, Railway Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib
through its Branch Manager.
Respondent No.2/Op No.2
First Appeal against the order dated 19.6.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate
For respondent No. 1 : Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Advocate
For respondent No. 2 : Sh. P.S. Bedi, Advocate
First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 2
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 1543 of 2014
Date of institution: 27.11.2014
National Insurance Company Ltd., Railway Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib
through its Regional Office S.C.O. No. 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh
through its duly constituted Attorney.
Appellant/Op No. 2
Versus
1. Resham Singh S/o Suraj Singh r/o Village Gurusar, Tehsil
Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Dr. Sandeep Singh Sandhu C/o Sandhu Hospital, Near Bus Stand,
Sri Muktsar Sahib, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Respondent No.2/Op No.1
First Appeal against the order dated 19.6.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. P.S. Bedi, Advocate
For respondent No. 1 : Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Advocate
For respondent No. 2 : Sh. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
This order will dispose of both the appeals arising out of the impugned order dated 19.6.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 131 dated 2.7.2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 3 Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short the "District Forum") vide which the complaint filed by complainant was partly allowed and with the direction to Op Nos. 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which complainant will be entitled to recover interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
2. Complainant filed complaint against Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') on the averments that he was suffering from pain in his abdomen for the last 4-5 months. He approached Op No. 1 for check up and was advised to get one ultrasound/scan for proper diagnosis and he got it from Dr. P.S. Bhandari from Bhandari Diagnostic Centre, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 31.1.2013 and approached Op No. 1, who was running his hospital at Sri Muktsar Sahib. After going through scanning report, Op No. 1 gave an opinion that there was problem of stone in right kidney and was advised to remove the same by Laparoscopic surgery. He was further advised to get X-ray report and he got the same from Dr. P.S. Bhandari. As per the assurance of Op No. 1 that stone will be removed by way of operation and he will be all right within 2 days. He was admitted with Op No. 1 on 5.2.2013 and on the same day at 6.00 p.m. he was operated and it was assured by Op No. 1 that the operation was successful. But complainant was still feeling severe pain in his abdomen and Op No. 1 told that he will again operate him and was operated on 8.2.2013. However, he was still feeling pain in his abdomen but was assured that pain will stop after some time automatically. The condition of the complainant was serious in nature First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 4 and he requested Op No. 1 to relieve him from this pain. On 14.3.2013, he was discharged by Op No. 1 and was advised to take treatment from an other Doctor. He then came to PGI. After taking some tests, ultrasound and scan upon which he came to know that at the time of surgery, a vein was cut/punchered due to the negligence of Op No. 1 and internal bleeding started in the kidney. Some blood clot had collected in the kidney as a result of which, he was suffering severe pain on account of bleeding in the kidney. Dr. Ravi Mohan of PGI, Chandigarh operated the patient and removed the clot of blood weighing 100 gram and stent was inserted in vein to stop the bleeding, which make out a case that Op No. 1 was negligent as a result of which he suffered physical and mental harassment. Accordingly, complaint was filed claiming Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Complaint was contested by Ops. Op No. 1 in its written reply/version took the preliminary objections that the complaint was frivolous, vague and vexatious as there was no iota of evidence to prove negligence on the part of this Op; complainant had levelled false and frivolous allegations, therefore, it was liable to be dismissed; complaint was bad for non-joining of Dr. Ravi Mehta of PGI and Dr. Dayal Pratap Sharma, who had performed the operation of the complainant, having degree of MBBS, MS, M.Ch.(Urology). He was competent and renowned Doctor of the area whereas Op No. 1 was possessing degree of MBBS, MS (Surgery). As per Ultrasound report, there was stone of 25 MM in right kidney and 20 MM in right ureter. Although the size of the stone was very large but Dr. Dayal First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 5 Pratap Sharma had removed it as per medical ethics and drain pipe was inserted in the kidney and stent was inserted from kidney to urinary bladder. On 11.2.2013, complainant required to remove the drain pipe (Nephrostomy) in OT under X-ray (C-Arm) but there were small pieces of stones, therefore, check Nephrostomy was done and a small fragment of stone from lower calyx of right kidney was removed and Nephrostomy i.e. drain pipe was again inserted in the same place. Complainant was healthy and there was no complication for any kind and he was discharged in a satisfactory condition on 13.2.2013 with drain pipe and catheter. They were removed on 16.2.2013 and condition of the patient was OK. The chances of haemorrhage in kidney are most common complication as per 9th edition Book of Urology of Campbell Walsh (Volume - 2 ). It was further observed that the detailed and intermittent bleeding can occur due to formation of pseudoaneurysms, which was successfully managed by the PGI, Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of this OP. Complainant was referred to PGI on 12.3.2013 for treatment and investigation of pseudoaneurysms, which was available in PGI but the complainant did not bother to go to PGI. He again approached Op on 14.3.2013 and that the complainant visited PGI on 15.3.2013 and was admitted on 16.3.2013. No fee was charged, therefore, complainant was not a consumer. On merits, averments as stated in the preliminary objections were reiterated. Op had received just a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for operation on 6.2.2013. It was denied that complainant had paid Rs. 17,000/-. In case there was any complication, it was known complication of the procedure, First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 6 which cannot be termed as medical negligence on the part of this OP, therefore, the complaint was without merit. It be dismissed.
4. Op No. 2 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint in the present form was not maintainable,
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, scan report Ex. C-2, X- ray report Ex. C-3, discharge card of Sandhu Hospital Ex. C-4, prescription slip Ex. C-5, admission card Ex. C-6, brief summary Ex. C-7, ultrasound report Ex. C-8, scan report Ex. C-9, ultrasound report Ex. C-10, affidavit of Dr. Ravi Mohan Ex. C-11, PGI record Ex. C-12 to 32. On the other hand, Op No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Sandeep Ex. Op-1, treatment file of Resham Singh Ex. Op-2, book Campbell Walsh (Urology) Ex. Op-3. Op No. 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Pradeep Kumar Narula, Br. Manager Ex. Op-2/1, policy Ex. Op-2/2, medical professional indemnity Ex. Op-2/3, proposal form Ex. Op-2/4.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was allowed as referred above.
8. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP No.1 has filed First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 and appellant/Op No.2 has filed First Appeal No. 1543 of 2014 for setting aside the impugned order.
First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 7FIRST APPEAL NO. 1639 OF 2014
9. It has been argued by the appellants/OP No. 1 that the findings of the District Forum are erroneous while quoting that if the appellant was not having facilities to undertake such an operation, he should have avoided. However, hospital of the appellant had all the facility to conduct Laparoscopic Surgery of removing stones from the kidney but post PNL, the problem of pseudoaneurysm right renal artery occurred, which is a known complication and appellant hospital was not having facility to diagnose pseudoaneurysm, therefore, he was referred to PGI but it does not amount to negligence. Even Doctor of PGI Dr. Ravi Mohan has stated that it is known complication of per cutaneous nephrolithotumy (PNL) and this problem can occur 1-2 persons and haemorrhage is common complication in after PNL. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is without proper appreciation of the evidence on the record and liable to be set-aside.
10. Whereas the counsel for respondent No.1/complainant argued that the complainant was admitted with Op no. 1 for laparoscopic surgery of removing stone in right kidney. He was operated on 5.2.2013 but completely the stones were not removed and he was again operated on 8.2.2013 but there was no relief of pain and ultimately, the complainant came to know that there was a vein cut/puncture due to negligence of Op No. 1, as a result of that clot of blood had collected in the kidney and he was referred to PGI where he was operated upon by Dr. Ravi Mohan and 100 gm blood clot was taken out and stent was inserted. Non-removing of the First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 8 stones in one go and then cutting of veins collection of blood and in admitting the patients, in case the Doctor could not control post operative complication amounted to negligence on the part of Op. This point was correctly appreciated by the District Forum, therefore, the order so passed by the District Forum be affirmed.
11. We have heard the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties.
12. As is clear from the pleadings of the parties, the complainant was having pain in his abdomen, who consulted Op No. 1 and after ultrasound, stone in the right kidney was detected and laparoscopic surgery was recommended, which was done on 5.2.2013 but the complainant was not relieved of the pain and part of the stones had remained in the abdomen and complainant was again operated on 8.2.2013 and was discharged on 14.3.2013. Then he was referred to PGI. Ultrasound was again done and he came to know that there was a vein cut/puncture due to the negligence of Op No. 1 and internal bleeding started/ collected blood of clot collected in the kidney, which was removed by the Doctor of PGI. Dr. Ravi Mohan weighing 100 gm and stent was inserted.
13. Whereas the plea of Op before the District Forum was that in case there was any problem, which was known complication of the procedure, otherwise Op No. 1 was fully competent and had been conducting such surgery. It is not a case of medical negligence. However, the District Forum in its order also observed that in case of problem of PNL and haemorrhage was most common, one out of three.
First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 9
14. It is clear from these facts that the complainant had stone in his right kidney and surgery was required, which was done. On 5.2.2013, when again ultrasound was done, it was observed that part of the stone was still left in the kidney and complainant was again operated and that was removed.
15. Now the complication to the complainant as alleged in the complaint is cut of vein as a result of which the blood clots collected in the kidney on account of haemorrhage and that the problem of PNL is a known complication of the procedure. For that we will have to consult the medical record on the file.
16. When the patient was taken to PGI, it was observed in CT Angiography Renal Vessels (Ex. C-9) as under:-
"Right kidney measures 13.4 cm in length and shows mildly reduced nephrographic density and normal outline, with delayed contrast excretion. There is moderate to gross hydroureteronephrosis, with the right PCS and ureter distended with hyperdense contents s/o clots.
* There are a few hyperdense calculi in the lower polar calyx of the RK, largest 7.7 mm in size (1355 HU). Right ureter measures 16mm in diameter.
* There is mild perinephric and periureteric stranding, with thickening of the posterior pararenal and lateroconal fascia. Left kidney measures 12.6 cm in length and shows normal nephrographic density and outline. Left PCS is compact. There is presence of a 6mm calculus in the lower polar calyx of LK First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 10 (1300 HU). There is normal contrast excretion by the left kidney in delayed phase.
* Left ureter is not dilated.
* There are single right and left renal arteries, which show
normal course, calibre, branching pattern and contrast
opacification.
* There is presence of a lobulated contrast-fitted out
pouching measuring approximately 13.3*8 mm in the interpolar region of right kidney, in relation to one of the intersegmental arteries arising from the posterior division of right renalk artery, (s/o pseudoaneurysm).
* Note made of circumaortic left renal vein.
* Celiac axis and its branches, SMA and its branches and
the IMA show normal course, calibre and contrast opacification. * Urinary bladder is distended with presence of hyperdense dependent contents s/o clots. Foley's catheter is seen in situ. * Visualized abdominal organs are grossly normal. * Note made of subcutaneous emphysema in the anterior abdominal wall (R>L)."
17. Then there is affidavit filed by Dr. Ravi Mohan, Asstt. Professor, Department of Urology, who had conducted the surgery on the person of the complainant stated that the complainant had came to PGI Emergency on 15.3.2013 and was admitted under Department of Urology on 16.3.2013 with diagnosis post PNL Haemorrhage. He gave history of right URS and right PNL. On 5.2.2013 and 8.2.2013 at Sri Muktsar Sahib, had post procedure hematuria and was First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 11 discharged on hematuria and after 3-4 days presented with clot retention. He then underwent clot evacuation for six times. CT angiography showed pseudoaneurysm in relation to the posterior intesegmental branch of right renal artery with right hydroureteronephrosis with hyperdence contents within PCS and UB s/p clots and bilateral nephrolithiasis and he had undergone selective angioembolisation of right renal artery pseudoaneurysm and patient had features suggestive of emphysema of right lower chest, which was managed conservatively and patient's condition improved, he was discharged after two days i.e. on 22.3.2013.
18. Counsel for the Op has referred to 9th edition book on Urology of Campbell Walsh, Volume 2, Page 1544 wherein it has been referred that Renal venous lacerations are not uncommon and may also be managed conservatively. The insertion of a large (26 or 28 Fr) nephrostomy tube aids in controlling venous bleeding. The tube can be clamped, allowing the pelvicalyceal system to fill with clot and creating enough pressure to tamponade venous bleeding. This manoeuvre may not be sufficient if bleeding is brisk or from a large branch of the renal vein. Gupta and coworkers (1997) presented a technique utilizing a selectively positioned and inflated Council balloon catheter that was successful in controlling haemorrhage without affecting renal function in five patients with renal vein injury during percutaneous renal surgery. The technique involves first a nephrostogram at the end of the procedure to delineate the exact site of egress of contrast medium into a vein.
First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 12
19. With regard to haemorrhage, again it is a common complication and it has been referred as under in that book:-
"Hemorrhage Blood loss is a common occurrence during percutaneous procedures of the kidney. In particular, excessively medial punctures, multiple punctures, and punctures into kidneys with abnormal anatomy are associated with an increased risk of bleeding (Sampaio, 1996; Martin et al, 1999). In addition, patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications are more likely to experience bleeding. In the majority of cases, the amount of blood lost during percutaneous procedures is not significant enough to require transfusion and conservative management is generally sufficient. Occasionally, blood transfusion may be warranted depending on baseline hematocrit, presence of comorbidities, and amount of blood lost. Rarely, angiographic embolization of the injured vessel is necessary. In a series of 2200 patients who underwent percutaneous renal surgery, only 17 patients (0.8%) had uncontrollable bleeding requiring angiography and embolization (Kessaris et at, 1995). The most common sources of refractory bleeding in this series were arteriovenous fistulas (41%) and pseudoaneurysms (35). For patients with bleeding refractory to angiographic embolization, open surgical exploration is warranted."
20. Op had adopted the proper procedure but the complainant was still feeling pain and ultimately, he was referred to First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 13 PGI and in the PGI, as per the report of Dr. Ravi Mohan, Asstt. Professor had showed pseudoaneurysm for which the treatment was given in the PGI and the Doctor of the PGI had given a proper treatment and after that the patient was normal. Pseudoaneurysm has been described as under:-
"A pseudoaneurysm, also known as a false aneurysm, is a hematoma that forms as the result of a leaking hole in an artery. Note that the hematoma forms outside the arterial wall, so it is contained by the surrounding tissues. Also it must continue to communicate with the artery to be considered a pseudoaneurysm. This must be distinguished from a true aneurysm which is a localised dilatation of an artery including all the layers of the wall. A pseudoaneurysm is also different from an arterial dissection, which is a separation of the layers of the arterial wall, and may be associated with later aneurysm formation. Distinctively, in a pseudoaneurysm, the hole in the arterial wall is generally the consequences of a vascular injury. By opposition, true aneurysms and dissections are usually the consequence of an arterial wall congenital or acquired deficiency, for example by means of atherosclerosis."
In the same book, it has been observed as under:-
"Arterial bleeding is relatively rate during percutaneous renal surgery but may be encountered intraoperatively or in the early or late postoperative period. Intraoperatively, it may present as pulsatile efflux of bright red blood through the puncture needle or working sheath and may not respond to conservative First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 14 measures. If it occurs during dilation of the tract, the vessel is usually a tiny arteriole and tamponade may be successful. Endoscopic fulguration of parenchymal bleeding is rarely successful and is more likely to exacerbate than ameliorate the situation. If the injury is more central (i.e., near the collecting system), endoscopic fulguration may succeed for tiny vessels. Most of the time, however, bleeding is brisk enough to prevent continuation of surgery and angiographic evaluation is necessary and should not be delayed. As a temporizing method, the Kaye tamponade ballon catheter may be maximally inflated to limit blood loss in preparation for definitive management. Many patients require blood transfusion and subsequent superselective embolization under angiographic control (Beaujeux et al, 1995; Martin et al, 2000). If the exact site of bleeding can be identified, angiographic embolization is virtually universally successful in controlling hemorrhage. Open surgical exploration in these situations rarely succeeds and most often results in nephrectomy.
Delayed bleeding after percutaneous procedures is almost always secondary to pseudoaneurysms or arteriovenous fistulas. The former occur from partial vessel laceration during initial access or dilation with subsequent weakening of the vessel wall and eventually intermittent rupture into the collecting system, resulting in spasmodic bleeding that is intermittently severely brisk and then spontaneously resolves only to recur hours or days later. The key to successful management is renal First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 15 angiography during active bleeding (with the aid of an arterial vasodilator such as papaverine if necessary). Arteriovenous fistulas usually result from injury to proximate artery and veins, allowing blood to flow from the high pressure artery to the low pressure vein without tamponade from surrounding tissues. The bleeding can be immediate or delayed but is more likely to be continuous compared with pseudoaneurysms. The treatment of choice again is highly selective angiographic embolization."
21. Therefore, all the problems, which arose after the surgery are the known-complication of the procedure. No doubt that the District Forum has relied upon the judgment "Kusum Sharma and others versus Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others", 2010(3) SCC 480 and issued the guidelines that the following principles must be kept in mind while deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence:-
"I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 16 reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires. IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence. VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 17
VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension. X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners. XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals."
No doubt, the District Forum has taken some paragraphs of the judgment but no findings have been recorded how the Doctor was negligent and whether the Doctor has not worked as a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge or that his conduct fell below the standards of reasonably competent practitioner. According to this judgment, the negligence cannot be attributed to the Doctor so long he performed his duties with reasonable skill and competence. No observations has been given by the District Forum where and in what First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 18 manner the Doctor had fallen below the normal medical standards. In case some known complications had arisen i.e. a part of the procedure for which the Doctor cannot be held negligent. In case Op No. 1 had referred the patient to PGI that cannot be treated as a negligence. It has been so held by the Hon'ble National Commission reported in IV (2015) CPJ 507 (NC) "N. Manjunathan v. Anantha Ashram Hospital Mathigiri". In that case, hospital had referred the patient to higher centre, which was correct decision to control PPH due to coagulation failure. Then it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the Doctor. Similarly, in this case, the Doctor had referred the patient to check pseudoaneurysm, therefore, mere reference to the PGI for better treatment cannot be held as a case of medical negligence. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the District Forum are not based upon proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on the record, therefore, the order so passed by the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
22. In view of the above, we accept the appeal. Impugned order is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1543 OF 2014
23. This is an appeal filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd.. This company has given the insurance cover to Op No. 1 - Dr. Sandeep Singh Sandhu. The appeal filed by the Doctor has been accepted and the complaint filed by the complainant has been dismissed. Therefore, automatically the liability of the insurance First Appeal No. 1639 of 2014 19 company to indemnify OP No. 1 also goes. Accordingly, this appeal is also accepted and impugned order qua Op No. 2 is hereby set-aside.
24. The appellant-NIC Ltd. had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant-NIC Ltd. by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
25. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 12.1.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
26. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
27. Copy of this order be placed on F.A. No. 1543 of 2014.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member January 22, 2016. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member