Bangalore District Court
R. Venkatesh Kumar vs M.S. Ramaiah Hospital on 4 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2016.
PRESENT:
Sri PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA, B.A.,LL.B.(Spl.),
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.3883/2011
PLAINTIFF : R. Venkatesh Kumar,
S/o. Late V. Rajkumar,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.A/62,
Sector II, H.M.T. Colony,
Jalahalli,Bengaluru-560013.
(By Sri S.N. Channabasappa,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. M.S. Ramaiah Hospital,
New BEL Road,
M.S. Ramaiah Nagar,
MSIRT Post,
Bengaluru - 560 054,
represented by HOD,
Department of Psychiatry.
2. Dr. Pradeep,
Psychiatry Department,
M.S. Ramaiah Hospital,
New BEL Road,
M.S. Ramaiah Nagar,
MSIRT Post,
Bengaluru - 560 054.
3. Nagalakshmi,
D/o. Narasimha Murthy,
Aged about 33 years,
No.12/1, 6th Block,
Yadiyur, 1st Main Road,
Jayanagar 6th Block,
Bengaluru - 560 082.
-2- O.S. No.3883/2011
(Defendants 1 and 2 by Sri
K.P., Advocate)
(Defendant No.3 : Ex-parte)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of institution : 02-06-2011.
Nature of suit : For recovery of money.
Date of commence- : 14-06-2013.
ment of recording of
evidence
Date on which the : 04-01-2016.
Judgment was
Pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
-----------------------------------------
Total duration 4 years 7 months, 2 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 to pass judgment and decree directing defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000-00 towards damages and for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from issuing false certificate about the plaintiff and for issue of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to tender an unconditional apology to the plaintiff and to publish the same in the daily newspaper.
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.3883/2011
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff has contended that he is an employee of HMT CSD and he has been serving the company for more than 23 years. It is submitted that on 17-06- 2005, the plaintiff suffered tiredness and went to the HMT Hospital complaining the same. After having the preliminary check up, the Doctor Smt. Sabit Mishra at HMT Hospital referred the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 Hospital with a note that the plaintiff is suffering from tiredness. It is submitted that with the said note along with, along with defendant No.3, plaintiff visited defendant No.1 Hospital on the same day, i.e., 17-06- 2005 for treatment on tiredness and on the dame day, defendant No.3 registered the name of the plaintiff and straightway went to psychiatry department. Plaintiff after waiting for some time for searching her and found her in the psychiatry department with defendant No.2 and saw that some conversations were going on between his wife and the defendant No.2. It is submitted that the defendant No.2 called the plaintiff for treatment. On being enquired as to why he was being treated in the psychiatry department, the Doctor informed him that the general check up will also be done there. After preliminary enquiry, the Doctor advised him to get admitted him to the Hospital and commenced treatment. Plaintiff having no idea of the reason for his tiredness got admitted to the Hospital and was discharged from the Hospital after 3 days and as per the instructions of the Doctor, he regularly visited the Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.3883/2011 Hospital for further check up and also took the medicines and injections prescribed by the Doctor.
It is submitted that the plaintiff's relationship with his wife was not in good terms and there were several number of cases and counter-cases filed against each other. During the year 2006, the plaintiff came across with a copy of certificate issued by defendant No.2 certifying that the plaintiff is suffering from a mental disorder, viz., 'Delusional Disorder'. The primary symptoms of the disorder are suspicious nature of the patient. The said conclusion was arrived by the Doctor based upon the statements of plaintiff's wife. It is submitted that the Doctor who was looking into the plaintiff's case came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is suffering from the disorder solely on the statements made by defendant No.3 for the best reasons known to him. It is submitted that the Hospital authorities have also maintained case history and records of the patient and in the said case sheet, observation of the plaintiff's condition mentioned as normal.
It is submitted that when the things stood thus, it is learnt by the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 has issued certificates on 30-06-2005, 25-04-2006, 15-06- 2006 and 24-07-2006 stating that the plaintiff is suffering from 'Delusional Disorder'. The said certificates were issued by the Doctor on the instructions of defendant No.3 - who is wife of the plaintiff. It is submitted that being felt aggrieved by Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.3883/2011 such inaction from the Hospital, he approached the Hon'ble Consumer Forum seeking compensation, but the Consumer Forum rejected the plea of the plaintiff on the ground that at the point of time plaintiff could not produce any certificate to the effect that he was not suffering from the disorder. It is submitted that during the pendency of the matter before the Consumer Forum, defendant No.2 has led his evidence in defense. In the said evidence, the Doctor has deposed that he came to the conclusion based upon the statements made by defendant No.3. It is submitted that though there were other senior Doctors in Hospital, defendant No.2 never felt to consult them before issuing the certificate - especially when the person admitted in the Hospital for three days. Due to the act of the Doctor employed by defendant No.1, plaintiff has suffered severe jolt to his reputation at the working place in particular and in the society in general. It is submitted that taking advantage of the certificates issued by the defendant No.2, the wife of defendant No.2 has circulated the same among the friends and family members. After seeing the derogatory and false certificates issued by the defendant No.2, the family members, relatives, kiths and kins of the plaintiff are looking at the plaintiff in a different angle. Therefore, the plaintiff is put to mental trauma and he is unable to move in the society in a dare manner.
Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.3883/2011 It is submitted that the plaintiff had filed a divorce petition in M.C. No.1611/2006 against the defendant seeking an order of divorce. The wife f the plaintiff contested the matter before the family Court and after conducting trial, the family Court passed divorce decree and defendant No.3 has not challenged the said decree before the appellate authority and it has attained finality. Lastly it is submitted that the defendants 1 and 2 are responsible for the wholesome damage caused to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant seeking damages. Though the defendants have received notice, they have sent an untenable reply. The plaintiff prayed for decree of the suit.
3. On the other hand, in spite of service of summons, defendant No.3 being wife of plaintiff has not appeared before the Court. Hence, defendant No.3 is placed ex-parte.
4. Upon service of summons, defendants 1 and 2 have appeared through their Counsel and out of them, defendant No.1 has filed written statement. The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.1 are as follows:-
Defendant No.1 has contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the suit is barred by law of limitation. Defendant No.1 has contended that the plaintiff had filed a complaint Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.3883/2011 before the District Consumer Forum against the
defendants alleging negligence on the part of the defendant Hospital. The said complaint was dismissed on 20-11-2006. It is submitted that against the said order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said appeal was also dismissed. The defendant has taken specific contention that the plaintiff came with the psychiatric illness on 17-06-2005 to the first defendant Hospital. The plaintiff complained an abnormal behaviour since 2 to 3 years. The problem is diagnosed as 'Delusional Disorder'. It is submitted that the plaintiff is known case of PPRP and his lower limb being affected and presently, the plaintiff is walking with clippers. After examination, admission was suggested to the plaintiff - for which, he voluntarily agreed for admission in the Hospital. The plaintiff was admitted on 17-06-2005 and discharged on 20-06-2005. During his stay in the Hospital, an objective assessment was done by the concerned Doctors and arrived at a diagnosis and appropriate treatment was initiated. It is submitted that the plaintiff had come up for follow up treatment in the psychiatry OPD on three occasions, viz., 04-07-2005, 18-07-2005 and 08-08-2005 and the plaintiff taken treatment for a maximum period of one- and-a-half months and during that period, he received three injections and tablets which were prescribed. It is submitted that during treatment, the plaintiff had not reported any side effects and in the contrary, expressed Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.3883/2011 satisfaction. Subsequently, after some time, the
plaintiff dropped out of the treatment for the reasons best known to him probably it may be reason of lack of insight of the problem. It is submitted that there was no negligence in diagnosing the problem and giving proper treatment to the plaintiff. During his stay in the Hospital, the plaintiff was continuously monitored through out by the Doctors in the first defendant Hospital. The treatment of plaintiff was carried out according to the established standards protocols and the care he received is best possible in the circumstances. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 Hospital has provided the best possible treatment at minimum cost with the intention of restoring the health of the plaintiff.
Defendant No.1 pleads ignorance with regard to relationship of he plaintiff with his wife. The defendant No.1 also pleads ignorance with regard to divorce petition filed by the plaintiff against defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 has specifically denied that the defendant No.2 has issued false certificate at the instance of defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 has denied that the wife of the plaintiff circulated false certificates issued by defendant No.2 and reputation of the plaintiff has spoiled in the eyes of the public. Lastly, defendant No.1 has admitted with regard to issuance of notice by the plaintiff, but it has contended that the defendant No.1 Hospital has properly replied to the said notice. It Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.3883/2011 is submitted that there is no cause of action before filing this suit and the suit is barred by law of limitation and the Court fee paid is not proper. With this submission, defendant No.1 prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following -
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants caused damage or loss to the reputation and image of the plaintiff with malicious intention as alleged?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.8.00 Lakhs by way of damages from the defendants No.1 and 2 jointly and severally as sought for?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from issuing false certificates about the plaintiff as prayed?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to tender on unconditional apology as prayed?
5) What Order or Decree?
Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.3883/2011
6. In order to substantiate the plaint averments, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.16 and closed his side. When the case was posted for defendants' evidence, defendant No.2 himself is examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1.
7. When the case was posted for arguments, Advocate for the plaintiff submitted Memo of Retirement in the presence of the plaintiff.
8. After hearing, Advocate for the plaintiff was permitted to retire from this case. Thereafter, plaintiff himself submitted his argument and he has also submitted his notes of arguments.
9. I have heard arguments on behalf of the defendant.
10. My findings on the above Issues are as follows:-
ISSUE No.1 - Negative;
ISSUE No.2 - Negative;
ISSUE No.3 - Negative;
ISSUE No.4 - Negative;
ISSUE No.5 - As per final order, for the following -
Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.3883/2011
REASONS
11. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 4 : Issue Nos.1 to 4 are
interlinked with each other and therefore, all these Issues are taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetition of facts.
12. The plaintiff being a party-in-person submitted his written arguments. The sum and substance of the written arguments submitted on behalf of the plaintiff is that on 17-06-2005, he visited HMT Hospital for tiredness and they have sent him in Ambulance with defendant No.3 to defendant No.1 Hospital with the same diagnosis as "Tiredness since morning no significant past history. It is argued that if he had any mental problem, he could have informed the same at the HMT Hospital or preferred to go to NIMHANS where free and better available than the defendant No.1 Hospital. It is argued that the defendants have not given full details and evidence for their diagnosis 'Delusional Disorder' to mislead. It is submitted that defendant No.2 - Dr. Pradeep has submitted a false affidavit and therefore, this Court has to initiate suitable action against Dr. Pradeep. Further, it is submitted that the complaint of the plaintiff was rejected by the Consumer Court as he does not know how to submit evidence in the Court. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 - Medical Director, defendant No.2 - Head of the Psychiatry Department who have signed the Vakalath have never attended throughout the Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.3883/2011 hearings. With this submission, the plaintiff - party-in-
person prayed to decree the suit.
13. On the other hand, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2 has vehemently argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in lemine. Further, he has argued that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action to file the present suit. He has argued that the plaintiff has not produced any piece of document to show that he is not suffering from mental disorder and the complaint filed by the plaintiff before the Consumer Forum against the defendants was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order of the Consumer Forum was also dismissed. Lastly, he has argued that the plaintiff filed this suit only to harass the defendant No.1 and to take the benefit of divorce decree against defendant No.3. With this submission, Advocate for the defendants prayed that Issue Nos.1 to 4 be answered against the plaintiff.
14. On careful perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence of both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants caused damage or loss to the reputation and image of the plaintiff with malicious intention. Further, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from issuing false certificate and he is entitled for mandatory Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.3883/2011 injunction to direct the defendants to tender an unconditional apology. Lastly, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,00,000-00 by way of damages from defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally as sought.
15. In the present case, some of the admitted facts are -
Plaintiff and defendant No.3 are husband and wife as husband and wife. On 17-06-2005, the plaintiff has approached the defendant No.1 Hospital for treatment along with defendant No.3. Plaintiff took treatment as in-patient in defendant No.1 Hospital between 17-06- 2005 to 20-06-2005. Defendant No.2 being the Doctor of Psychiatry Department treated the plaintiff during the above said period - more particularly when the plaintiff has taken treatment as in-patient in the defendant No.1 Hospital and three certificates dated 25-04-2006, 15- 06-2006 and 27-04-2006 are issued - which are collectively married as Ex.P.5. Plaintiff has filed a complaint against defendants 1 and 2 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum alleging negligence on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 and the said complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum and the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - which also came to be dismissed and that the plaintiff has obtained a divorce decree against defendant No.3 in M.C. No.1611/2006.
Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.3883/2011
16. Keeping in mind the above said admitted facts, if we peruse the oral as well as documentary evidence of both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue Nos.1 to 4 in his favour. The first and foremost point to be considered in this case is
- whether the plaintiff has approached HMT Hospital for treatment on 17-06-2005 and whether HMT Hospital authority has referred the plaintiff to defendant No.1 Hospital for higher treatment. It is pertinent to note that though the plaintiff has pleaded that initially he approached HMT Hospital for treatment as he was suffering from tiredness and thereafter, Dr. Sabitha Mishra referred the plaintiff to defendant No.1 Hospital, but he has not established the above said aspect. No doubt, in order to establish the above said contention, defendant No.1 has relied on the document which is marked as per Ex.P.4, but the said document is not sufficient to establish the above said aspect. Admittedly, the above said document, being a Xerox document, it has no evidentiary value as per the provisions of Evidence Act. The plaintiff has produced some of the information as sought by the plaintiff under the Right to Information Act furnished by HMT Machine Tools Limited. Ex.P.16 is the questionnaire with regard to information sought under the Right to Information Act by the plaintiff to the Public Information Officer, HMT Machine Tools Limited. Ex.P.3 is the information furnished by Dr. Sabitha Mishra, Chief Medical Officer. On perusal of Exs.P.1 to P.3 and P.16, nowhere has it Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.3883/2011 been mentioned that on 17-06-2005, the plaintiff has approached the HMT Hospital as pleaded by the plaintiff. On the contrary, in Ex.P.3, it has been mentioned that the details pertaining to Ambulance and Driver dated 17-06-2015 are not available with the HMT Hospital. It is mentioned that the treatment file pertaining to R. Venkatesh Kumar, i.e., plaintiff shows him having taken treatment for various ailements since 08-05-2002, earlier records are not available at HMT Hospital. Further, in Ex.P.3 it has been mentioned as per Hospital records Sri Venkatesh Kumar has not approached the Hospital for psychiatric/mental problem. Lastly it has been mentioned that they have not received any feed-back from MSR Hospital pertaining to treatment of Sri R. Venkatesh Kumar, i.e., the plaintiff. When this being the endorsement issued by the Chief Medical Officer of H.M.T. Machine Tools, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has not proved his pleadings that he has initially approached HMT Hospital for treatment for tiredness and thereafter, the said Hospital authority has referred him to defendant No.1 Hospital. On the contrary, the defendants have not pleaded that HMT Hospital has referred the plaintiff to defendant No.1 Hospital for higher treatment. Hence, the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.4 and P.16 are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1 to 4 in their favour.
Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.3883/2011
17. Ex.P.5 are the certificates issued by defendant No.2 in the letter-head of MSR Hospital. As I have discussed above, defendant No.2 has not at all denied issuance of said certificates. It is pertinent to note here that the certificate issued by defendant No.2 as per Ex.P.5 are all original certificates. When the plaintiff has produced original certificates before this Court, the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.3 has circulated the said letters to friends, kiths and kins of the plaintiff with an intention to lower his dignity in the society, has no substance at all. It is not the pleading of the plaintiff that initially Ex.P.5 certificates had been issued by defendant No.2 to defendant No.3 and thereafter, he has collected from defendant No.3. Even it is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.3 colluding with defendant No.3 created the certificates which are marked as per Ex.P.5 and produced by defendant No.3 in some other proceedings and thereafter, he obtained the certified copies of the same. When the plaintiff himself has produced 3 original letters issued by defendant No.2 in the letter-head of MSR Hospital, rest of the contention that defendant No.2 by colluding with defendant No.3 has created Ex.P.5, has no substance at all. More over, in Ex.P.5, caption of certificate is mentioned as 'To whomsoever it may concern'. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.3 had submitted representation to defendant No.1 Hospital for issuance of certificate with regard to contention of the plaintiff. Nowhere in Ex.P.5 Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.3883/2011 name of defendant No.3 is mentioned that the said certificates are issued as per the request of defendant No.3. It is not the case of the plaintiff that initially Ex.P.5 certificates were issued to defendant No.3 by defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 has produced the said documents in some other proceedings and thereafter, he obtained the certified copy of the same for institution of this suit. In view of the above said discussion, I am of the opinion that the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants caused damage or loss to the reputation and image with malicious intention, has no substance at all. Further, I am also of the opinion that the defendant No.2 has issued false certificate at the instigation of defendant No.3 - as contended by the plaintiff.
18. Ex.P.6 is the copy of the judgment passed in M.C. No.1611/2006. Ex.P.7 is the copy of decree passed in the said M.C. petition. Exs.P.7 and 8 are the receipts issued by Sharada Vidyalaya for having received admission fees in respect of the children of plaintiff and defendant No.3. Those documents are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1 to 4 in his favour.
19. Ex.P.9 is certified copy of the evidence given by defendant No.2 before the District Consumer Forum in Complaint No.2140/2006. Ex.P.10 is the copy of the application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Ex.P.11 is the Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.3883/2011 summons copy issued to the plaintiff in Misc.
No.414/2008. Ex.P.12 is the representation submitted by the plaintiff to the Deputy Manager-HR on 01-08- 2006. Ex.P.13 is the copy of the notice issued by the Child Welfare Committee. Ex.P.14 is the copy of the complaint submitted by the plaintiff before the Police Commissioner on 28-08-2006. Ex.P.15 are the courier receipts. Even the contents of the above documents are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue No.1 to 4 in his favour.
20. As I have discussed above, initially the plaintiff has filed complaint against the defendant alleging medical negligence by filing complaint No.2140/2006. Further, as I have discussed above, the said complaint came to be dismissed as per the order dated 20-11- 2006. Ex.D.1 is the copy of the order passed by the First Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - wherein it has been specifically observed that it was necessary for the complainant to adduce expert evidence to show that the treatment given by the Hospital was wholly unnecessary or to show that he was not at all suffering from any mental disorder as on the date of approaching the opposite party Hospital for the first time on 17-06-2005. Further, in the said order, it has been mentioned that no expert evidence is adduced by the complainant to show that he was not at all suffering from any mental disorder when he approached the opposite party Hospital. It has been observed that Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.3883/2011 in the absence of such evidence and in view of what is contended by the opposite party, it is not possible to agree with the contention of the complainant that the opposite party gave him treatment for the mental disorder - though he was not at all suffering from such problem. As observed from the material placed on record, it is seen that all is not well between the plaintiff and his wife defendant No.3. Lastly, it is observed that even assuming for a moment that the wife of the complainant has made false representation before the Doctor, but the treatment was not solely based on such representation or information given by the plaintiff's wife, i.e., defendant No.3. This being the specific observation of the District Consumer Forum, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue Nos.1 to 4 in his favour.
21. In order to resist the claim of the plaintiff, D.W.1 in his evidence has specifically deposed that on 17-04-2005, the plaintiff came to the defendant No.1 Hospital with some psychiatric illness. D.W.1 further deposed that the plaintiff complained of abnormal behaviour since 2 - 3 years, problem was diagnosed as 'delusional disorder'; the plaintiff is known case of PPRP and his lower limb being affected; presently, the plaintiff is walking with clippers. Further, D.W.1 has deposed that plaintiff was admitted on 17-06-2005 and discharged on 20-06-2005. Further, he has deposed that the plaintiff had come up for follow up treatment in Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.3883/2011 the psychiatry OPD on 3 occasions and the plaintiff taken treatment for a maximum period of 1½ months and received 3 injections and tablets. D.W.1 further deposed that there was no negligence in diagnosing the problem and given appropriate treatment to the plaintiff. Though D.W.1 is cross-examined at length, nothing is brought on record to disbelieve his evidence. No doubt there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of D.W.1, but those discrepancies are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1 to 4 in his favour.
22. On the contrary, P.W.1 in the cross- examination has specifically admitted that he has produced Exs.P.1 to P.4 to show the HMT Hospital referred him to D.W.1 Hospital for treatment. As I have discussed above, there is no reference in the said exhibits in order to show that HMT Hospital referred the plaintiff to the first defendant Hospital on 17-06-2005. P.W.1 further admitted that in Ex.P.4, his name is not mentioned. He has also admitted that in Ex.P.4, there is no instruction to take him to Ramaiah Hospital in the Ambulance. Further, he has admitted that even in Ex.P.3, nowhere has it been mentioned that he was referred to Ramaiah Hospital. Further, he has admitted that the Doctors of M.S. Ramaiah Hospital prescribed psychiatry medicine and he took the same. Further, P.W.1 has denied that after taking treatment, he has requested for issuance of certificate as per Ex.P.5, but Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.3883/2011 he has voluntarily deposed that it was given to defendant No.3. Further, he has admitted that three certificates which are marked as per Ex.P.5 were in his custody. He pleads his ignorance that he has no idea whether his wife has given the said Ex.P.5 in any other Court or in any other case. He has admitted that the complaint which he had filed against the defendants claiming damages before the Consumer Forum was dismissed. He has also admitted that the appeal preferred by him against the order of Consumer Forum was also dismissed. These are the admissions of P.W.1. This Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue Nos.1 to 4 in his favour.
23. Viewed from any angle, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant caused damage or loss to the reputation and image of the plaintiff with malicious intention. Further, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from issuing false certificates. Lastly, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction - directing the defendants to tender an unconditional apology and direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000-00 by way of damages. Hence, my answers to Issues 1 to 4 are in the 'negative'.
24. ISSUE No.5 : At the time of argument, Advocate for the defendant has vehemently argued that Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.3883/2011 though in the written statement defendants have taken contention that the suit is barred by law of limitation, an Issue has not been framed by this Court. Though Issue has not been framed with regard to law of limitation, it can be discussed while answering Issue No.5.
25. Admittedly, the alleged cause of action mentioned in the suit s 15-06-2006 and 24-07-2006. It is also an admitted fact that the present suit is filed on 02-06-2011, i.e., after 3 years from the date of alleged cause of action. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the Advocate for the defendants, the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation.
26. For the above said reasons and discussion, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 is dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 4th day of January, 2016.) (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
- 23 - O.S. No.3883/2011
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : R. Venkatesh Kumar 14-06-2013
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Covering letter dated 23-05-2012. Ex.P.2 : Covering letter of Public Information Officer dated 14-05-2012.
Ex.P.3 : List of information provided under RTI Act.
Ex.P.4 : Case history.
Ex.P.5 : Three certificates.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of order passed in M.C.
No.1611/2006.
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of decree passed in M.C.
No.1611/2006.
Ex.P.8 : Four receipts.
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of affidavit-evidence.
Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in Criminal Misc.414/2008.
Ex.P.11 : Summons copy dated 05-01-2008. Ex.P.12 : Complaint letter dated 01-08-2006. Ex.P.13 : Summons copy.
Ex.P.14 : Courier receipt.
Ex.P.15 : 4 courier receipts.
Ex.P.16 : R.T.I. application dated 28-04-2012.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Dr. Pradeep Thilakanaged 23-03-2015 Cont'd..
- 24 - O.S. No.3883/2011
4.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of order in Complaint No.2140/2006 passed by the Consumer (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..