State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sushma Devi vs Central Referral Hospital,Dr.Anup ... on 26 August, 2010
nu-I.:I*lI'!_an..I"b.-I-I-I-.J"I'l] IaJul.I\I'\.l-I'I PKI \3.f"1I'\:I i\.'l\ CONSUMER APPEAL NCL1 of 2010 Smt. Sulshma Devi, W/0 Shri Padam Singh, .17"' Mtn. Division, Sig. Regt, (3/0 99 APO Appellant VEEFSUS 1. Central Referral Hospital, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology, P.O. Taclnng, Gangtok, East Sikkim. 2. Dr. Anup Praclhan, Central Referral Hospital L 13.0. Tadong, l Gangtok, East Sikkim. Respondents QUORUM : HOIWBLE MR. JUSTICE 5. P. WANGDI, PRESIDENT MR. D. T. BHUTIA, HOINVBLE MEMBER
MRS. GEETA GURUNG, HON'BL.E MEMBER For Appellant : Mr. Ajay' Rathi, Advocate.
For Respondents no.1&2 : Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, Senior
- Advocate with Ms. Mukul Rani Parajuli, Advocate.
Last date of hearing T: 23-07-2010 DATE 05 neczzsion : 25433-2.010 .QED__E..B. Wangdi, J., President This is an anneal under Sectinn 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the appellant against the Order dated 28~O3---2{)09 passed by the District Consumer 'Disputes Reclressal Forum, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter referred to as the "Forum"), in Consumer Case no.5 of 2006 whereby the Hmvarxil'-«nah Inna-..~ Ba...~a.... .J...;:.._l ._.__.._... _. A- ~ - ' ' "' ' '
-u.v __ ._
--deprivation of the appeii'an't from leading a normal life as ciairned by her in her com'oiai'nt.
2. The a,oip.ei.i.a»ni: herein who is the commainant 'before the Forum had made a co~rn'pia'~i'ni:. under Section 12 of the Consumer iirotection Act, 1986 against. the reeponjdents for having suffered due Eo rne-.d.icai negiigence of the res'pond'ent no.2 who is a doctor under the Centrai Reierrai Hospital, Tadong, respondent no.1. As per the .connpiain.ant, on her bearing examined by the Cen-trai Referrai Hos.p'itai., Tadong. on 12~12--2DO4, she wasvfound to be pregnant and as the oom:oia:ina.n:i: ran a high risk in giving birth to a second baby' due to a major operation she had undergone in the past, she decided to terminaise the pregnancy. Accordingly, the cornplainant was admitted to the Central Referral: Hospital, i.e., the respondent._no.1, on 23~12~2'0r{)=i to undergo an operation for termination of pregnancy and insertion of Copperfl" by one Dr. Jyoti. After the operadon, the cornpiainant was discharged from hospital on the s.am'e day. But on 29431-2005, when she sufferred pain in her sto--rna.ch she was admitted at 178 Military Hospitai (2/0 99 AFC) at Gangtok where on un--dergoi.ng some tests she was, to her surprise, found to be pregnant with live foetus in her womb. Im':me-diia.':eiyr, thiereafter she approached the Centrai Referral Hospitai, Tadong, respondent no.1, for consuitation with the said Dr. Jyoti, out as she was on ieave she was advised to meet Dr, Anna F-'radhan, respondent no.2, whom the compiainant briefed about the sii'cua'tio*n. Dr. Anup Pradihan advised the complainant to .uncie«rgo another operation. of termination of pregnancy and a s'e*ctmt3 Ch'-iiid, the c;0mpia.ina'n*t underwent the seciondtoperation on ?G.3~{)2~20:{3S For the p'U't'pUSE as a=d.vise»cf.. It was stated that Dr. mugs: :°~§rad'han. white atpteratitng the com.p.i.a'Erna;nt .a=d:op.ted3 tevar::.uatiio.n «process three times to remove the foetus. Huwever, the ductort co.uJr:1 cmty rematve the Coppe'r---'T but unsucces-5-fui in terminating' the ;3'regna.n.cyA After such unsu»e:cessfui t3pera--tion,, 'the doctor _info~rmed the c:c>:mpEa.i*.nant that the foetus was m:.>rma'i and that she could ssontinure w'i~th 'net ;:rregrt.a:m:y. But', as per the compiainattt, her :3tc1»mach started swg.!:i.ng' and bloioci prestture began to dacline. On the next day, Le-.,. tU4~D2--2'G£35, severe! c£:t::ct.«3rs of the hcaspital visited the comAp»ia§na_nt* and advised Dr. Anup Pradhan to wait tiii the next mtorrain-g.. On the next morn'i.ng.,« i.e., on 0S~D2.~2D05, the cGm.pE'atma:n%t was stmftet!» to the t:tpse'rat'ive--n- theatre a.nd~ a major aperatio-n_, i.e., "'Per'r"ora't§'en 't.h:r'e.e centimeterst at Rec'tos--inoid Junctitr;-rt", was cametsi amt' Gin her. It is stated further that in the midst of the upaera:-flan, Dr. Asn-up Pradhan came out of the crperatian theatre and L admitted having cut the Cohan of the compi_a.i»n'a nt ac'cid-e'-n't'a*!£y tinting the op.era"ti'o:n Far the treatment of VVhtE7C§"3 .(.C{3i€}St--{3*FI"£y surgery was required to be performed on her. This inwn-ived a mvajtar operatitjn which was performed on the com'p:lta.i.n.am: and shifted tax the I.C..Li. for p.0st----otpetrative care and was distthavrtged -on t:?--02~t2*o05. It is further stated that after three months of the CO1G.S'tOmy.CZ)p=t§i'Eif.i-Gti the comptainant was again re<::;L:i-red to be ad'mi:tt«ed in the haspital for ciasure of colmtomy and A after the czmerat-mn discmrgeti on 31.~U5«--20iS. It is stated that ever sings the azaperations, the z:'om;3»ia%i~n:a-nt tievefioped various ta:i--1:ment«,s, v¥li2k:e c:on«ti:n'-utxus. pam in the spinal card, hands, wrist, thigh.
'The cc:m;::'Ia~i:nant has aisca been r+3quired to' be admitted in welt-« equ--ipp»ed* h0s.p.ita'Es in intemais of six. months for treatment of £oVnsAt:i:'p:atE:3-n. T--he'vc4::rmpia-'ivr1»a~nt states that due to the neg!ig»e--m:e cm the part of the doctor in the Centrai 'Referral Hczsspitai, Tadong, her iife has ~t:a.e=¢:om:e* m4is'e:--*abiE-e uname to lead a normal life and enjoy its basis; aimenivtiias. The c0mp:i'aEInanvt has further urged that she iosi:
her job as a Primary Teaszher --d1rawin«g as sa'E.a=ry 'Qf'R-5.4,*l-U0/* in the Army Schzoel on ac:--<:ou--nt tn' the op~erati0*ns as she was unabie ta perform her duties. It has, tIha.r=e:fi3re, been prayed that the comp§:a=ina1nt- be a:w.a:rdéd eomvpe-n*sra:t:i'o~n for the ioss of e:ar*r1in'gs as she is unabie ta take 131:» any GcCu=p.at'i-on, trade or b-usiness and has my chance of ream-zery from the a;.i'iTm.e'ntS in the near future, for mental te.ns.icm, agszmy and suzffermg assessed at Rs.1..S fats and R52. iacs for .ciep:rT§v«atian Qf iz~:.a»ci:ing a nc:rmai' H'fe and Rs..14,97,60Uf--« for {ass of ejasming-5.
3. Thé reis:;3c3.n:d.1e'nts fi.1e:d t-heir ttzirxjc-':<:i:'i'::xn5-- denying ail mai:=e~r'ii.a-§ a.§.E%e»g=atE.0n-5 and vba'sed- upon the p'Eead.ings of the parties, the Frazrum framed the fem-wifng §S~SU.eS',C"
1.. _ W'het'h-er there was d'eficien(:y in sewice either on the part. ax' tha respondent no.1 / ur on the part of respandent no.2?
yd Tr; what reiiefs is the cemplainant entitied to?
4. On consi'deration 'af the ;3!'_ea:d'ings and evide'nce cm 'retard and the few govervninjg the s--ubject,. the Forum came to the c0nc!us':c:m' "that the c!c3ct.:3:rs at C--e:n.tra_l Referral H:ospitaL, Tadong were negfi%g,E'nt in their treatme-n't cf the c'0mplvain%a'nt Sushma Devi .an~cE' t'h.esrefo?re. there was d'Ef'icienmr in service on the part of .._--,--._.....f failed to pert-arm the epere:ti.en on the eempia~in*a--rat with required skih, tiiiiige-nce, care, 'knowiedge and caution, ieading to Enhumerabie physi-ca~i cempiicatics-n=s and resuitant other surgeries en the person oi' the czcsmplainant". While coming to such cehciusion, the Femm found that aii materiai allegations made by the com;:»la:i'n.en't in the cehm'piei'nt duty supported by her in her evidence were 'r"u:iiy e'stabi'i'sh'e'd. Upon such finding, the 'c:e.mpia.inant was awarded compensa-t-ion ef Rs.1.S lacs for mentai tension am: i~'2.s.2 iacs for deprivation of the comptainant from. leading a nerhmi tife as ciai-?rne--ei-- by her, but rejected the claim for loss of earnings.
5. It is reievant to note here that the respendents have atzeepted the awarci and have chosen net to file any appeal against the Order of the Forum. It is, there?-ere,. to be assumed that an the mat»e~ri.ei fimiings and COFTC|1USi0I"i arrived at by the Forum against them stands admitted» by them. In the fight of this position, it is te be seen as to whether the Foru.m was right in rejecting the ciairh of the :::em.p!aiha~nt for the fines of her earnings.
6. Mr. Ajay Rathi, iearneci counsei appearing on behalf of the appeiient submitteci that rejection of the prayer for compensation against loss of earnings by the Forum is perverse and against the weight of ev-idencei and the materials on recerd and in ccmfiict with the very conc:¥usie«nhs arrived at by the Forum. As per him, when it has been est:ab.»i.is.h~ed that the cempiainant is unabie to teed a normai life due to the rnuitifarious medicai co»mt:2iic.at.ie'ns that arose on account of the iii---cenducted operations eh her, he further etiidetnce was n--et:essary to E3S'Ei:iUiiInH Luca. -aura. 'had lost 'her capacitty to earn; It was, therefore, submitted that rejecticm of CiZ)'i"i'1i3EE3i'iSE}i:i'{)~fi on that account was erroneous and iiabie to he medifieti by this Commission. Mr. A... K. Upadhyaye, leaned senior cou-hsefi, ap.pea--ri.hig for the resporvdents en the other hand submitted. that the cempiei_na'nt hat! faiied to establish the loss of earh.iri--gs. It was submitted by him that there was hp 1055 of earnings when it wee an admitted p--o»sit.i'on that the complainant's service in the Army Scheei was pure-iyw termpe-re-r'y on ad hoc heels for a pe-ried of tweive months that stand determined on completion of that period. As per h.«imi the Ferum had appreciated this fact and had accprdihg'iy rejected her prayer fer compensation on that E3CCO'UFi1Z.
7. Oh co;ns.ivde.r.aticm of the entire retprde 'pf the case and the rivai:-ceritentienisi r_aissed on behalf of the parties, we are of the View that the decisieh of the Fcirum refusing the award hf chmperisatieh on the less of earnings is quite erroneous and perverse. Con*t'rary tci what have been u..rgei:i, it is fouhd that there are specific: p:i«eei:iihige con~ta:i=hed in the eo--mtp:iai'ni: oh the iegai notice Exhibit 5 in pa-ragraiph 15, paragraph 17 in the izziairn petition, paragraphs 10 and 13 in her evidence on afficiavit and in her cross» eiutaminetiien whic:h are repmduced as-. under for cc:»hvenience:~ 'Legal N-ogicee Exhibit 5 ":5. That my ctiient has suffered heavy fimncial losses as she has lost her job of teacher due to the .aforesaid operations. Hence, you are also iiabie- to compensate my client to the tune pf Rs.14,'97,iSO0/~-- as loss at earnings, as my client is unabie to do any :=.u.c:h work, activities, trade or business and there is he chance of recovery of my ciieht in near future ai'so."
"iii. That due to the above unfortunate operations the colmpi:3in.ant has lost her 3"ob of a teacher. Hence, the Responisiernts are also liable to izompt-3nsa:te the <:om.piairia--nt for the loss of earnings as the compia-in--ant is una-hi--e to do any, occupation, trade or business; and there is no any ch.ance of 'recovery of complainant from these ailments in near' future."
avit of Evmenc.
"lo. That clue to above mentioned negligence and inefficiency of Doctors: of Manipai l~io.spi'i;al, Ta-d.on'g, G-a;nrgi:2al<, my life has became miserable and I am ehabie to lead. my normal life anizi enjoy the basic: amenities oi' iife. Further due to _s.uch above mentioned major opal-*-ati.on4i_ am -suffe-ring from various ailments such as C.0ntii'iLl'0'US pain in the spinal cord, hand, wrist, thigh and stomach, digesti-on probierns, Gastritis, acidity and acquit i:onstip--ation so I have to take ihedicine regiularliy and further I. have to admit in a well equipped hospital in an interval of six month for the treatmen.t of «constipation probiemg.
13. That due» to such negligence by the cloctors of Manipal Hospitai during my Di.';iei'EI't§Qi'.i for termi:na1:io.n of Pregnancy and insertion of Copp;er~T' I could serve only three month in Army Si:ho»oi as Primary Teacher and I had lost my join the-re, it is not a fact that I 4_ have not suffered anything due to the aiiegecl neg_i.ig.eni::e and inefficiency of Doctors of Manipal Hospital. It is not a fact that I am leading a normal life and enjoying basic a.menities of life. It is not a fact that IEl'LlEt to the operation at Mariipai I have not been sui'ferin--g from the various a'iime.nts such as continuous pain in the spinal cord, hand, wrist, thigh and stomach, digesizion problems, gastritis, iacidity and »a«:qunite constipation and that I have to take medicine regularly and thati am required to be acirnistted in a weil equiped Hospital in an tinterv»:-3|: of six months for the treatment. of constipation problem
3. In the i'rnpugn_ed Order of the Forum, this ciaim has A been. rejected purely on the ground that order of her appointment as a Pri'rn:a--ry Temzher was 'teinipora-ry that iitouicl be terminated ,:_,I .......-I $515+ Certifica:te .da-ted £:r.8~04~2U'05 iesiued by the F*rin<;ipaI, Army School indicated that the torrr;3ie.inan't served as a temporary Teacher from 16«11»20«04 to 28~O»2-2U05.. It was held that since there was no other <:iocun*i«en't to indicate that her services were required 'thereafter, it was to be presumed that her services were terrnineteti on the basis of the condition given in the letter of a pepsin-tmi-ent.
9. In our view, the co'noiLrsi'on arrived at by the Forum is quite erron.ehous and in confiri-ct with the eviciemze on record. The period 16.--1.1--2.i3D*4 to 28-~02*20.0.S is just over three months when her order of appointment czieariy sttpuiate-5 as being for twelve months» t:ieterrni*n.a.bie on comzoietiron of the period. It is an established fact that the cornpiiainant first visited the Centrai Referrai Ho--soitai, Tad.o.n:g on 12-12.-2:004, admitted on 23*12~2()04 on whiohlde-te the first opera-tion for termi--neati-on of pregnancy and insertion of Coppe~r-T was performed on her. That she wee acimitted to N8 Miiitery Hospitai, (2/0 99 APO on 29~U1~20{)5 as she exoerienoed pain in her stomach. That on 03-D2-2005 when she was again operated at the Centrai Referral Horspitai, Tadong. That she. had to undergo major operation on QS«DZ~2Cii'.)S during whirzh time her r;:oi.on had been a-toiden'teiiy out requiring a major eperation of coioetomy to he performed on 'her. That three months ieter another major ooeiration for ciosore of colostomy was conducted on her and discharged from the Centre! Referrai Heeeitei, Tad-o-ng on 314)-Sr~200'5. In other words, the complainant was made to undergo as many as five operations resuiti.ng from L- t...-.,W.i~ .m.«i r-i.c:-Fir'ir:>n'r service oroviczied. by the doctors of 1, rxr-:.'////I/;';'Z-'59_Z5%;7' ' '
15. It is si.g.n.rfiea:n:t to note. that the f1«rst..epee*ra.tien was perrerrmerd on the s::0rrrplain;ant on 23~:t2~20{}4 and the fourth one which was a major one, 3.e.., 'eoiestemy', was carried out on DS*D2-- 2005, i.e., 23 days befare the service of the czomplainant was terminated. It is further significant to note that the test eperation for eieseure of ricrkrstormey was x:arr§ed out three months after 'coiostomy' eperetiora ;:ne~rferm:ed err 05432-2005. We notice that the c0mp.1e2.n.a.m: went threugh the meet traumatic ee.ried between Decemtser, EDG4 amj Ferhmary, 2'E3--{)'S, i..e., the peried of her service 'm the Army Schmi. Therefore, in» the facts and c:irca..rm$ta*nces the most r'e~asr:mab--Ee presumption that ought to have been drawn V woukd have been in h.0l<:fin.g that cem:p£eina.nt test her job due to her ina.hitii'ty tea perform her normai dutires. 'Had she been abte to perferm the dutgtr as as normal' 'healthy rrerscsn «one cannot aése rule cut the reasonable presumption of her' services ef net oniy centineing fer the fuefi term of twehre months but of it also being extended in terms of her ap;3ointrne:nt. order. Apart from this, we find ne evicienee at eh to disprove her Chaim that she lest her eervkte as she was unebrtev te rendrer set.isfa.ctory service due to her weakened tcendirtien caused by the h'i~con*d.ucted operations. It 'is, therefore, difficukt to agree with the ::e.ne!.usie»n er the Ferum that ssince there was no csecurment to izndivcavte that her services were required afizetr »28~€32«2«€}fl£S it was te be pere's'u.m»ed that her services were 'te'rmina'ted en the be*s--is of the con:cEi.tion given in the letter at ar;:po.intm:ent.
.11. That apart, we find that rejrectiion of her claim fer Scheoi is quite narrow. The Forum has misconstrued the ciaim as 'being just the ices of earnings of her saiary in the Army Schooi and everietiked her broad assertien that she had icst the very capacity te take as any' eccupatitin, trade or business as there was no chance (if her fuii recovery from the aiimerits resulting from the eperations that waa conducted an her most negligently. It is aise in cehfiict with the finding of the Forum in the impugned Order at paragraphs 31,. 32, 33 and 38 which we may reproduce beii:>w:~ "E1. The meciicai reperts he not reflect whether the victim was suffering from acute or simple peritonitis after MTP was attempted by Dr.i!\nt1ip Pradhan when with the heip of one .Dr.Prachi Rajen and §;ubj;e_qt_;e_h,i;Ly_ eerforatian was made in the RectQ§ig_ngig;1"1L_m;g;tipMnj;Q.r which coiestomv was requirecim a_r_i5;L_ it'__ m_a1___M[eV reiterated thatthe t1rau:y.,g:Mthe',§ji;t;atigg3_ wwéaégthue i:19.t..tii§.C..to§.e§_.;te_the husband So, far as .D.e_ritcinitis; s:>_i_:
ether compii.caticins that ar-:>se_ were concerned.
32. The patient was not charged for the services rendered te her 'by the hosipitai which indicates that the ht:stiita'| was fairly aware of the fauI.t/riegiigence committed by them since the witness examined for respa'nti.e'nt. no.1 has admitted that the patient had no reiaticin. with Dfriiyoti and there are no other viaiziie reesene ta why :~:<-he was not charged for her hofieitai stav. Ib.e.m.aatieet.c...t1a:tc1..c._t.tti......L;.t1tl.t=:t§i9~ unnec-essarv hair: and sufferiiguri for the neqiitience ei' the.gg§tmete§p_r;r3§it1eJaLaaeta£meheJe¢etm;mate hegfmgregrigfici; In (2004) 8 SCC '36 it was heid that non impieaciment of a treating doctor and nursing s'tafi* cannot be taken as graund for ciismissai of the cornpiaint, since the burden to absoive itself shifts to hespitaifdoctor, thus nun irnpieaciment of Dr.Liy0ti in the instant case is he ground for «dismissai at the compiainant.
3.3. In iight of ah the above facts and circumstances and the irietaiied diSCLiSS-'l0f"i3S thereon, this ferum is of the ciear'cp'i'n--io'n that the doctors at Central Referral i--it>spita'i, Tadcmg were negiigent in their treatment of the compiainant S.ushm.a Devi and thetretore, there was deficiency in service on the part mi' respondierit no.1 and resp«:>nden.t no.2 in as much as they have faiied to perform the operation on the ctzimpiainant with the required sitiii, diiigerice, care, kncwiedge and cautian. l.§..ELC3i'£.LE1..~...m.iZE;3..._....m.f3.Q.miT§b.l§._...c..cEi.!.1V_.S.LC§i rorn'i3iication~<:. and resuitant a.thermsurg;e:i_e§.
i;i§.;t:L<1n of th§.§.§LflW_QLifi.L'La.f1t-
i .-
~ 'c"*"'\|'i'\ S-m:2s:uHl'1t'l Datiaijjifi au:1?Vancemen:m:u uuzzu mm. L\.' .M.... ,.,. _..,..h _ when aii dneswhet C10 W81: ." [emphasis supplied] From thee abovefindings of the Forum duiy em*phhas§zed by us, we cannot but r.:oncE.ucle that the compiaihnant was severely in.capa.«:itate.d in ieaciing a nermal. life. with her t;x:msequentia.l Enabihty to earn as much as she could have ea*rne--_d. as a he~ait§'ay.
per'5Cm.
12. In the facts and civrcumsta~'n-ces., we hold that the c:ap;~::.::':ty of the izczmpiaivnant to earn has been sevemiy affected for which she is ehfitled.t:0 be compensated by the responcients.
13. _ The object cf .the Cjo-nsghrahmer Protection Act, .1986, is try pr'cwi--d«e for better pmtectiovn 0f the i'ntere.s3t 0'? consumers. It is gm estahiished pos»it:i«:m hf raw that sewi'.ce rendered to a pa»tient by at me-dicah practitioner by wary' of <:ons.u1tation, diagnosis and treatmem: hath medmnral and surgical wouic! fall within the ambit of "sewi.c.e"' as d:efi=n.e.d in .?;(1.:}.a of the Act [Indian Medical Assoc.£a--ti.nn vs. V. P. Shantha 8; Ors. : (1995) 6 SCC 651]. Having regard to 'Chi? facts 01' this case, the question before this Commi»s~sien is as to: what waurid »b~__E.= the quantum of such v::.ompensati.(>n and the basis to be a'pp'iied therefor. As revealed f'ro.rh the i.mpu4g.ned Qrder of the 'FQrurh at paragraph 35, it appears that the compiain.anth's service cohmmemzed from 16~11~2004 to 28» 022005. Thherefnre, out of the tw-ewe m-unths of semce in her credit that was ext.en~d.abie for further period, her se.rvi~c:es were terminated in juisit about three months andtwelve days reasona-biy pmsaumed tcs be time ta her mzabilhity ts attend ta her n+::rma,l duties.
.-ca,~u.s.ed by the hiH«::c3r1»ci«uc:t:ec3 operations on her for the reasons compensates far the ¥zT:S~S c:1fJe--a-rmngss 'm that Sxzhooi far Vthe baiance pss2r%::>c2 of s£~3rv'1~c€: of eight months and eighteen days which when a:a%cu§ai:ed at: R3.4,4{3{},!~ per mzmth being the manthiv saiaw drawn by her, wouirzi ammun': tn atvomc Rs.3?_,84{3,,r'~. in SC! far as the futwa Ea-5:: ca? ea.m:ings are cancerned, there can be m denying the fact that her capaxzity tit} earn the fuii incoma as Shel wmzid have earned has she been nmrmafi has bveezn reciucevd. considerabiy if not <.:0rrmix's3i:ei.'\;. in order vta arrive at a reasanabfie ctzmgmnssatian am this accaunt, it would be esseantiai tr) search for a guixfiing principie.
"mzs Ca:mm§s»s§0n deems it just amezi reasunabiev to take resort far this gzmrpase to the $ec:cms:i schedujie ta the Motor vehicieg Act, £988, xwzaiatabie ta ciause SR3} trmareof. We may reproduce ctause: 8 ans: szsizmauses as underr "S. ;'3isa£3i!fty' in nogmfataf 3ccic!en£'s::«-
The fc31.1.0wi--ng comgensation shaft be payabie fin c.aa:e sf ciisabiiity ta the-: victim arising out of mm ~-fatat accidents: ~---
Less at' inccema, if any, for acmai Qeriad :3? ciisabiemant. net e'xceez.ding fifty twca weeks.
PLUS either of thsa §U§§GWifi'g:~--
{a} In case 91' perrnanent tatai disabkement the amnum: pavai:>ie~ shafl baa a':'riv&.°.ci at by awnuitipmng thus annuai 1055 of income by the Mmtiplier a:pp§icai::¥e tn the age an the date emf' determining the compensation, or (D) In case Q?' permamznt gzartiai disabhament such parcen*»:age of carrugeanszatimn "which wouid have been payatzie in the cage 13.?
pLe'rmanc~mt tatai disabsszrraaant as s«pe«:§fied under mam (a) abtma.
Inj;u:;r§es deemed to resuit in Permanent. Tara? DiSabiement [Permanent Partiai C3E3ab1emsant and marcentage ef iess ('If earning cagracity shaié be as per Scheduie ....-\/-§nr' w.m--:.»m.s>n's Cjomzztvensatéon 4*!» D3!' d';Jpll=L.t31=UUl"1 U1 Ultz.' CIUIUVE. JUHHUJGI Ldiflitiii db G guzuarlgg pvrincipie, we may reasonahiy assume thra monthly igncema cf the comptainant a3 Rs.4,40{3,/~ being the saiary that was being drawn by her in the Army Same! as a Primary Teacher. Tm campiainant ' being fin the age cisf 32 years at the time when the operations were cxanduczted, as reveated mm the medicai remrts, the relevant muziitipiiier appiicabte 1:0 her woufid be 1?. This .w%hen muftigaiied by the gross annuai income ameu-nts to Rs.%8,9?,€i(}W- (Rs.44OGf- x 12 3': l7)--.--
15. Since it is a case inf permanent partial disabiement, by appli-caticm of sutvciaus-e (b) at' claws [5, it wouid be reasonabte ta conclude 'that her permanent diésabl-Eamant wouid be about 3{)% cf Rs.8,9'?,'60=0!- being the tatai disaisie amount as worked out abmre, which wt}-uid amatmt tr: R$.2,69,28£)/~. Tharefm-re, in our view, the campensation an the toss Of earnings woufd be Rs.2,69,.280]- + Rs,32?,840,f~ :.--. Rs.3,{1T',120/~.
16. The res;3ondent$, therefore, are Eiabie to pay to the compitailnant Rs.3,.0»?,.12{3/~ as compensatican for mas of earnings in actditicm to the campensation on the csther two acceunts gassed by the Fmrum.
1?. The award passed by the Forum stands mudified accflrdinegiy.
13. . If} 121163 I"€*3$UHZ, tfifi appeai ES E3§¥Q'WS{3.
1191. It apgsears that the regpcnrients have faited ta make payment of the award passéd? by the Forum in spite of the fact: that ,.m-.:=.umua ED have been amepted. It was expected that the wmch shah continue to accrue tiff such date when the amount shaii be fusiy paid to the compfainant. On the amount cu" award passed by this Ccnmmissian» on account cf Mass of earnings assessed at Rs.3,{)7,.12Df#, it is directed that the respondents snail pay an interest @ 12% from the date of this Order. It is made dear that
20. Ne order as to costs.
21. Records :3!' the Farum be returned forthwith.
22. A ccpy of this Order be transmitted to the Farum far its due compliance.
S.d/-
(s.g&w%ngdi) Pfesident ?.§-<O8~2€'!19 //.-.
s.d/--
(o.T.3n¢ua) Membei 25438-2016 s.d/-