State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohammed Ajmal vs M/S Appollo Hospitals on 9 May, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 09-05-2008 Complaint Case No. C-368/1998 Shri Mohammed Ajmal, -Complainant S/o Shri Mohammed Umar, Through R/o 34, Chatham Lines Mr. S.A. Zaidi, Allahabad, U.P. Advocate. Versus 1. M/s Appollo Hospitals, -Opposite Party No.1 Sarita Vihar, Through Delhi Mathura Road, Mr. Lalit Bhasin with New Delhi-110044. Ms. Mriganka Penkhat, Advocates. 2. Dr. S.N. Gupta, -Opposite Party No.2 Consultant Through Appollo Hospital, Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sarita Vihar, Advocate. New Delhi-110044. CORAM: Mr. Justice J.D.Kapoor President Ms Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complainant has alleged medical negligence on the part of OP I & 2 in his treatment and claimed compensation of Rs 15 lacs. Facts in brief are as follows:
2. On the advice of the OP No.2, the complainant underwent several tests and accordingly was advised lap chole operation and at the time of the complainants admission in the hospital of OP No.1, the complainant had been complaining of stomach pain and uneasiness in the abdomen. The gall bladder was to be removed by means of lap chole which needed anesthesia. The complainant agreed to undergo the said lap chole operation, the package of which was for Rs.37,500/-. After the said operation OP No.2 told that since he could not succeed in the operation by means of lap chole, as such he had cut open the abdomen of the complainant and removed the gall bladder surgically.
3. That the complainant continued to remain in the hospital of OP No.1 and continued to suffer shooting pain, and un-easiness which was in-surmountable. On the insistence of OP No.2, the complainant underwent an endoscopy on 29.11.96 and prior to the endoscopy, the complainant also underwent an ultra sound on the insistence of the OP No.2 on 28.11.96. The report of the ultra sound clearly revealed the presence of extensive free fluid in the abdomen and the pelvic. The endoscopy diagnosed as ERC performed which showed normal and stanting because of oedematous papillae. The endoscopy report suggested and revealed that after the operation, for the removal of the gall bladder, a leaking duct was cut and thereafter not sealed properly which resulted in the accumulation of several litres of fluid. At the time of admission to the hospital of OP No.1, the Cretanine content on 20.11.96 was 1.4 mg/dl against the normal range of 0.5-1.3 mg/dl which was high by any standards and due to the constant operations and the leaking duct and besides the gross negligence of OP No.1 and 2, the cretanine level increased from the normal range to 2.7 mg/dl on 4.12.96, 3.6 mg/dl on 3.12.96, 4.5 mg/dl on 2.12.96, 5.0mg/dl on 1.12.96, 5.1 mg/dl , on 1.12.96 and 3.1mg/dl on 29.11.96.
4. That after undergoing the endoscopy, the OP No.2 insisted the complainant to undergo another operation so that the duct could be sealed and the fluid from inside the abdomen be drained out. The OP No.2 conducted another operation on 29.11.96.
The fluid which was accumulated in the abdomen of the complainant was drained out by making an insertion of about 6 inches in the abdomen. The condition of the complainant continued to worsen resulting in the complainant being admitted in the ICU of the OP No.1. The low hemoglobin and the near total failure of the kidney was also due to the gross negligence of the OP No.1 &
2. As a result of the flushing of the fluid and due to the gross negligence of the doctors of OP No.1 and OP No.2, the complainant had a nearly total collapse of the kidney besides had to suffer other ailments. OP No.1 & 2 in active collusion and co-operation with each other have overcharged the petitioner to the tune of nearly Rs.1,59,695/-. Complainant has sought compensation in the following terms:-
Sl.
No. Loss of earning for a period of 20 days and thereafter till the filing of the petition.
Rs.
5,00,000/-
2.
On account of over charged bill Rs.
1,59,695/-
3. Interest @ 24% for 24 months Rs. 76,800/-
4. Legal expenses Rs. 13,500/-
5. On account of compensation for harassment, mental torture, occasioned to the petitioner.
Rs.
7,50,000/-
Total Rs.
14,99,995/-
5. While denying any deficiency in service and negligence on its part, OP I has come up with the following pleas:-
(i) That the complaint by the very nature would require detailed oral and documentary evidence for adjudication for which the appropriate forum would be Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
(ii) That there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the answering OP.
The doctors and staff of the OP were quite vigilant and attentive to the patient and to his condition at every point of time. The consultant doctor is not an employee of OP hospital and hospital is not responsible/liable for any alleged negligence or deficiency in service in diagnosing and giving treatment on the part of consultant doctor.
(iii) That the ailment of the complainant/patient required close investigation and detailed enquiry which was not possible within 2/3 days. Therefore, there was no question of offering such kind of package scheme to the complainant. The patient was successfully operated upon and his Gall Bladder was removed by using conventional method as Lap Chole method was not possible keeping in mind his case history. It was found that there was accumulation of fluid in complainants abdomen due to leaking of accessory duct. This leakage has nothing to do with operation of Gall Bladder of the complainant.
6. As to the package deal OP No.1 has come out with the following explanation :-
(i) That the complainant was admitted initially in Super Deluxe Room and later on at his request was shifted to Deluxe room. The two alleged packages (1) Super Deluxe package and (2) Deluxe package, which the complainant has referred in his complaint were not applicable in case of the patient as those two packages are meant for straight forward cases, which normally do not take more than 2/3 days. The ailment of the complainant required close investigation and detailed enquiry which was not possible within 2/3 days. Therefore, there was no question of offering such kind of package scheme to the complainant.
(ii) The complainant at the very outset was told that since his Gall Bladder was inflamed due to stone, a Lap Chole method may not be possible and conventional method would be applied for removing the Gall Bladder. Accordingly, patient was successfully operated upon and his Gall Bladder was removed by using conventional method as Lap Chole method was not possible keeping in mind his case history.
(iii) However, the complainant developed some complications independent of said operation and was having acute pain in his abdomen. The complainant was asked to undergo few tests like Ultrasound and Endoscopy to find out the exact cause of abdominal pain. It was through this investigations only which pin pointed the problem and clinched the diagnosis. It was found that there was accumulation of fluid in complainants abdomen due to leaking of accessory duct. This is well documented anatomical aberration/anomaly that is seen only very rarely and is a minuscule structure and it is very often not possible to identify it at the time of operation as it may not leak at that time and leak subsequently. It is pertinent to point out here that this leakage has nothing to do with operation of Gall Bladder of the complainant.
7. OP No.2 refuted the allegations of negligence on his part and raised the following pleas in his defence:-
(i) That the complainant has not come with clean hands and he has suppressed material facts. Grievances alleged by the complainant in the present complaint do not attract the provision of deficiency in service. The complaint is time barred and bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
(ii) OP No.2 is professionally insured by the Insurance Company and as such the insurance company a necessary and required party in the present complaint.
(iii) It is denied that after undergoing the endoscopy, the OP No.2 clearly admitted to the mistake during the course of the first operation conducted on 22.11.1996 and insisted the complainant to undergo another operation so that the duct could be sealed and the fluid from inside the abdomen be drained out. The collection of fluid was due to leaking from an accessory bile duct. It is very often not possible to identify it at the time of operation as it may not leak at that time and leak subsequently. There was no negligence or any ones part at any stage. The ultrasound and endoscopy are sound scientific investigation and as and when necessary are carried out to clinch the diagnosis.
8. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the discharge summary, which is to the following effect:-
On 29-11-96 ERCP done cystic duct stump was normal. Contrasts shown to spill out into abdominal cavity from a rent proximal to cystic duct stump. Rest of billary tree normal. Billary stenting was not successful. Patient taken up for surgery on 29-11-96.
9. Other documents relied upon by the complainant are as under:-
(i) Receipt for Rs. 10,000/-.
(ii) Receipt for Rs. 20,000/-.
(iii) Ultra Sound Reprot dated 20-11-1996.
(iv) Blood report dated 20-11-96.
(v) Surgical Pathology Reprot dated 23-11-96.
(vi) Ultra Sound Reprot dated 28-11-1996.
(vii) Endoscopy Report dated 29-11-1996.
(viii) Biochemistry report dated 30-11-1996.
(ix) Biochemistry report dated 01-12-1996.
(x) Biochemistry report dated 01-12-1996.
(xi) Biochemistry report dated 02-12-1996.
(xii) Biochemistry report dated 03-12-1996.
(xiii) Pathology report dated 03-12-1996.
(xiv) Biochemistry report dated 03-12-1996.
(xv) Biochemistry report dated 04-12-1996.
(xvi) Biochemistry report dated 04-12-1996.
(xvii) Microbiology report dated 04-12-1996.
(xviii) Ultrasound report dated 04-12-1996.
(xix) Biochemistry report dated 05-12-1996.
(xx) Pathology report dated 05-12-1996.
(xxi) Biochemistry report dated 06-12-1996.
(xxii) Bill dated 07-12-1996. (xxiii) Biochemistry report dated 07-12-1996. (xxiv) Biochemistry report dated 08-12-1996. (xxv) Bill dated 10-12-1996. (xxvi) Discharge summary dated 10-12-1996.
(xxvii) Protest letter dated 10-12-1996.
(xxviii) Final Bill dated 10-12-1996.
10. Question of ascertaining medical negligence has been cropping up time and again. Guidelines and criteria for ascertaining the medical negligence laid down in Bolams case reported in (1957) 2 AII ER 118, 121 D-F still hold the field. This test, in popular parlance is known as Bolam Test after the name of the petitioner. In short the test is as under:-
[Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is to the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill. It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art (Charles worth & Percy, ibid., para 8.02)
11. Bolam test was accepted with approval in the following judgments:-
(I) Sidway V. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and Others 643 All England Law Reprots (1985) 1 All ER.
(II) Maynard V. West Midlands Regional Health Authority 635 All England Law Reports (1985) 1 All ER.
(III) Whitehouse V. Jordan and Another 650 All England Law Reports (1980) 1 All ER.
12. Presumably because of persuasive value of Bolams case that our own Supreme Court has in case after case and particularly in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Others (1995) 6 SCC 651 wherein Bolams case was also discussed has adopted this test as guidelines for the courts to adjudicate the medical negligence. Latest judgment of Supreme Court on this aspect is Jacob Matthew Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2005) SCC (Crl.) 1369. Observations of Supreme Court are as under:-
(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings:
either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, which reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.
The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices.
A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.(4)
The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolams case, WLR at p. 586 holds good in its applicability in India.
13. While dealing with the concept of criminal medical negligence as well as the medical negligence the broad principles laid down by the Supreme Court are -
(i) That the guilty doctor should be shown to have done something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.
(ii) Hazard or the risk taken by the doctor should be of such a nature that injury which resulted was most likely imminent.
14. Although, there is a distinction between the medical negligence of a criminal nature and simplicitor medical negligence but consumer is entitled for compensation on account of both kinds of negligence. The test for holding the medical professional liable for criminal negligence should be such which should manifestly demonstrate utter act of rashness and negligence whereas ordinarily the medical negligence or deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service (Section 2(1)(g)).
15. To ascertain the medical negligence, cumulative conclusions drawn from various decisions can be summed up in the form of following queries? Decision will depend upon the answers:-
(i) Whether the treating doctor had the ordinary skill and not the skill of the highest degree that he professed and exercised, as everybody is not supposed to possess the highest or perfect level of expertise or skills in the branch he practices?
(ii) Whether the guilty doctor had done something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional would do when in ordinary senses and prudence?
(iii) Whether the risk involved in the procedure or line of treatment was such that injury or death was imminent or risk involved was upto the percentage of failures?
(iv) Whether there was error of judgment in adopting a particular line of treatment? If so what was the level of error? Was it so overboard that result could have been fatal or near fatal or at lowest mortality rate?
(v) Whether the negligence was so manifest and demonstrative that no professional or skilled person in his ordinary senses and prudence could have indulged in?
(vi) Everything being in place, what was the main cause of injury or death. Whether the cause was the direct result of the deficiency in the treatment and medication?
(vii) Whether the injury or death was the result of administrative deficiency or post-operative or condition environment-oriented deficiency?
16. There is no dispute that as per the package deal/in-patient billing dated 07-12-1996 of the OP Hospital at item No. 117 reference of a package deal is as under :-
117. Package Deal (Lap Chole) Dr. Pradeep Kumar 06-12-1996 = Rs. 37,500.
17. However, according to the OPs this was an interim bill followed by a final bill of Rs. 1,00,000/- in which amount of package deal does not figure.
18. The main gravemen of the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that due to medical negligence while performing the operation for Lap Chole complainant suffered a second operation for which he was unnecessarily charged as he had approached the OP Hospital only for the Lap Chole operation which was a package deal as shown in item No. 117 at page 27 costing Rs. 37,500/-. It is contended by the learned counsel that second surgery was done because the first surgery was unsuccessful as originally he was to be discharged on 29-11-1996 but he could not be discharged due to wrong diagnosis in as much as that the team of doctors was called to investigate the cause of the pain and thereafter endoscopy and ultrasound was done on their advice and the endoscopy and ultrasound confirmed leakage of fluid about two litres in the stomach due to not stamping the bile duct after the operation.
19. Learned counsel also contended that large quantity of fluid accumulated in the stomach due to non-stamping of bile duct caused kidney under huge pressure due to fluid and consequently kidney stopped functioning and the kidney was on the brink of failure as a result of which creatinine level had gone up.
20. Thus in nutshell the contention of the learned counsel is that all the complications were caused because after the surgery the duct was not stamped and it was left open from where the fluid accumulated in the stomach and led to the third surgery. Had the doctors stamped the duct there would have been no leakage of the fluid and no further damage would have been caused to the complainant.
21. On behalf of OP No. 2/Doctor against whom allegation of negligence is alleged, the learned counsel has referred to document No.7 of the complainant i.e. Endoscopic Findings, which is to the following effect:-
ERC performed which showed normal CBD with a cystic duct stump. There is evidence of leakage of contrast proximal to the cystic duct stump? It was difficult to negotiate the papilla and stenting because of oedematous papillae. The left hepatic duct both intra and extra hepatic are visualized. The right hepatic duct could not be seen because of the out flow of the contrast at its origin.
22. Learned counsel has also relied upon the discharge summary dated 10-12-1996 of the OP No.1-Hospital, which is to the following effect:-
Patient a known case of TVD & Cholitiathiasis (Bypass Surgery in Feb94), was admitted with mild icterus and fever for 2-3 days. Patient was nvestigated, and LFT was found to be deranged S. Bilirubin was 2.0 mg/dl., S. Amylase 24 IU/L, SP : 84 IU/L, PTT : 49.0 secs.
Patient was also worked up with a Cardiologist & Echo revealed Dyskinesis of LV Apex, Akinesis distal 1/3 1/3 SOS LVEF 45%, MRI 13, No. left ventricular clot. ECG regealed old inf. + Anteroseptal Ml. TMP : Negative.
Surgery: Patient was taken up for Cholecystectomy on 2-11-1996. Gall Bladder was inflamed & adhered to surrounding visceras. CBD was normal cholecystectomy was done on 22-11-96 under GA.
Post operatively patient developed,.
Billary pentonitis and USG revealed abdomen full of Bile.
29-11-96 : ERCP done cystic duct stump was normal. Contrast shown to spill out into abdominal cavity from a rent proximal to cystic duct stump. Rest of billary tree normal. Billary stenting was not successful. Patient taken up for surgery on 29-11-96.
Per OP : 2 litre of bile evacuated. A small opening was seen in cystic duct, distal to ligature near the base Must have been the junction of an accessory duct. The accessory duct opening was ligated.
Per OP Cholangio gram done.
Billary system intact.
Post operatives Patient monitored in ICU 20/11 29/11 30/11 1/12 8/12 S.Urea 33 mg/dl 90 mg.dl 71 mg/dl 124 mg/dl 30 mg/dl S.Creatinine 1.4 mg/dl 3.1 mg/dl 2.7 mg/dl 5 mg/dl 1.4mg/dl Na+ 133meq/lt 136meq/lt K+ 5.1 meq/lt 4.7 meq/lt C1 99 meq/lt Post OP USG showed non significant fluid in peritoneum.
On Discharge patient Comfortable afebrite.
Stitches removed, wound health.
Treatment on discharge:
Tab.
Ciprobid 500 mg. x BD x 5 days Cp.
Cabadox forte IOD.
To review in SOPD on 11-12-96
23. On the basis of aforesaid documents, the learned counsel for OP No.2 has contended that there was no abnormality with the cystic duct which was properly done by the doctor in the first operation and there was accessory bile duct and the problem of accumulation of two litres of puss was due to leaking from an accessory bile duct which is a well documented anatomical anomaly that is seen only very rarely and is a miniscule structure and it is very often not possible to identify it at the time of operation as it may not leak at that time and leak subsequently.
24. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following medical literature:-
NCBI PUB MED Laparoscopic cholecystectomy accessory bile ducts In spite of excellent laparoscopic visualization, perioperative lesions of vascular structures or extrahepatic (especially accessory) bile ducts during laparoscopic cholecystectomy are a frequent cause of intra-and postoperative complications. Therefore we wish to point to the potential risk of running into accessory buile ducts on dissection within or around the cystohepatic triagle, which may entail some overlooked and untreated lesions.
Accessory bile ducts in 13 (0.52) patients during the procedure of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There are three groups of risk accessory bile ducts that can be encountered during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Group I includes accessory bile ducts encountered on gallbladder removal from its support : (1) Luschkas subvesical accessory bile duct was found in six (46.1%) patients. A lesion to these ducts was intraoperatively observed in three (23.1%) patients, whereas in another (23.1%) patients it was only detected and treated on reoperation :
(2) the hepatocystic bile duct enters gallbladder directly from liver parenchyma, in the area of the gallbladder lobe. A hepatocystic accessory bile duct was identified during one (7.7%) laparoscopic cholecystectomy, when the duct lumen was observed on the gallbladder removal from the lobe and another one (7.7%) was only identified on reopration.
Bile leak from a bile duct approaching the cystic duct immediately below the clip was observed on reoperation in one (7.7%) patient.
Bile leak from abile duct running into the common bile duct before entering the properly occluded cystic duct was observed on one (7.7%) reoperation.
Stumps of two such accessory bile ducts (15.4) were detected on reoperation.
Reoperation following laparoscopic cholecystectomy was required in 15 (0.6%) patients. In eight (53.3%) of these the reason for reoperation was untreated lesion of accessory bile duct in eight (53.3%).
Based on our own experience, lesions to accessory bile ducts are the most common cause of postoperative complications.
25. Thus main contention of the counsel of the OPs is that as per this medical literature there is possibility of accessory bile ducts in 0.52% patients during the procedure of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the experience shows that lesions to accessory bile ducts are the most common cause of postoperative complications and therefore the second operation was required only for the purpose of leakage in the accessory duct and not in the cystic duct.
26. Learned counsel has also contended that the complainant was initially informed that there may not be a package deal because of several close investigations in the gallbladder and therefore had to be done manually and package deal was only with regard to the laparoscopic chole operation and for three days only.
27. We have accorded careful consideration to the above referred rival contentions.
28. As regards the package deal no material in the form of documentary evidence has been produced that complainant was told at the outset that since his Gall Bladder was inflamed due to a stone, Lap Chole method may not be possible. Had the complainant been informed about the non-feasibility of Lap Chole method then why was he subjected to this methodology at first instance. It was done consciously to extract more than the package deal or due to the failure of Lap Chole as the Doctors knew it well that due to stone, conventional method would be applied for removal of gall bladder.
29. Whenever any patient is admitted for surgery by way of package deal and is initially subjected to the method of surgery as mentioned in the package deal, no hospital can charge him more than the amount of the package deal. Practice of first admitting the patient as a patient of a package deal and then subject him to other and conventional methodology and charging many times more than the package deal is highly unfair trade practice of falsely representing that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade and making a misleading representation concerning the need for or the usefulness of a service. If the surgery as promised in the package deal fails due to negligence or otherwise, and the patient is subjected to further surgeries causing pain and agony besides high inflated bill, Hospital has to not only refund the amount charged over and above the package deal but also compensate him for mental agony, harassment, physical pain, emotional suffering besides heavy expenses.
30. It was due to the failure and negligence in performing Lap Chole operation that subsequent complication arose that raised the bill many times more than the package deal.
31. All the complications were caused because after the surgery the duct was not stamped and it was left open from where the fluid accumulated in the stomach and ultimately led to the third surgery.
Had the doctors stamped the duct there would have been no leakage of the fluid and no damage would have been caused to the complainant. Thus the medical negligence and unfair trade practice is writ large.
32. As regards the joint or several liability of any treating doctors and other staff of any Hospital or Nursing Home, we are of the view that in cases of medical negligence, Hospital or the Nursing Homes or Medical Centres alone are liable, firstly because whenever any patient lands in any Hospital or Nursing Home, Medical Centre, his direct relationship of consumer for hiring or availing the medical services is with the said Hospital or Nursing Home or medical Centre and not with the treating Doctors and other personnel, secondly, the entire consideration in the form of expenses including the component of charges or fees of the operating Doctor and other junior Doctors and staff engaged in pre or post operative care or any other kind of care are paid to the Nursing Home or Hospital or Medical Centre directly and thirdly that there is totality or compendium of various services including medical and those of para staff and other conveniences and not with the operating or treating or attending Doctors, nurses and other staff.
33. Thus if a patient suffers due to the medical negligence or carelessness of Doctors and staff of the Hospital or Nursing Home or Medical Centre whose services he avails against consideration, said Hospital or Nursing Home or Medical Centre alone is liable to compensate the patient as to loss or injury suffer by him and Nursing Home or Hospital or Medical Centre has independent remedy to take any kind of action against such doctors or staff but no doctor or staff has a joint or several liability qua the patient.
34. Similarly Nursing Homes or Medical Centres or Hospitals alone are liable for the acts of omission or commission or medical negligence of visiting or consulting Doctors as the patient has no direct contract with such Doctors and services of such Doctors are availed by the Hospital or Nursing Home or Medical Centre and not the patient.
35. Any patient or person has a right to claim compensation for the sufferings suffered by him from the individual Doctor or doctors with whom he has direct contract either at his clinic or at any Nursing Home or Hospital or Medical Centre whose infrastructure facilities may be availed by such Doctors.
36. In view of the foregoing reasons and in the given facts and circumstances of the case we hold the OP No.1 Hospital alone with whom the complainant had a direct contract of availing medical services and paid consideration to it guilty for medical negligence and unfair trade practice of first offering a package and subsequently subjecting to the methods other than the methods meant for package treatment. It has caused immense physical and mental suffering besides unnecessary huge expenses, we deem that lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5 lacs (Five lacs) including the cost of litigation will meet the ends of justice. Complaint qua OP No.2 is dismissed.
37. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
38. Complaint is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
39. A copy of the order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the partiers free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
40. Copy of order be also sent to Presidents of all the District Fora.
41. Copy be sent to Press also for general information.
42. Announced on 9th May , 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Jj