National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Santosh Sharma vs Santosh Child & Multispeciality ... on 23 April, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON: 27.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 23.04.2026
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 2801 OF 2018
with
IA/14839/2019, IA/4982/2023,IA/4983/2023, IA/5076/2023
(Directions, Waiver of costs, Placing addl, documents; Deletion of
Parties)
1. SANTOSH SHARMA
W/O SH. SATYAWAN SHARMA,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF:-
VPO SIANA, TEHSIL KANINA,
DIST. MAHENDERGARH, HARYANA
... Complainant
Versus
1. SANTOSH CHILD & MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL,
DULANA ROAD, NEAR DIET,
MOHINDERGARH, HARYANA 123029
2. DR. KRISHNA KUMAR
(OWNER CUM TREATING DOCTOR
SANTOSH CHILD & MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL,
BAWANIA ROAD, KUMAHARAN MOHILLA,
MOHINDERGARH, HARYANA 123029
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
G-8, SOUTH EX. PART-1, NEW DELHI - 110049
...Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd)
PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
For the Complainant (s): Mr. Anand Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party (s): Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Monica Kumar and
Mr. Arpit Singh, Advocates for OP-1&2
Mr. Amandeep Singh and Mr. Dev
Bhardwaj, Advocates for OP-3
CC/2801/2018 Page 1 of 16
JUDGMENT
AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM - MEMBER
1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against the Opposite Parties (OPs) seeking the following:
"a. Admit the present complaint of the on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and direct the Opposite Parties to compensate the complainant for loss of his son master Deepanshu, mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- along with interest rate of 12% per annum; b. Pass such order/orders as this Hon'ble Commission deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances."
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that on the night of 27.07.2018, his minor son, Master Deepanshu, fell sick and was initially taken at around 10:30 PM to one Dr. Dharmender at Village Sehlang. As per the complainant, the said doctor did not undertake any basic clinical examination such as recording the temperature of the child and did not prescribe any medication, but advised the complainant to take the child to a specialised child hospital, stating that the fever would not subside by medicines alone. Thus, the complainant took the child immediately to Santosh Child Super Specialty Hospital at Mahendergarh, run by OP-1 at about 11:30 PM, where he was admitted after the complainant's husband was required to deposit Rs.19,500/-, comprising Rs. 15,000/- towards night charges for one day, Rs. 4,000/- towards testing fees and Rs. 500/- towards OPD fees. The complainant averred that the treating doctor, OP-2, commenced treatment only after receipt of the medical examination report at about 1:00 AM on 28.07.2018 and, upon perusal of the report, informed the complainant that the child was suffering from simple fever and that there was no cause for worry, assuring that the hospital was equipped with advanced CC/2801/2018 Page 2 of 16 facilities. At the time of admission, signatures of her husband were obtained on certain blank papers by the hospital staff on the pretext of NOC and other documents. After the admission of the child, OP 2 went to sleep and left the child under the supervision of his younger brother, who was stated to be a BDS, and that even such supervisory presence was not available in the ICU during the night. It is averred that in the early hours of the night, at about 2:00 AM, the complainant heard the cries of her son but was informed by the hospital staff that the child was sleeping and that the noise was not of her son. It is further alleged that the ICU remained locked from inside during the night and that there was no doctor attending to the child between about 2:00 AM and 7:30 AM on the intervening night of 27/28.07.2018. It is further the complainant's case that on the morning of 28.07.2018 at about 7:00 AM, OP-2 informed the complainant and her husband that MRI and CT scan were required and that arrangements had been made to shift the child by ambulance to Pushpanjali Hospital, Rewari. The referral documents handed over did not bear the doctor's signature and no doctor accompanied the child in the ambulance. Upon reaching Pushpanjali Hospital, Rewari, the child was declared brought dead, and it was stated to her that death had occurred earlier, prior to reaching there. She returned with her husband and the body of the deceased to OP-1 Hospital to ascertain the cause of death, whereupon OP-2 and his family associated with the hospital apologised and stated that OP-2 was exhausted and had gone to sleep after admitting the child, Further, no post-mortem was conducted or permitted, leaving the precise cause of death unknown. Alleging absence of medical supervision during critical hours and negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, she lodged a police complaint and thereafter instituted the present consumer complaint seeking redressal.
CC/2801/2018 Page 3 of 163. Upon notice, the complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing their written statement wherein the OPs objected to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the claim of Rs.1,25,00,000 was exaggerated, unsupported by any particulars and deliberately inflated to invoke the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission by bypassing the fora below. The Complainant had not produced any bills or material to show payment for treatment and on her own showing, the services were rendered free of charge, thereby disentitling her from the status of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OPs further contended that the nature of the dispute required detailed evidence and trial, rendering it unsuitable for summary adjudication under the Act, and that the complaint also suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties, including the subsequent hospital and the insurer of OP-2. On merits, OPs denied any negligence or deficiency in service and asserted that the minor patient was brought in a critical condition with very high-grade fever, seizures and was unconscious, diagnosed as status epilepticus with suspected meningoencephalitis carrying a grave prognosis, and was managed promptly and diligently in accordance with standard medical protocols, including administration of antibiotics, antivirals, anti-raised intracranial pressure measures, anti-seizure drugs, ventilatory support and continuous ICU monitoring. It was pleaded that informed consent was obtained, the parents were kept apprised of the serious condition of the child, and all possible measures were taken in good faith to save his life. OPs specifically denied allegations of abandonment, bribery, obtaining blank consents or leaving the patient under the care of an unqualified person, and asserted that the child was alive at the time of referral to the higher centre. It was contended that the refusal of the family to consent to post-mortem, despite medical advice, weakened CC/2801/2018 Page 4 of 16 the subsequent allegations regarding cause of death, and that the audio recording relied upon by the Complainant was manipulated and unauthentic. OPs contended that mere error of judgment, difference of medical opinion or an adverse outcome does not constitute medical negligence, and that liability arises only where the conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent medical practitioner. The Medical Board had exonerated OP-2 of negligence. It was also urged that compensation cannot be awarded arbitrarily in the absence of proof of loss or injury and that the inflated claim for mental agony, being unsupported by any legal or evidentiary basis, deserved rejection, the complaint being characterised as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, warranting dismissal with exemplary costs.
4. The Complainant had filed rejoinder to the Written Statement filed by the Opposite Party and reiterated the facts of the complaint.
5. The Complainant filed its evidence on Affidavit and reiterated the facts of the case and relied on, copy of treatment slip and medical examination report of Master Deepanshu (Exhibit CW-1/A), documents bearing the signature of complainant's husband (Exhibit CW-1/B), death certificate of deceased Master Deepanshu (Exhibit CW-1/C), FIR dated 13.08.2018 (Exhibit CW-1/D), statement of OP-2 and other witnesses (Exhibit CW-1/E (Colly.)), copy of documents in regard of selection for the post of government doctor on 03.09.2015, joining duty report on 16.09.2015 and leave record since 18.09.2015 (Exhibit CW-1/F (COLLY.)), mobile recording in CD form along with its English transcript (Exhibit CW-1/G (COLLY.)), copy of the complaint presented before the Chief Medical Board, Narnaul (Exhibit CW-1/H) and copy of the FIR No. 558/18 (Exhibit CW-1/I).
CC/2801/2018 Page 5 of 166. OPs. filed their evidence on Affidavit and relied on, copy of insurance policy (Exhibit RW-1/1) and copy of the medical board opinion District Narnaul Haryana (Exhibit RW-1/2).
7. The learned counsel for the Complainant reiterated the facts of the case and argued that the minor patient, Deepanshu was referred to the hospital of OP-1 and 2 for specialized treatment by a child specialist. However, instead of being properly attended by a paediatric specialist, the patient was allegedly left under the care of a doctor holding a BDS degree. The treatment administered by a doctor not qualified in the relevant field amounted to negligence and improper medical care. He further argued that when the patient was advised MRI and CT Scan at another hospital, the child was allegedly not in a stable condition and ought to have been accompanied by a doctor during transportation. It was submitted that sending the patient only with hospital staff without proper medical supervision constituted negligence on the part of OP-1 and 2. OP-1 and OP-2 misused their dominant position and failed to provide proper invoices and bills for the payments allegedly made by the Complainant, which further reflected deficiency in service. He argued that the referral documents relied upon by the OPs did not bear the signatures of the referring doctor and therefore their authenticity was doubtful. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651, to contend that medical services rendered for consideration fall within the ambit of "service" under the Act. The learned counsel asserted that the death of the young child had caused irreparable loss and mental agony to the Complainant and her family. Reliance was also placed upon the decisions in Sher Singh v. Billu Khan, 2008(1) CPC 58, Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, All India Association of Private CC/2801/2018 Page 6 of 16 Medical Practitioners v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996), Dr. AK Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala, AIR 1983 Ker 24, Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) and Indu Sharma v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, 2015(2) CLT 45, to contend that negligence may arise when a medical practitioner lacking the requisite qualification administers treatment or when the doctor fails to take timely and appropriate medical decisions. He also relied upon the decision of this Commission in Himachal Kumari v. Government of MCD, 2015(1) CLT 523, to argue that where services are rendered in a non-charitable hospital, it cannot be presumed that the treatment was provided free of cost. On these grounds, it was prayed that the complaint be allowed and the reliefs sought by the Complainant be granted.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP 1 & 2 argued that the complaint was misconceived, filed only to harass the OPs and extract money. The allegations were without merit and no case of medical negligence or deficiency in service had been made out. They relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 and Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, I (2009) CPJ 32 (SC), wherein it was held that before proceeding against a doctor, the matter should be examined by a competent medical expert or board to ascertain whether a prima facie case of negligence exists. In the present case the Medical Board had already exonerated OP-1 and OP 2. They contended that the minor patient, Master Deepanshu, aged seven years, was brought to the hospital on 28.07.2018 in a critical condition with very high fever of about 106°F and repeated seizures amounting to status epilepticus, a life-threatening condition with poor prognosis. The child was immediately attended to by OP-2 and treated as per standard medical protocol. The serious condition of the child was CC/2801/2018 Page 7 of 16 explained to the parents and a high-risk consent form was obtained from them before commencing treatment. They denied that any amount of Rs.19,500/- or Rs.15,000/- was demanded and contended that the treatment was provided free of cost considering the financial condition of the family. He asserted that the patient was continuously monitored in the ICU and all necessary tests and treatment were administered with due care and diligence. When the child's condition required advanced neurological evaluation, the father was informed of the risks and written consent was obtained before shifting the patient in an ambulance with oxygen support and trained staff. The ambulance driver had stated that the child was alive during transportation and that the child was declared dead only upon arrival at Pushpanjali Hospital. The doctors at the hospital had suggested post-mortem examination, but the father of the child refused the same, indicating that the allegations of negligence were unfounded. He further argued that since no payment had been made for the treatment and the services were rendered free of cost, the Complainant did not fall within the definition of a "consumer" in terms of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha. 1995 SCC (6) 651. The compensation claimed was highly exaggerated and was inflated only to invoke the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Relying on Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, (2010) CPJ (SC) and Vinod Jain v. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, 2019 LawSuit(SC) 288. He argued that a doctor cannot be held liable merely because the treatment did not yield the desired result and that negligence arises only when the conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent doctor. He relied on Vinitha Ashok v. Lakshmi Hospital - (2002) CPJ 4 (SC); Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Trimbak Bapu Godbole- AIR 1969 SC 128; Dr. Harkanwaljit Singh Saini v. Gurbax Singh- 2003 (1) CPR 356 (NC); Bishwanath Das v. Bijay Sinha CC/2801/2018 Page 8 of 16 Roy-(IV) 2007 CPJ 223 (NC); Rajni Tiwari v. Jabalpur Hospital-III (2007) CPJ 428 (NC); State of Haryana v. Smt. Santra - (2000) 5 SCC 182; Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee-[1957]1 WLR 582; Whitehouse v. Jordan [1981] 1 WLR 246; Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel-(1996) 4 SCC 332 / AIR 1996 SC 2111
9. The learned counsel for OP-3 argued that the present complaint had originally been filed only against OP 1 and OP 2 and the same was pending adjudication before this Commission. OP-3, i.e., the insurance company, was subsequently impleaded as a party pursuant to an application moved by OP-2, which was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 21.05.2019. He argued that the application for impleadment was allowed without issuing notice to OP-3 and that OP-3 came to know about the complaint only upon service of notice on 19.08.2019. OP-3 thereafter entered appearance, sought supply of the relevant orders, policy documents and complete record to respond. This dispute essentially pertained to alleged medical negligence by OP-1 and OP-2 and that no cause of action arose against OP-3. According to him, the insurance company was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the dispute between the Complainant and the treating doctor or hospital. He argued that a Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy No. 212700/48/2018/2019 was issued only in favour of OP-2, Dr. Krishan Kumar Yadav, for a sum insured of Rs.20 lakhs from 17.11.2017 to 16.11.2018 upon payment of premium of Rs.1180/-. He emphasized that no such policy had been issued in favour of OP-1 and therefore OP-1 was not covered under the said insurance policy. It was further argued that even under the terms and conditions of the policy, the liability of OP-3, if any, would arise only to the extent of the insured amount and that too only after negligence is finally established against CC/2801/2018 Page 9 of 16 OP-2 in accordance with law. He argued that the complaint itself disclosed that the grievance of the Complainant was only against OP-1 and OP-2 and that no relief or compensation had been specifically claimed against OP-3 in the prayer clause. Thus, he argued that there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and OP-3. Their contract of insurance existed only with OP-2 and therefore the Complainant, being a third party to the contract, had no independent right to enforce the insurance policy against OP-3. In support of his submissions, he relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission in Sheth M.L. Vaduwala Eye Hospital v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., CA 7611-34/2021 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devender Mohan Anand, FA 2081/2018. to contend that an insurer providing professional indemnity cover to a doctor is not a necessary or a proper party in a consumer dispute alleging medical negligence. On these grounds, he asserted that no cause of action arose against OP-3 and therefore the name of OP-3, i.e., the insurance company, should be struck off from the array of parties in the present complaint.
10. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the Parties.
11. The main issues to be determined in the present case are whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission and whether the Complainant has been able to establish medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 in the treatment and management of the minor patient, Master Deepanshu, including the allegations relating to lack of proper medical supervision, treatment by an allegedly unqualified person, and the manner of referral and transportation of the patient.
CC/2801/2018 Page 10 of 1612. As preliminary objection, the OPs questioned the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the services were rendered free of cost and therefore the Complainant did not fall within the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the material placed on record indicates that the patient was admitted in a private hospital run by OP-1 and that charges towards admission, testing and OPD were demanded and deposited at the time of admission. It is a settled position of law that where no payment is made for medical services, ordinarily, a consumer relationship under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not arise, and the complaint would not be maintainable. However, even charitable or welfare hospitals can be held liable under the Act if they receive remuneration from some sections of patients. This point was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. NK Srivastava, Civil Appeal No. 2823 of 2020, decided on 23.07.2020, wherein the Apex Court relied on its landmark judgment in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and observed as under:
"9 While evaluating the submission which has been urged by Mr R S Suri, it is necessary, at the outset, to have regard to the principles which have been laid down in the judgment of this Court in Indian Medical Association. In the judgment of this Court, the provisions of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act fell for interpretation. Section 2(1)(o) provides as follows:
""service" means service of any description which is made available to the potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction], entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;"
10 Interpreting the above provision, a three judge Bench of this Court held that it is only where a hospital provides CC/2801/2018 Page 11 of 16 medical services free of charge across the board to all patients that it would stand outside the purview of the Act. The Court held that a hospital which renders free services to a certain category of patients, while providing for services which are charged to the bulk of others would not lie outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. This principle is evident from the following extract from the decision of this Court:
"43...The third category of doctors and hospitals do provide free service to some of the patients belonging to the poor class but the bulk of the service is rendered to the patients on payment basis. The expenses incurred for providing free service are met out of the income from the service rendered to the paying patients. The service rendered by such doctor and hospitals to paying patients undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act."
13. Applying the above principles to the present case, it is evident from the record that the patient was admitted in a private hospital run by OP-1. The Complainant specifically alleged that Rs.19,500 was demanded and deposited at the time of admission towards night charges, testing fees and OPD charges. Although OPs disputed the receipt of such payment and contended that the treatment was provided free of cost, the hospital in question is admittedly not a charitable institution providing completely free treatment to all patients. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a hospital would fall outside the ambit of the Consumer Law only if medical services are rendered free of charge to all patients across the board. In this case, there is no material on record to establish that OP-1 provides medical services entirely free of charge to every patient. Thus, the contention of OPs that the Complainant is not a consumer cannot be accepted. Accordingly, we hold that the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission and the Complainant is a "consumer" under the Act.
CC/2801/2018 Page 12 of 1614. The next aspect to be considered is whether the Complainant has established medical negligence or deficiency in service by OP-1 and 2. The Complainant has alleged that the minor patient was left unattended during the night that the treating doctor went to sleep after admission of the patient. The patient was left under the supervision of a person holding a BDS degree. It has further been alleged that the patient was referred for MRI and CT scan without being accompanied by a doctor and that the referral documents did not bear proper signatures. On the other hand, OPs contended that the child was brought to the hospital in a critical condition with very high fever and seizures, diagnosed as status epilepticus with suspected meningoencephalitis, which is a life- threatening condition with poor prognosis. The patient was immediately attended to, administered appropriate medication and continuously monitored in the ICU. They obtained informed consent from the parents, that the condition of the child was explained to them and that the patient was referred to a higher centre for advanced neurological evaluation when required. Significantly, the OPs placed on record the opinion of the Medical Board constituted at Civil Hospital, Narnaul, which, after examining the case, opined that no medical negligence was attributable to OP 2. Relevant portion of the said report is reproduced as under:
"IN CASE OF MR. DEEPANSHU S/O SH. SATYAWAN SHARMA (FILED BY SH. SATYAWAN SHARMA S/O SH. RAMESHWAR DYAL SHARMA) V/S DR. KIRSHAN YADAV AND DR. ASHOK YADAV SANTOSH CHILD & MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL DULANA ROAD MAHENDERGARH.
As per the complaint, Patient Mr. Deepanshu was admitted in the Santosh Child & Multispecialty Hospital Mahendergarh with high grade fever and convulsion on dated 27-07-2018 at 11:30 pm. Dr. Krishan Yadav is MD (paediatrician). Patient was admitted in PICU and poor prognosis was explained to parents. After admission, he was investigated - TLC was 19800/-cmm with higher lymphocyte count, CRP was positive along with other blood _investigations as per report dated 28- CC/2801/2018 Page 13 of 16 07-2018. He was treated with inj monocef, inj vancomycine, inj tezobactum, inj mannitol, inj eptoin, inj diazepam, inj valproate was given between 1:30 am to 2:30 am that was according to the suspected case of meningitis/meningo-encephalitis. The patient was continuously monitored and treated as per record. Later on inj emset, inj paracitamol, inj pantop, inj acyclovir, inj NaHco3 was also administered as per requirement. As per treatment summary patient was intubated and was put on ventilator that was also as per norms. After inj Eptoin, inj Diazapam, inj valproate, the neurological status of the patient was difficult to assess. That is why Glasgow coma scale was recorded that was also as per norms.
Because of the poor condition of the patient suspicion of the meningitis/ meningo-encephalitis, Patient was shifted for C.T. Scan and Neurologist opinion to higher centre. ...
As per record of treatment & documents available to Negligence Board, treating Doctor is a qualified child specialist. There is no negligence found on the part of treatment as per record available and treatment was given as per provisional diagnosis and requirement. Condition of Patient was serious and prognosis was explained to parents. In such conditions outcome is not in hands of treating Doctor. In spite of medical advised post-mortem examination was not done so exact time and cause of death cannot be ascertained.
15. The Complainant has not produced any expert medical evidence to contradict the said opinion. In cases involving allegations of medical negligence, the settled legal position is that negligence cannot be presumed merely because the treatment did not yield the desired result. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, it was held that a medical practitioner would be liable only when his conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in the field. Similarly, in Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, (2010) CPJ (SC), it has been held that courts must be cautious in attributing negligence to medical professionals and that an adverse outcome by itself does not establish negligence.
CC/2801/2018 Page 14 of 1616. In the present case, the allegations regarding the absence of supervision, treatment by an allegedly unqualified person and improper referral have not been substantiated by cogent medical evidence. The records placed on file indicate that the patient was brought to OP Hospital in a very critical condition. There is nothing on record to indicate for how long the child was suffering such acute medical conditions, what steps were taken by the parents/ guardian to get him some timely treatment, the reasons due to which such extremely high grade fever of 106°F was found to be suffering and for how long? Undisputedly, when the boy was brought to the OP Hospital, he was already in critical condition due high fever and its impact. On receiving the patient, the OP Hospital managed the condition with medication and ICU monitoring before being referred to another hospital for further evaluation and treatment. Mere fact that the patient unfortunately expired does not ipso facto establish negligence on the part of the treating doctor or hospital.
17. In view of the above discussions and the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the Complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service or medical negligence on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 in the treatment and management of the minor patient. Accordingly, while the complaint is maintainable before this Commission, however, the allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service against OP-1 and 2 have not been substantiated.
18. CC No. 2801 of 2018 is, therefore, dismissed for being devoid of merit.
19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. There shall be no order as to costs.
CC/2801/2018 Page 15 of 1620. All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
......................................................... (AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.) PRESIDING MEMBER ......................................................... (ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J) MEMBER /Hitaishee CC/2801/2018 Page 16 of 16