State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr Joys Hospital For Women And Children vs Sabymol C.M on 20 December, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/14/313 ( Date of Filing : 30 Jun 2014 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/12/2013 in Case No. CC/306/2008 of District Ernakulam) 1. DR JOYS HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN NH BYE PASS, VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM 682019 ERNAKULAM KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SABYMOL C.M CAHENGARAPPALLI HOUSE, MUNDAKAPADOM ROAD, WEST OF THAICAVU, CHERANALLOOR- KOCHI- 682034 ERNAKULAM KERALA 2. IBRAHIM NELLISSERY HOUSSE, CHOORAKODE POST, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RANJIT.R MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 20 Dec 2018 Final Order / Judgement KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 313/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20.12.2018 (Against the order in C.C. 306/2008 of CDRF, Ernakulam) PRESENT : HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER APPELLANTS: Dr. Joy's Hospital For Women & Children, NH Byepass, Vyttila, Ernakulam-682 019. Dr. Annie Joy, Gynecologist, NH Byepass, Vyttila, Ernakulam-682 019. (By Adv. Sheji P. Abraham) Vs. RESPONDENT: Sabymol C.M alias Sabymol Nazeer, Cahengarappalli House, Mundakapadam Road, West of Thaicavu, Cheranelloor, Kochi-682 034. (By Adv. Arun Mathew Vadakkan) JUDGMENT
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER Opposite parties in C.C. No. 306/2008 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, in short the district forum, has filed this appeal against the Order passed by the forum by which they were directed to pay Rs. 7,38,859.69 to the respondent/complainant.
2. The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows: Complainant is employed as High Court Assistant in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Marriage of the complainant was on 26.10.1996. Her husband is employed abroad. The complainant delivered their first child on 25.11.2004 at the Ahmed Medical Corporation Hospital, Doha, Qatar. The delivery was a normal one. Lured by the propaganda of the opposite parties providing assistance for consummation and efficient pre-natal services, painless delivery and other related medical services, the complainant and her husband approached the 2nd opposite party even prior to the consumption of second child and on medication advised by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant conceived her second child. The opposite parties, husband and wife, together, are running the institution. The complainant was regularly having pre-natal checkups with the opposite parties as advised by them. The complainant was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital for delivery on 01.04.2007, since there were symptoms of labour pain. She was discharged after two days. As directed by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant was admitted on 16.04.2007 and an advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid. On the next day evening, the complainant developed normal labour pain and the same was reported. The 2nd opposite party without even physically examining the complainant, advised and administered some medication intravenously and she soon went into a deep sleep. When she woke up by next morning, she realized that labour pain she had developed the previous evening had totally disappeared. In the morning, the 2nd opposite party informed that the complainant will have to undergo a caesarean section and she fixed the date for the same on 20.04.2007. On 20.04.2007, the complainant was shifted to the operation theatre around 10 a.m. Complainant was administered spinal anesthesia but she was fully conscious and experienced the pain of surgery being done on her. At that juncture the 1st opposite party told the 2nd opposite party 'make it fast uterus is getting blue'. After the stitching was done, the complainant again told the 2nd opposite party that she is having severe pain, then the complainant administered sedation and she dozed off. Next morning by 7 a.m the complainant developed severe breathing difficulties and it was informed that her stomach was enlarging. At the instance of the by-stander, the 2nd opposite party examined the complainant and in spite of her severe breathing problem raised both legs of the complainant physically and directed shifting of the complainant to the intensive care unit. A nursing staff enquired about the blood group of the complainant and directed arranging of blood for transfusion. The nurse gave a sample blood portion saying that it has to be taken along with the request form for blood matching to be done at the IMA blood bank. The 2nd opposite party informed the complainant's husband that the complainant is in a critical condition, as, somehow blood had entered her lungs and that has to be removed and also supplementary blood has to be transfused. The complainant's uncle Abdul Majeed brought the blood required. By then, the complainant was extremely pale and drained. The manual ventilator was being physically operated by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party told the 2nd opposite party that the complainant will have to be re-opened. The 2nd opposite party told the 1st opposite party that she did not have the confidence and cannot take the risk. By then, the complainant's relative Dr. Anil Ibrahim who had come from London came to the ICU and saw the complainant. He immediately used his contacts and made arrangements from Lakeshore Hospital, Maradu to bring an ambulance with full life support facilities and critical care ambulance. Accordingly, the complainant was taken to Lakeshore hospital. The complainant was subjected to hysterectomy and uterus was removed and steps were taken to prevent further bleeding. She had to undergo inpatient treatment from 21.04.2007 to 16.05.2007. The serious medical problem suffered by the complainant is a direct consequence of the negligence of the opposite parties. Had the 2nd opposite party taken sufficient care and caution in the manner of conducting the caesarean section the tear extending into the right broad ligament upto pelvic wall would not have occurred. The complainant had to expend Rs. 2,33,860/- at Lakeshore hospital and further amount of Rs. 19,070/- for the treatment of the child. Due to the complications occurred as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant is now suffering from serious physical ailments, which had even resulted in partial damages of her various organs including kidneys. The complainant and her husband who had planned to have at least five children is now lost the chance of even having one more child. As a result of the complications suffered, the complainant's husband had lost his job in the Middle East and could leave after getting a new job only on 31.01.2008. Thus, the complainant is before the forum claiming a total compensation of Rs.19,52,930/- against the opposite parties together with costs of the proceedings. Opposite parties filed version raising the following contentions: The 2nd opposite party is the Chief Gynaecologist, Laparoscopist and infertility specialist in 1st opposite party hospital for the last 23 years. She is highly skilled and has vast experience in treating all complicated cases relating to obstetrics, gynaecology and infertility. The complainant first consulted the 2nd opposite party on 27.07.2006 with complaints of infertility. At that time she had a history of two spontaneous abortions and one full term delivery. She had difficulties in her third pregnancy also for which a treatment called Circlage wiring was instituted for preventing abortion. She had many medical problems like hypothyroidism for which she was taking thyroxine 100 mg. tablets, diabetes mellitus and obesity (92 kgs). She was examined in detail and a clinical diagnosis of secondary infertility was made. The patient underwent urine pregnancy test on 28.08.2006 which was positive. She underwent ultra sound scan of abdomen on 27.09.2006, her calculated EDD was on 12.05.2007. On 21.11.2006 the patient was admitted for a procedure called internal OS tightening (circlage) which was intended to prevent abortion. An ultra sound scan done at that time showed live intra uterine gestation of 16 weeks, EDD on 04.05.2007. The patient underwent regular checkups with short term hospitalization when required, with prompt medical management of all her associated conditions. Although, the case was a high risk pregnancy, due to the expertise shown by the opposite parties in managing the case, the pregnancy was successfully carried to 36th week. On 16.04.2007, on routine follow up examination, the patient was found to have increased oedema, increased weight gain and increased blood pressure. The patient was admitted for delivery and was treated with appropriate medications. On 19.04.2007, a repeat ultra sonological examination was done which showed placental maturity grade IV and a baby weight of 4177 gm. In view of previous foetal losses, hypothyroidism, pre-ecclampsia, diabetes, macrosomia with CPD placental insufficiency and obesity, it was decided to deliver the baby by caesarean section. The surgery was done on 20.04.2007 and a live male healthy baby of weight 4.2 kg was delivered at 12.01 p.m. Intra operative and post-operative periods were uneventful. There was no inadvertent bleeding. All vital signs were normal and the patient was shifted to room in the evening. On 21.04.2007 at 6.30 a.m the patient complained of breathing difficulty. The 1st opposite party anaesthesiologist, who was in-charge of post operative care, saw the patient and intravenous fluids were given. The 2nd opposite party joined the 1st opposite party and considering the high risk post operative care, the patient was shifted to the operation theatre. The patient's dyspnoea increased and there was fall in blood pressure. Blood transfusion was arranged. Prompt decision to re-explore the case was taken. The patient's husband and another relative who was a doctor were called into the operation theatre. They were asked to consent for surgery. At about 7.50 am the relatives informed that they wanted to shift the patient to Lakeshore hospital and they were waiting for the surgical ICU beds to become vacant. First bottle of blood was started at 8 a.m. The patient was maintained under general anesthesia and all vital signs were stable.
The second bottle of blood was started at 9 a.m. By 9.15 am, ambulance team and anesthesiologist from Lakeshore hospital reached the 1st opposite party hospital. By 10 a.m the patient was shifted out of the 1st opposite party hospital. Bleeding is a known complication of caesarean section as mentioned in Williams Obstetrics 21st Edition page 553, Table 23-8. Post partum haemorrhage is listed as major complication with an incidence of 2.9/1000 in Williams Obstetrics, 21st Edition Page 553, Postpartum Hysterectomy. The opposite parties have taken reasonable care in the treatment of the patient. The treatment given to the patient is the standard treatment. Occurrence of a known medical complication cannot be attributed as negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as sought for. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. PW1 & PW2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the complainant and DW1 to DW5 were examined and Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. The file containing the medical records of the Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi was marked as Ext. X1.
4. Considering the evidence adduced by parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite parties have preferred the present appeal.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. Complainant had two spontaneous abortions and one full term delivery in 2004 and the child has no problem. Complainant first consulted the 2nd opposite party on 27.07.2006. To avoid spontaneous abortion the 2nd opposite party instituted circlage wiring on the complainant. The complainant was suffering from pregnancy induced hypertension and gestational diabetes. Complainant was initially admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital on 01.04.2007 and she was discharged after two days. She was again admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital for delivery on 16.04.2007. Caesarean section was conducted on 20.04.2007 and a live baby of weight 4.2 kg was delivered by the complainant at about 12 noon and on the same day evening complainant was shifted to the room. On 21.04.2007 in the morning severe breathing difficulties developed to the complainant. By 10 a.m on that day she was shifted to the Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi. On the same day she underwent subtotal hysterectomy with RSO (removal of uterus). Complainant developed renal failure and she was dialysed for few days. Renal functions improved and she was discharged from the hospital on 16.05.2007. There is not much dispute between the parties regarding these facts.
7. According to the complainant due to the negligence, latches and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties during the caesarean section and during post surgical care, medical complications were caused to her and she has to undergo prolonged treatment at the Lakeshore hospital, Kochi and she is suffering from serious physical ailments which had even resulted in partial damages to her various organs including kidneys. Opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant and they contended that there was no negligence, latches or deficiency in service on their part in giving treatment to the complainant. They stated that they have adopted reasonable care and provided standard line of treatment. According to them a possible medical complication cannot be termed as medical negligence on their part.
8. It is stated by the complainant that she was medically fit for normal delivery but the opposite parties did not permit for the same for their own reasons and she was subjected to lower segment caesarean section. The district forum found that the complainant did not succeed in proving deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties during the pre-operative period. It is stated by the opposite parties that the decision for lower segment caesarean section was taken considering the best interest of the patient as well the baby. The reasons for deciding to conduct lower segment caesarean section were stated in detail in paragraph 8 of the version filed by the opposite parties. Further DWs 1 &2 had given the details/reasons for taking such a decision. The district forum rightly found that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in her pre-operative treatment. Further the complainant had not challenged that finding of the district forum.
9. There is no dispute to the fact that on 20.04.2017 complainant underwent the lower segment caesarean operation by the 2nd opposite party and a live male healthy baby having weight of 4.2 kg was delivered by her. The 1st opposite party had given spinal anesthesia. Subsequent to the caesarean section complainant was shifted to the room in the evening on 20.04.2007. On the next day morning the complainant developed breathing difficulties and she was found to have diaspora, tachycardia and hypertension. According to the opposite parties the relatives of the patient did not give consent for continuing the treatment and even after denial of the consent for surgery they have done everything to maintain and support the vital systems of the complainant for a long period of 2½ hours. Admittedly at the instance of the relatives of the patient, the complainant was shifted to the Lakeshore hospital, Kochi at about 10 am on 21.04.2007. Ext. A1 is the Discharge Summary issued from the Department of Gynaecology and Ext. A2 is the Discharge summary issued from the Department of Nephrology, Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi regarding the treatment of the complainant in that hospital. Complainant was treated in that hospital as inpatient from 21.04.2007 to 16.05.2007. In Ext. A1 it is stated that 'abdominal tap showed frank blood. There was no vagenal bleeding. Explorative laparotomy done. At laparotomy 3-3.5 liters blood and clots came out. Uterus was flabby, there was a hematoma in the right broad ligament extending up to the pelvic wall. Broad ligament opened and clots removed. There was bleeding into the broad ligament. Tried to conserve uterus with drugs but BP was still low. Decided to proceed with subtotal hysterectomy with RSO'. In paragraph 15 of the Order of the district forum it is stated that DWs 1 to 3 and 5 have no explanation about the injury of the patient noted in Ext. X1 page 180 that there was tear extending into the broad ligament. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the said finding of the district forum is not correct. The district forum arrived at such a finding on the basis of the entries in page No. 180 of Ext. X1 wherein it is stated that there is a tear extending into the broad ligament. The counsel for the appellants submitted that if there was a tear extending up to the broad ligament the surgeon who conducted the operation and who prepared the operation notes would have certainly recorded that fact. Page 243 of Ext. X1 contains the operational notes of the surgeon who conducted the operation. There, it is stated that there was a huge hematoma on the right broad ligament extending up to the pelvic wall. Broad ligament opened and clots removed. There was bleeding into the broad ligament. But it is not mentioned that there is a tear extending into the broad ligament. In Ext. A1 also it is stated that there is a hematoma in the right broad ligament extending up to the pelvic wall. There also it is not stated about the tear extending into the broad ligament. It is also noted that broad ligament opened and clots removed. There was bleeding into the broad ligament. DWs 3 & 5 deposed that if the surgeon who conducted the surgery had noted the 'tear' he would have certainly recorded the same in the operation notes and that was not noted by him in page 243 of Ext. X1 and there it is stated that broad ligament was opened. The complainant has not taken steps to examine the doctors of the Lakeshore Hospital who had conducted the operation and who had treated her to state about her actual body conditions at that concerned time. In these circumstances on the basis of the note written in page No. 180 of Ext. X1 that there is a tear extending into the broad ligament it is not possible to conclude that there was such a tear especially in the absence of mention of any such tear in the operation note prepared by the surgeon who conducted the surgery (Page No. 243 of Ext. X1) and in Ext. A1 discharge summary. So the finding of the district forum that the tear was caused during surgery due to the negligence and latches on the part of the 2nd opposite party during the caesarean section or while performing the peritoneal toileting is not sustainable and it is to be set aside.
10. It is the case of the complainant that after stitching was done she told the 2nd opposite party that she was having heavy pain and the 2nd opposite party told that she will be given sedation. The complainant was administered sedation and she dozed off. By the evening sedation started receding and she came to know that she was in a room in the hospital. She continued to groan and moan in pain. On the next day, on 21.04.2007 at 7 am severe breathing difficulties occurred to the complainant and it was noted that her stomach was enlarging. Her sister-in-law informed the nurse and on getting information the 2nd opposite party came to the room and complainant was shifted to the operation theatre. Even though there is dispute between the parties regarding the circumstances under which the complainant was shifted from the 1st opposite party hospital to the Lakeshore Hospital it is an admitted fact that on 21.04.2007 at about 10 am the complainant was shifted to the Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi where laparotomy was done. As per Exts. A1 and X1 a huge hematoma on the right broad ligament extending up to the pelvic wall was found. Peritoneal cavity was filled with blood and clots, about 3 litres of blood came out. To save the patient hysterectomy was done. DW1 & DW2 deposed that bleeding is a known complication of normal delivery or caesarean section. DWs 3 & 5 experts who were examined by the opposite parties also stated that bleeding is a known complication of normal delivery or caesarean section. But it is to be noted that the opposite parties have no case that after the caesarean section they noted bleeding or there was bleeding and they had taken steps to arrest the bleeding by doing artery ligation or other means. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that after the caesarean section the 2nd opposite party could not find out any injury, hematoma or bleeding. DW2 deposed that after the removal of the baby by caesarean section she had thoroughly performed peritoneal toileting by using plastic suction cannula smooth edged/curved retractor and mopex. She further deposed that she could not find any injury on the broad ligament or bleeding from there. DW2 also gave deposition in tune with the deposition by DW1. DW3 deposed that hematoma in broad ligament is usually developed at the time of delivery but there are reports that in some cases hematoma was developed in some other stages also. But he has no specific case that hematoma noted in the right broad ligament of the complainant was developed subsequent to the delivery and he could only state that as per the records there was no hematoma after the caesarean delivery of the complainant. Further when a suggestive question was put to DW3 that after surgery if toileting was not done properly the hematoma will not be noticed, he answered that it will not be noticed. In this context it is pertinent to note that the opposite parties failed to produce the post operative records regarding the treatment of the complainant before the forum. DWs 1 & 2 deposed that the same was kept at the bed side of the complainant and the relatives of the complainant might have taken the same. It is to be noted that the opposite parties had no such contention in the version filed by them and it does not find a place in any of the records produced by them. DW1 & DW2 stated that they have not taken any action for getting the said records and they have not preferred any complaint before anybody regarding that fact. In these circumstances the said contention raised by the opposite parties is to be rejected and it has to be considered that the opposite parties have purposefully not produced those documents considering that if those documents are produced it will cause harm to them. Considering the evidence, entire facts and circumstances it has to be considered that there was lack of care and caution on the part of the 2nd opposite party, expected from a medical professional, in giving treatment to the post operative period of the complainant. If the 2nd opposite party had taken necessary procedures and all mandatory steps of cleaning and preparation prior to the conclusion of the surgery and before the stitching of the complainant, properly, then the hematoma on the right broad ligament extending up to the pelvic wall of the complainant would have been noticed by the 2nd opposite party then itself and then she could have taken necessary measures to rectify the said damage and it would have avoided the further complications caused to the complainant.
11. On going through Ext. A11 it can be seen that page No. 22 contains the notes of the 2nd opposite party regarding the caesarean section conducted by her on the complainant. It contains notes regarding the physical condition of the complainant after the caesarean section and the acts done by 2nd opposite party after the surgery. It is written as "Bleeding in normal limit. Uterus contracted. Uterus sutured. Peritoneal toileting done, Peritoneum closed. Abdomen closed in layers. Baby weight 4.2 kg". Pages 39, 40 & 41 of Ext. A11 contains the details of medicines given to the complainant as per the direction of the 2nd opposite party and other details upto 3 pm on 20.04.2007. The next entry in page No. 41 is 7 a.m on 21.04.2007. Then at 7.15 am it is recorded that the 2nd opposite party was called to the room as the patient complained of difficulty in breathing. 'BP 90/60. Shifted to the operation theatre for cardioscopy'. So from Ext. A11 it is not possible to ascertain whether the opposite parties or the nurses attended the complainant and assessed her physical condition in between 3 pm on 20.04.2007 and 7 am on 21.04.2007. From Ext. A11 it is not possible to ascertain the body condition of the complainant and what actually happened during the said time/interval. In these circumstances the non-production of the post operative records by the opposite parties has got much significance. There is no dispute to the fact that on 21.04.2007 at about 10 am the complainant was taken to the Lakeshore hospital, Kochi and there she had undergone hysterectomy. In that hospital laparotomy was done and about 3 liters of blood collected in the abdomen of the complainant came out. There was bleeding into the broad ligament. The opposite parties failed to prove either by expert evidence or by medical literature that the development of hematoma on the right broad ligament of the complainant and bleeding occurred to the complainant which caused breathlessness to her at 7.15 am on 21.04.2007 was a sudden development which occurred at that time, because of some medical complication, unconnected with the lower segment caesarean conducted on her. As stated above, the opposite parties have not produced the post operative records of the complainant. The district forum has discussed the decision V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital III (2010) CPJ 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case where negligence is evident, the principle of res ipsa loquitur operates and the complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing proves itself. In such a case it is for the respondent to prove that he has taken care and done his duty to repel the charge of negligence. From the evidence, facts and circumstance it has to be concluded that there was lack of care and caution on the part of the 2nd opposite party during the post operative period of the complainant and the opposite parties failed to prove that they have taken proper care and done their duties as Doctors.
12. Opposite parties took the contention that the complainant or her relatives failed to give consent for re-exploration. As found by the district forum, there is nothing on record to suggest that the opposite parties informed the complainant or her relatives, including a doctor who was present at the scene with regard to the complication or risk involved by going without the operation/treatment at the earliest. A doctor who failed to perform an emergency operation must prove that the patient refused to undergo the operation even after the patient or relatives were informed about the damages and consequences of not undergoing of the operation. As found by the district forum the opposite parties could not establish the same either by oral evidence or documentary evidence.
13. In Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others (2009(9) Supreme Court Cases 221) it was held that negligence is breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind or objectively careless conduct. It is not an absolute term but is a relative one it is rather a comparative term. In determining whether negligence existed in a particular case, all the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances have to be taken into account. Professional competence of highest order is not expected from every doctor. He must use reasonable degree of skill of his profession in diagnosis and treatment. Failure to use due skill in diagnosis resulting in wrong treatment amounts to negligence. Failure to diagnose the disease at the initial stage by a doctor coupled with his prescription of high dose of steroid was considered as negligence on his part.
14. In the light of the dictum laid down in the above cited decision and considering the evidence, facts and circumstances it can be concluded that there is medical negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party in imparting proper treatment and care to the complainant. So, though for different reasons, the finding of the district forum that there was medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party is to be upheld. As found by the district forum, the 1st opposite party is vicariously liable for the acts of the 2nd opposite party in the capacity of her employer and so the opposite parties are jointly and severally answerable for the deficiency in service and negligence in imparting medical treatment to the complainant. The district forum has directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 7,38,859.69 as compensation to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization. The district forum has arrived on that amount by considering the hospital and treatment expenses incurred by complainant and by awarding Rs. 5,00,000/- towards pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case we consider that the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-ordered by the district forum towards pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant is on the higher side and it has to be reduced to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Complainant is entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum for the amount of compensation ordered from 31.12.2013 till realization. Order passed by the district forum is to be modified to that effect.
14. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. The Order passed by the district forum is modified as follows: Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 5,38,859.69 with interest @ 8% per annum from 31.12.2013 till realization to the complainant. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER RANJIT. R : MEMBER jb [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH] JUDICIAL MEMBER [ SRI.RANJIT.R] MEMBER