State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.Nagoor Gani,Pudukottai. vs Authorised Signatory,Ksdc Hospital & ... on 29 October, 2015
1
IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.J. JAYARAM, Presiding Judicial Member.
Thiru.M. MURUGESAN, Member.
C.C.No.01/2014
THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015.
S. Nagoor Gani,
S/o Segu Syed,
P.R. Pattinam, 126/A,
Krishnaji Pattinam - Post,
Manamelkudi Taluk,
Pudukottai - 614 630. Complainant
-Vs-
1. KSDC Hospital and Research,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
7, K.S. Nagar, Pudukottai Road,
Thanjavur - 613 005. 1st Opposite Party
2. Dr.S. Vanchilingam,
Neurology Consultant,
KSDC Hospital and Research,
7, K.S. Nagar,
Pudukottai Road,
Thanjavur - 613 005. 2nd Opposite Party
3. Dr.Somesh Vanchilingam,
Neurology Consultant,
KSDC Hospital and Research
7, K.S. Nagar, Pudukottai Road,
Thanjavur - 613 005. 3rd Opposite Party
Counsel for Complainant : Mr.I. Suthakaran, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite Parties-1 to 3 : Mr.M. Panneer Selvam, Advocate.
2
This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 25.08.2015 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this
Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU. J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The case of the complainant as per the amended complaint is as follows:-
In the month of April 2012, the complainant started feeling pain in his right leg/lower limb. On 22.06.2012 he consulted the 2nd opposite party at the 1st opposite party hospital. The 2nd opposite party advised the complainant to take an MRI LS spine, EMG LLs, ECG, Doppler Right Lower Limb and routine Blood Test. On examining him and on perusing the medical reports, the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that he was suffering from Peripheral Arterial disease in the right lower limb and that his problem can be rectified only by surgery. On 06.07.2012 he got admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital and surgery was conducted for 2 ½ hours under local anesthesia and so he was not aware of what was done by the 2nd opposite party and when he became fully conscious; he noticed that the surgery was performed in the left leg whereas he was admitted for surgery in the right leg and the complainant started feeling severe pain in the left leg. When he and his family members questioned the opposite parties about the surgery in the left leg the opposite parties gave evasive replies and there was no proper answer. The 3rd opposite party visited him and on perusing the reports he did not offer any explanation or advice to the complainant. In the meantime the 2nd opposite party advised him to do Doppler test for the left lower 3 limb and accordingly, Doppler test was conducted on 07.07.2012 and after the test, the 2nd opposite party merely advised him to go to Trichy and consult Dr.Anand, Vascular Surgeon immediately; but the opposite parties did not reveal the reasons and he had paid all the bills and on payment of charges, opposite parties arranged an ambulance to shift him to Kavery Medical Centre and Hospital (Kavery Hospital) at Trichy and he had paid nearly Rs.20,000/- to the opposite parties for their treatment before discharging him. He was discharged around 1.00 P.M. on 07.07.2012 and he was taken to Kavery Hospital, at Trichy, and he reached Kavery Hospital around 2.30 P.M. on that day itself.
2. At Kavery Hospital he consulted Dr.Anand and on his advice he was forced to undergo Blood Tests, CT Scan, X-ray ECG and Echo - Cardiogram and after perusing the laboratory test reports Dr.Anand informed him that wrong surgery was done by the 2nd opposite party in the left leg instead of the right leg and the left lower limb had to be amputed, otherwise, there was danger to his life and the opposite party informed him that the cost of the surgery would be Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainant and his family members were living in poverty and they were not in a position to mobilize funds and so Dr.Anand advised the complainant to go to Government Hospital for the surgery for amputation of the left leg and having no other option, the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 07.07.2012 after paying the entire bills for Rs.30,000/- and following the advice of Dr.Anand the complainant was admitted in the Government Hospital, at Chennai on 09.07.2012 and again he has subjected to yet another round of lab tests and reports and the doctors expressed the same opinion as expressed by 4 Dr.Anand and he underwent three surgeries on 17.07.2012, 19.07.2012 and 21.07.2012 and his left lower limb was amputed.
3. The opposite parties have been grossly negligent on several counts:-
(a) By performing surgery in the left lower limb; while the surgery ought to have been conducted in the right lower limb.
(b) The surgery was in fact performed by the 2nd opposite party, who had been treating the Complainant since 22.06.2012; however, the 2 nd opposite party had operated the wrong leg without even properly perusing the records.
(c) The 2nd opposite party had failed to notice the difference in the impressions mentioned in the initial Peripheral Artery of Right Lower Limb dated 22.06.2012 and that available at the time of surgery.
(d) It is necessary to note that the Complainant approached the opposite parties with pain in the right lower limb and all tests were performed but infact surgery was performed in the left leg as evidenced by Peripheral Artery of Left Lower Limb dated 07.07.2012 and the subsequent advice and treatment of the complainant.
(e) Having complete knowledge about the complications which arose during the surgery; the second opposite party and the other opposite parties had deliberately kept the Complainant and his family members in the dark about the negligence and subsequent complications.
(f) Through the opposite parties were well aware of the fact that the complainant's left leg ought to be amputed due to the negligent surgery of the 5 second opposite party; they had concealed the said fact from the Complainant and his family members and this act is in total violation of the hospital ethics and norms.
(g) The opposite parties had maliciously claimed that there is no complication due to the wrong surgery and they made all efforts to discharge the complainant from the hospital at the earliest.
(h) Further the malafide acts of the opposite parties are also evident from the fact that the opposite parties had provided a discharge summary dated 07.07.2012; which is highly vague and ambiguous.
(i) The discharge summary had deliberately revealed that "DSA was done on 06.07.2012" but at what region the DSA was performed is not mentioned; this will clearly prove that the opposite parties had intentionally concealed the negligent and wrong surgery.
(j) The opposite parties had maliciously omitted the pain at the Left Lower Limb while mentioning the condition at discharge.
(k) The details mentioned in the Discharge Advice "Continue medication and Physiotherapy" and to follow up appointment "To review in 15 days with appointment" and the Discharge summary portrays as if the problems of the complainants have been totally treated and cured. This is totally contrary to the 2nd opposite party's advice to consult Dr.Anand, Vascular Surgeon, Kavery Hospital, Trichy.
6
(l) Apart from the above stated; the complainant also understands that the opposite parties need not have conducted any surgery, as the problem could even be cured by oral medications.
4. From the above stated facts, it is evident that the opposite parties and their personnel had exhibited a lethargic attitude and the intention was to obtain illegal and wrongful gains at the cost of the complainant. The opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service, unfair and deceptive trade practice and faulty and defective service. The opposite parties have behaved in a most negligent and indifferent manner by ignoring the assurance and promises made by them to the complainant and his family and had deliberately misled them with their frivolous and malicious promises. This indifferent and negligent act of the opposite parties has cost the complainant, his entire livelihood and rendered him incapable to freely mobilizing and carrying on his employmet and putting them to great inconvenience and hardships. The complainant submits that due to failure of the opposite parties to provide proper and reasonable care during the surgery and the post-surgical care leading to several complications and resulting in the amputation of his left leg. Due to the amputation, the complainant is unable to resume his employment and having studied only upto 5th standard; the complainant is unable to find another alternative job. Being the sole breadwinner of the family and his wife and 3 children are entirely dependent on his income only. The complainant is presently having no job and he is finding it very difficult to run his family. Due to his poverty, the education and health of his children are also affected. It the leg was not amputed; the complainant would be earning nearly Rs.15,000/- per 7 month and having acted negligently, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the future earnings of the complainant. Apart from that the complainant had expended nearly Rs.1,50,000/- for the medical treatment, Lab tests and medicines; thereafter, nearly Rs.1,00,000/- towards the travel expenses till date.
5. As the entire livelihood of the complainant has been affected due to the negligent and deficient surgery done by the opposite parties in the wrong leg; the complainant has suffered severe mental agony, trauma and stress; for which the opposite party is liable to compensate hm. That apart, the opposite party is also liable to pay damages to the complainant towards the negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by it as a result of which the complainant had lost his left leg. Further, the loss and inconvenience caused to the complainant are unquantifiable, but the complainant would like to restrict the same to Rs.45,00,000/-. Hence the complainant praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- towards past and future medical, travel and other expenses and also compensation for mental agony, sufferings, hardships, physical strain, pressure, etc., caused to the complainant due to the negligence and the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and to pay costs.
6. The 2nd opposite party filed version, adopted by opposite parties 1 and 3 as follows:- The 1st opposite party's hospital is fully equipped with modern equipments, and diagnostic centre with all medical facilities. The 2nd opposite party is a senior Neurology consultant of the 1st opposite party hospital and the 3rd opposite is also a Neurology consultant and the proprietor of the 1st opposite party hospital. No surgery 8 was performed in the left leg of the complainant but performed the diagnostic procedure i.e. Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA) through left femoral on 06.07.2012. On 22.06.2012, the complainant visited the 1st opposite party's hospital and the complainant had severe pain in the right leg and after examining him the 2 nd opposite party diagnosed as a case of TAO (Thrombo Angitis Obliterans) and explained the same to the complainant about his diagnosis and illness and advised the complainant to take MRI LS spine, EMG LLS, ECG, Doppler scan for the right lower limb and routine blood tests were done.
7. The EMG test report revealed that both peroneal nerves involved left more than right, the impression of MRI scan report revealed that individual Lumbar Spines appear normal, Degnerative disc disease L1L2,L4L5 and L5S1, Posterolateral disc protrusion IVD between L4L5 & L5S1 and extradual thecal sac indentation and right exiting nerve root compression at L4L5 level, the impression of Doppler study of Peripheral artery of right lower limb revealed that Diffuse occlusive peripheral arterial disease involving the PTA and SFA, Critical stenosis at mid SFA level with stenosis of 98%, Faint reformation of distal popliteal artery with demonstrable flow and PTA, ATA and peroneal arteries show gradual reduction in flow with absent flow in the dorsalis pedis artery. Considering the medical reports the 2nd opposite party decided to do DSA (Digital Subtraction Angiography) in order to find out the nature and extent of occlusion and presence of collaterals and reformation of distal arteries and he explained the same to the complainant and prescribed medicines for 15 days and the reports were handed over to him.
9
8. On 06.07.2012 at about 1.50 P.M. the complainant again visited the opposite party hospital complaining of pain as before and after examining him and perusing all the medical reports the 2nd opposite party explained everything to the complainant about the diagnostic procedure of DSA and the needs, the complainant agreed to the same and so the complainant was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital on the same day and ECG and pre procedure blood test, physiotheraphy for muscle power and referred him to the Interventional Radiologist for taking DSA. The Interventional Radiologist examined in the complainant and explained everything about DSA investigation and procedure and the risk factors and the complainant signed the consent for DSA.
9. The complainant was taken to the Cath Lab at 4.30 P.M. and the DSA (Digital Subtraction Angiogram) right lower limb was performed under local anesthesia through left femoral artery route using 4F vertebral glide catheter by the Interventional Radiologist and the procedure was completed at 6.20 P.M. and shifted the complainant to ICU for post procedure management. The impression of the DSA right lower limb angiogram revealed that medium segment total occlusion of mid right SFA with multiple collaterals reforming the distal SFA, 50% short segment stenosis of mid right SFA proximal to the occluded segment. After reading the impression of DSA, the Interventional Radiologist had a discussion that this 45 years male, a chronic smoker with worsening right lower limb claudication since 3 months. Doppler evaluation showed hemodynamically significant mid right SFA stenosis. DSA done on 06.07.2012 showed medium segment total occlusion with multiple collaterals reforming the distal right SFA. 10 After the discussion, he opined that the complainant will benefit from endovascular angioplasty with stenting by vascular Surgeon. After receiving the DSA report and the opinion of Interventional Radiologist, this opposite party informed the same to the complainant with a diagram, explained the immediate need to undergo the treatment by Vascular Surgeon as per the opinion of the Interventional Radiologist.
10. The complainant informed that he had pain over left limb. So, this opposite party treated him with necessary medication and advised him to take Doppler Peripheral artery of Left Lower Limb and the same was done immediately. The impression of the report revealed that EIA, CFA, PFA are normal in the left lower limb, Occlusive peripheral arterial disease left lower limb arteries with significant occlusion left SFA due to TAO, Few collaterals are seen in the left femoral triangle, Venous system normal and there is no haematoma at the puncture site. After reading the report, this opposite party explained the same to the complainant and advised him to have an early consultation with vascular surgeon since the complainant needs to undergo endovascular angioplasty with stent as per the opinion of Interventional Radiologist which will benefit the complainant to relieve from medium segment total occlusion with multiple collaterals reforming the distal right SFA as per the report of DSA and for the opinion and management of left lower limb since the report of Doppler Peripheral artery of Left lower limb taken on 07.07.2012 revealed that occlusive peripheral arterial disease left lower limb arteries with significant occlusion left SFA due to TAO and Few collaterals are seen in the left femoral triangle. The complainant agreed to the same and expressed his willingness. So this opposite party prescribed 11 medicines for his pain and discharged the complainant at 12.45 P.M. on 07.07.2012 with the advice to continue medication and sent the complainant in an ambulance to Dr.Anand along with his staff after contacting Dr.Anand, the Vascular Surgeon of Kavery hospital, Trichy and the staff of this opposite party informed him that they admitted the complainant at KMC hospital, Trichy at about 2.30 P.M. At the time of discharge, a discharge summary, all the investigation reports and the prescriptions were handed over to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant did not turn up to this opposite party till date. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. The complainant filed proof affidavit reiterating the averments and the allegations in the complaint. Twenty seven documents have been filed and marked as Exhibits A1 to A27 on the side of the complainant.
12. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit adopted by opposite parties 1 and 3 reiterating their averments in the version. The opposite parties filed one document (series) marked as Exhibit-B1 series.
13. The points for consideration are:-
(1) Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties?12
(3) To what relief the complainant is entitled?
14. POINTS No: 1 & 2 Ex-A1 is the Patient Consultation Record, Ex-A2 Blood Test,Ex-A3 EMG LLS, Ex-A4 ECG, Ex-A5 MRI Scan, Ex-A6 Peripheral Artery of Right Lower Limb, Ex-A7 Prescription, Ex-A8 Bill, Ex-A9 ECG, Ex-10, Blood Tests, Ex-11 DSA Report, Ex-12 Lab Report, Ex-13 Peripheral Artery of Left Lower Limb, Ex-14 Prescription, Ex-15 Bills regarding payment to opposite parties, Ex-16 Discharge Summary, Ex-17 Registration slip of Kavery Hospital, Ex-18 ECG, Ex-19 Echo Cardiogram, Ex-20 Lab Reports, Ex-21 Bills for medicine, Ex-22 Multislice CT Peripheral Angiogram, Ex-23 Bill raised by Kavery Hospital, Ex-24 Medical Records of Government Hospital, Chennai, Ex-25 Family Card, Ex-26 Pass Book issued by the department for the Welfare of Differently Abled, and Ex- 27 is the Account Statement.
15. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation from the opposite parties for the negligence and deficiency in service in treating the complainant and in conducting the surgery and adopting unfair trade practice resulting in amputation of his left lower limb.
16. The case of the complainant is that he had been suffering from severe pain in the right leg for which he consulted the 2nd opposite party in the 1st opposite party hospital on 22.06.2012 and after various tests and investigations including MRI LS spine, EMG LLs, ECG, Doppler Right Lower Limb and routine Blood Test and after examining him the 2nd opposite party diagnosed as Peripheral Arterial Disease and 13 advised him to come prepared for the surgery, since the treatment warrants surgery in the right lower limb.
17. On 06.07.2012 he was posted for surgery in the right leg but surgery was performed in the left leg and after that on 07.07.2012 he was sent to Trichy hospital to consult the Vascular Surgeon who examined the complainant and informed the complainant that the problem was in the right leg but due to negligence his left leg was operated and the only further course would be amputation of left lower limb and since the complainant had no money for the medical expenses, the Vascular Surgeon referred the complainant to Government Hospital at Chennai where his left leg was amputated.
18. The contention of the opposite parties would be that no surgery was conducted in the left leg and DSA (Digital Subtraction Angiography) right lower limb alone was performed through left femoral artery route using 4F vertebral glide catheter and he was discharged from the hospital on 07.07.2012.
19. It is pertinent to note that there is no medical experts' evidence or opinion on record and so we have to decide the case in the absence of medical evidence/opinion invoking the doctrine of "Res ipsa loquitur" placing reliance on the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Krishna Rao -Vs- Nikhil Super Specialist Hospital & Anr. III - (2010) - CPJ - 1 - (SC).
"In the opinion of this Court, before forming a opinion that expert's evidence is necessary, the Fora under the Act must come to a conclusion that the case is complicated enough to require the opinion of the expert 14 or that facts of the case, are such that it cannot be resolved by the members of the Fora without the assistance of the expert's opinion".
"In a case, where negligence is evident, the principle of res ipsa loquitur operates".
(2) Jacob Mathew -Vs- State of Punjab & Anr 2005-(6) Supreme Court Cases.
"Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence which in reality belongs to the law of Torts. Inference as to negligence may be drawn from proved circumstances by applying the rule".
20. The rule of Res-ipsa loquitur it is quite applicable to the instant case and the case has been decided on considering the available evidence/materials. The patient was admitted for surgery on 06.07.2012 for pain in the right lower limb and he was operated on the same day. It is significant to note that he was operated in the left leg instead of right leg and there is no proper explanation from the opposite parties for conducting the surgery in the left leg instead of right leg except a vague statement from the opposite parties that DSA (Digital Subtraction Angiography) alone was conducted in the right lower limb through left femoral artery.
21. The DSA report Ex-A11 is as follows:-
IMPRESSION: "MEDIUM SEGMENT TOTAL OCCLUSION OF MID RIGHT SFA WITH MULTIPLE COLLATERALS REFORMING THE DISTAL SFA". "50% SHORT SEGMENT STENOSIS OF MID RIGHT SFA PROXIMAL TO THE OCCLUDED SEGMENT".
In these circumstances it would have been proper if the interventional radiologist who examined the complainant and had done DSA, had filed an affidavit so that he could have been cross-examined.15
22. It is further relevant to note that the material facts have been suppressed in the discharge certificate Ex.A16. The facts that the complainant suffered severe pain in both the legs even after the surgery and at the time of discharge and the fact that he was sent Trichy in the Ambulance on 07.07.2012 to consult a Vascular Surgeon at Trichy and the reason for referring the complainant to Vascular Surgeon are conspicuously absent in the discharge summary.
23. We have to take special note of the fact that in the discharge summary it is recorded as though he was discharged from the hospital after complete treatment and fully recovered and as though he was sent home after successful and complete treatment. In the discharge summary it is noted as "Continue medication and Physiotherapy. To review in 15 days with appointment". The happenings on 06.07.2012 after admitting him for surgery until his discharge and the circumstances which warranted immediate consultation with Vascular Surgeon withholding it from the knowledge of the complainant and his relatives and suppressing them in the discharge summary are shrouded in mystery and it is a grey area.
24. It is seen from the discharge summary that no surgery was done and the entire treatment as stated above and the reason for sending the patient to the Vascular Surgeon at Trichy in their ambulance (after collecting charges) are totally suppressed and the discharge summary is totally misleading and unreliable.
25. We have to further note that the complainant was admitted in the 1 st opposite party hospital on 06.07.2012 for surgery and he was discharged on the very next day i.e., 07.07.2012. On 07.07.2012 he has been discharged post haste and he 16 was dispatched to Trichy by the opposite parties at the earliest opportunity without disclosing the problem or any complaications at the time of discharge, disowning any responsibility or liability.
26. On perusal of the DSA report Ex.A11 dated 06.07.2015 we find that the entire procedure was unevenful and the opposite parties have told the complainant and his relatives that there was no complication and they did not inform any other details regarding the condition of the patient and the problems at the time of discharge and the necessities for discharging him immediately after the diagnostic procedure of DSA to meet the Vascular Surgeon. It is quite apparent that the diagnostic procedure/surgery and the complications etc., are concealed from the knowledge of the complainant and his family members and also in the discharge summary.
27. The complainant has established his case of negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite parties and it is well settled law that when the complainant has established the case, the onus shifts to the opposite party to rebut it and prove that there was no negligence; but no rebuttal evidence is adduced by the opposite parties in this regard. We place reliance on the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where is it is ruled as follows:
Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences -Vs- Prasanth S. Dhananka and Others - 2009 - INDLAW-SC 1047 "In a case involving medical negligence once the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant by making out a case of negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned, the onus then shifts on to 17 the hospital or to the attending doctors, and it is for the hospital to satisfy the Court that there was no lack of care or diligence".
28. On considering the entire materials on record, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice and that the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties and the points are answered accordingly.
29. POINT No: 3 The complainant has claimed Rs.45,00,000/-as total compensation and we feel that the claim is very much on the higher side and we are inclined to award Rs.20,00,000/- as total compensation which is just and reasonable. The complainant is aged 45 years and he is a Driver-cum-Mechanic and he has three children. He has approached the opposite parties for the treatment of severe pain in the right leg and he had been suffering severe pain in the right leg; but apart from the continuing severe pain with no relief for the severe pain in the right leg, he has lost his left lower limb. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering all the relevant factors we feel that award of Rs.20,00,000/- would be the just and reasonable compensation for loss of the left lower limb and the continuing severe pain in right leg and mental agony, sufferings, and for the medical and other expenses incurred by the complainant, and for the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties and the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the point is answered accordingly.
18
30. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh only) as total compensation and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
Time-for compliance: Two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
In case of default to comply with the order, the award amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till compliance Sd/-xxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxx M. MURUGESAN, J. JAYARAM, MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
List of documents filed by the Complainant:
Ex.A1 22.06.2012 Patient Consultation Record.
Ex.A2 22.06.2012 Blood Test.
Ex.A3 22.06.2012 EMG LLS.
Ex.A4 22.06.2012 ECG.
Ex.A5 22.06.2012 MRI Scan.
Ex.A6 22.06.2012 Peripheral Artery of Right Lower Limb.
Ex.A7 22.06.2012 Prescription.
Ex.A8 22.06.2012 Bills.
Ex.A9 06.07.2012 ECG.
Ex.A10 06.07.2012 Blood Tests.
Ex.A11 06.07.2012 DSA Report.
19
Ex.A12 07.07.2012 Lab Report.
Ex.A13 07.07.2012 Peripheral Artery of Left Lower Limb.
Ex.A14 07.07.2012 Prescription.
Ex.A15 06.07.2012
to Bills regarding payment to opposite parties.
07.07.2012
Ex.A16 07.07.2012 Discharge summary.
Ex.A17 07.07.2012 Registration slip of Kavery Hospital.
Ex.A18 07.07.2012 ECG.
Ex.A19 07.07.2012 Echo Cardiogram.
Ex.A20 07.07.2012 Lab Reports.
Ex.A21 07.07.2012 Bills for medicine.
Ex.A22 07.07.2012 Multislice CT Peripheral Angiogram,
Ex.A23 07.07.2012
to Bills raised by Kavery Hospital.
08.07.2012
Ex.A24 09.07.2012
to Medical Records of Government Hospital, Chennai.
31.07.2012
Ex.A25 --- Family Card No.21/G/0168380.
Ex.A26 08.03.2013 Pass Book issued by department for the Welfare of Differently Abled.
20
Ex.A27 25.03.2009 Account statement.
List of documents filed by the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Series 06.07.2012 The 2nd Opposite Party submitted by Complainant's
to Narrative History and Physical Exam, Amenities Chart,
07.07.2012 KSDC Hospital ICU Chart, Department of Physiotherapy
Muscle Power Chart, Consent letter, Discharge Summary, and DSA report.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxx
M. MURUGESAN, J. JAYARAM,
MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
21