Delhi District Court
Suit No. 79/ vs Medical Superintendent on 25 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT;ADJ(CENTRAL)-11, DELHI
Suit No. 79/11
Unique I.D No. 02401C0136342008
Smt. Anardevi
W/o Sh. Dashrath Pandit
C/o Pandit Ramesh Chand
S/o Ram Chander,
R/o H. No. RP-136, Village Rangpuri
Near Mata Chowk, Pandit Mohala,
New Delhi-37 ......P l a i n t i f f
Versus
1 Medical Superintendent
Department of Family Welfar,
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi
2 Union of India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Nirman Bhawan, 3rd Floor
Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi. ......D e f e n d a n t s
Date of Institution of Suit : 31.01.2008
Date when reserved for orders : 16.09.2013
Date of Decision : 25.11.2013
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment I shall decide a suit for compensation/ damages of Rs. 12,62,000/- along with interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The brief fact necessitated in filing the present suit are given as under:-
2 That plaintiff is an illiterate lady and mother of four children. She is dependent upon her husband whose monthly income is around Rs.4000/- per month. She along with her husband decided not to have any more Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 1 /20 children due to their financial condition in the year 2004, therefore she approached the doctors of defendant no.1 where she was suggested to undergo sterilization operation as the cheapest and successful mode to stop unwanted pregnancy. The plaintiff underwent the sterilization on 01.12.2001. After sterilization, plaintiff and her husband were living a normal married life till 10.08.2003 when plaintiff developed some doubts about her pregnancy and in order to remove her doubts she visited the doctors of defendant no. 1 and her test came out to be positive.
3 It is further averred that plaintiff had agreed for sterilization operation because the doctors of defendant no. 1 hospital persuaded her that the said mode is the cheapest method with full proof results. It is further averred that the economic condition of the plaintiff is not well which turned bad to worst. The doctors of defendant no. 1 has been negligence and did not carry out sterilization with due care and caution and due to their negligence plaintiff has to bear the burden of bringing up an unwanted child as well as the expenses involved in the maintenance of the child including expenses towards his cloths, education, marriage etc. 4 That plaintiff earlier filed the suit No. 306/04 against the defendants which was dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2006. The plaintiff preferred an appeal being RFA No. 829/06 against the said order before the Hon'ble High Court. The said appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 09.07.2007 and the plaintiff has been permitted to file the suit after removing the technical objection.
Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 2 /20Thereafter, plaintiff has complied with the provision of Section 80 CPC and served notice dated 26.09.2007 upon the defendant no. 1. The defendant has failed to pay the compensation. Having left no alternative, plaintiff has filed the present suit. On the basis of the aforesaid averment, present suit has been filed for adjudication.
5 Pursuant to the summons, defendants appeared and filed their written statement taking preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable as same has not disclosed any cause of action.
6 On merit it is averred that there was no negligence on the part of defendant no. 1 as sterilization operation performed upon the plaintiff on 04.12.2001, was done carefully and successfully, there was no negligence on the part of the doctor who performed the said operation. It is further averred that before undergoing sterilization operation the plaintiff as well as her husband have put their thumb impression over consent form in Hindi which clearly states that there has been possibility of failure of surgery and in case the operation was unsuccessful, then plaintiff would claim any damages and shall not hold the hospital responsible. It is further averred that plaintiff was also told that sterilization operation is not 100% guarantee for excluding the pregnancy, at the time of discharge she was also advised to come and follow to family planning OPD, in case she misses a period.
7 It is further stated that the doctors gave her option of MTP after failure of sterilization if her economic condition did not allow her to have Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 3 /20 another baby but plaintiff did not want an abortion and wanted to continue with pregnancy on her own will. It is further averred that the sterilization operation performed by any method carries risk of failure which is internationally accepted. A failure rate of laproscopic legation reported by Mc. Causland (1980), Buckman (1980), Uma Goyal etal (1986) is 0.19% and Mukherjee (1992) reported its pregnancies /1000 cases reported by Khandwala S.D. (J. Reported Med. 1988; 33:463-7) is quoted in Novak's Gynaecology. It is denied that doctors of defendant no. 1 has been negligence and did not carry out sterilization operation with due care and caution. All other averments have been denied, it is prayed that suit be dismissed with cost.
8 The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement thereby reiterated the averment made in the plaint and denied the averment made in the written statement.
9 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 18.12.2009 framed the following issued for adjudication:-
1. Whether there was any negligence on the part of defendant while performing sterilization operation upon plaintiff, if so, its effect? OPP
2. Whether the sterilization operation performed by any method carried risk of failure as per the established medical norms as alleged in written statement? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any damages, if so, to what extent? OPP
4. Relief
10 In order to prove her case, plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 4 /20 and reiterated the averment made in the plaint in her examination in chief. PW-1 exhibited the certified copies of sterilization certificate as Ex.PW1/A, Certified copy of birth certificate of the child as Ex.PW1/B, Discharge summary of child Ganesh dated 03.06.2004 as Ex.PW1/C, Certified copy of judgment dated 08.09.2004 as Ex.PW1/D, Certified copy of the order dated 09.07.2007 as Ex.PW1/E, Legal notice dated 16.10.2007 as Ex.PW1/F and Receipt Ex.PW1/G. 11 During cross examination, PW-1 briefly deposed that her sterilization operation was conducted at Safdarjung hospital. She was not informed by the doctors about the method of operation and result thereof. She further deposed that doctors informed about the method of the operation and result thereof to her husband who accompanied her to get the operation before performing the operation. She further deposed that sterilization operation was got done with her own free will. She further deposed that the signatures or thumb impression were not taken at the time of operation but her thumb impression were taken on admission card. She admitted that she was living a normal life without any complications so she never visited the defendant after sterilization operation till August 2003. She further stated that there was a pregnancy of about 1-11/2 months when it come to her knowledge first. She visited the Safdarjung Hospital where they advised her for re-operation. She was advised by the Doctors to get abort her pregnancy but she denied for the same. She further stated that none of the persons from the hospital compel her to carry the child. She had not taken any advice from any Doctor to the effect that she got pregnant after the sterilization operation Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 5 /20 because the said operation was not conducted correctly. She has not placed any bill of the expenses incurred by her. She denied that she has not sustained any expenses. She does not know how much expenses can be incurred in their family in the marriage of a son. She denied that the doctors who operated her were not having any enmity with her. She denied that she is not entitled for the amount claimed by her.
12 The plaintiff has also examined her husband Sh. Dashrath Pandit as PW-2 who also reiterated the averment made in the plaint in his examination in chief. During cross examination, PW-2 deposed that on 04.12.2001 he visited the defendant's hospital alongwith his wife for her treatment where Doctors advised him for MTP and sterilization operation as he was having three children. He denied that doctors told him about the failure rate of sterilization operation at the time of conducting the said operation. He admitted that he put his signatures on certain forms before conducting the said operation. He also admitted that there was no complication in the operation till 2003. He also admitted that when he along with his wife visited the defendant's hospital in the year 2003 after having pregnancy the doctors advised him and his wife for MTP. He also admitted that he and his wife voluntarily without any pressure refused for MTP. He volunteered that he does not want to do 'Jeev-hatya'. He denied that he is earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. He further stated that he had not taken any opinion from any other doctors in respect of the failure of sterilization operation. He volunteered that it is his own opinion that operation was not carried out by due care and caution therefore it has been failed. He denied that there was no negligence on the part of Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 6 /20 doctors of defendant. He does not have any written proofs with respect of expenses incurred. He admitted that he had taken the treatment of his wife from government hospital and they had not charged any money from him. He volunteered that he had purchased the medicines from the market. He further stated that he has no bills of the said purchases. He denied that his wife is not entitled for any amount claimed by her.
13 In order to answer the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants have examined Sh. Ghanshyam, LDC, Record Room, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi who brought the original file of suit No. 326/04, titled Anar Devi Vs. Medical Superintendent.
14 The defendants have also examined Dr. Achla Batra, Sr. Specialist, OBS & GYN as DW-2. She reiterated the averment made in the written statement in her examination in chief. During cross examination, DW-2 briefly deposed that she was working with the hospital since 1997 in the present capacity. She never dealt with plaintiff in any manner. The sterilization operation is endoscopy is seen on the monitor and it is performed either by a senior resident who has got post graduate degree. As per record Dr. Shalini Aggarwal conducted the operation. She know her since she worked with her at that time. She denied that operation was not conducted by Doctor Shalini Aggarwal and it was done by some junior doctor. She also denied that the doctor did not perform the operation correctly. She also denied that plaintiff was not told about the possibility of failure of the operation at that time. She also denied that her thumb impression was obtained without disclosing anything to her. She also Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 7 /20 denied that there is a provision that if the operation is unsuccessful and the person conceive in that case government pays Rs. 20,000/- but she is not aware if the said provision was available when the said operation was performed.
15 I have heard both the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, evidence and other material placed on record. My issue wise findings is as under:-
16 ISSUE NO. 1 Whether there was any negligence on the part of defendant while performing sterilization operation upon plaintiff, if so, its effect? OPP ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the sterilization operation performed by any method carried risk of failure as per the established medical norms as alleged in written statement? OPD The plaintiff has taken a plea that she along with her husband decided not to have any more child as she already had three children, therefore, she along with her husband approached the Doctor of defendant no. 1 who suggested her to undergo sterilization operation which was a successful mode to stop unwanted pregnancy. The said operation was performed by the Doctor of defendant no. 1 on 04.1.2001 but after the sterilization operation, the plaintiff again conceived which was only due to the negligence of the doctor who performed operation. As per the plaintiff, the doctor of defendant no. 1 had been negligent and did not carry out sterilization operation with due care and caution due to which plaintiff had to bear the burden of bringing up an unwanted child, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 12,62,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum.
Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 8 /2017 The defendants have taken a plea that there was no negligence on the part of medical officer of defendant no. 1 because sterilization operation was performed carefully and successfully. Before undergoing operation, the plaintiff as well as her husband put their thumb impression on consent form which clearly states that there had been possibility of failure and in such cases plaintiff would not claim any damages. The defendant further pleaded that sterilization operation is not 100 % guarantee for excluding pregnancy. The doctor gave the plaintiff option of MTP after failure of sterilization but she did not want operation and wanted to continue with her pregnancy on her wish. As per the defendant, there was no negligence attributable towards the doctor who performed sterilization operation upon the plaintiff, therefore, defendants are not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff.
18 In order to substantiate their plea, both the parties have led their respective evidence.
19 An examination of the pleadings and evidence led on record shows that plaintiff has filed the present suit for compensation/ damages to the tune of Rs. 12,60,000/- along with interest against the defendants on the ground that she had undergone sterilization operation on their assurance that same is safest way to avoid pregnancy. The plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that the Doctor or defendant no. 1 were negligent in performing sterilization operation. But plaintiff has not led any evidence on record which can show or suggest as to how the Doctor of defendant no. 1 were negligent in performing sterilization operation.
Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 9 /2020 The plaintiff has not examined any Doctor of defendant no. 1 who could have deposed that doctors who performed sterilization operation upon plaintiff was not competent to do so or was not having minimum qualification for taking such operation. As per the plaintiff, the Doctor of defendant no. 1 were negligent because she had conceived after undergoing sterilization operation, however failure of sterilization operation due to natural causes is not a ground for becoming entitled to recover compensation against the defendant. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead and prove that Doctors who performed sterilization operation was not competent or has not exercised due care and caution while performing such operation.
21 The basic principle related to medical negligence is known as a BOLAM Rule. This was laid down in the judgment of Justice Mcnair in Bolam V. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) (1) WLR 582 as follows:-
"Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether person has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A mad need not possess the highest expert skill .....It is well-established law that it is sufficient if he exercise the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art."
22 Bolam's test has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 10 /20 Court in "Jacob Mathew's vs. State of Punjab & Anr.", (2005) 6 SCC
1. The relevant principles culled out from the case of Jacob Mathew reads as under:-
"(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of ngeligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence become actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components or negligence are three: Duty, Breach and Resulting Damage.
(2) A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of man has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence.
(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 11 /20 skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence."
23 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram" reported as AIR 2005 SC 3280 has held that :
"The claim for the compensation in tort can be situated only if there was negligence on the part of the surgeon in performing the surgery. The proof of negligence shall have to satisfy Bolam's test. So also, the surgeon cannot be held liable in contract unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that the surgeon had assured 100% exclusion of pregnancy after surgery and was only on the basis of such assurance that the plaintiff was persuaded to undergo surgery. Ordinarily a surgeon does not offer such guarantee. As such a decree of damages cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff solely on the ground that in spite of the plaintiff having undergone a sterilization operation, she became pregnant. The methods of sterilization so far known to medical science which are most popular and prevalent are Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 12 /20 not 100% safe and secure. In spite of the operation having been successfully performed and without any negligence on the part of the surgeon, the sterilized woman can become pregnant due to natural causes. Once the woman misses the menstrual cycle, it is expected of the couple to visit the doctor and seek medical advice. Section 3(2), Explanation II provides that if the woman has suffered an unwanted pregnancy, it can be terminated and this is legal and permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971."
24 The above legal preposition makes it absolutely clear that the plaintiff cannot recover damages against the defendant only on the ground that she underwent sterilization operation and despite the same become pregnant and delivered a child. For becoming entitled for to recover damages against the defendant, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead and prove that the Doctor who performed sterilization operation was not competent to do so or that he or she was negligent in performing sterilization operation. The plaintiff, however, has neither pleaded nor placed any material on record which can show or suggest that the Doctor who performed sterilization operation was not possessing requisite qualification or her sterilization operation was not performed successfully.
25 The defendants on the other hand, have taken a plea that plaintiff had given her consent at the time of her operation and she was clearly told that the sterilization operation is not 100% safe and in case she become pregnant after that operation she would not claim any damages.
Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 13 /20In order to substantiate their plea, the defendant's have examined Doctor Achla Batra, Sr. Specialist, Safdarjung Hospital as DW-2. In para 10 of her examination in chief, DW-2 has deposed that there was no medical negligence on the part of concerned doctors of defendants. Moreover, all the due precautions and care was taken place while performing the said operation. It is also stated that this kind of operation performed by any method carried risk of failure. A failure rate of 0.8-4 pregnancies /1000 cases reported by Khandwala S.D. (J.Reprod.Med.1988:33:463-7) is quoted in Novak's Gynecology. A failure rate of laproscopuc legation reported by Mc.Cuseland (1980), Buckman (1990), Uma Goyal etal (1986) is 0.19% and Mukherjee (1992) reported it to be 0.3%.
26 The said witness has been thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, however, her testimony made by her in para-10 of her examination in chief that sterilization operation was not 100% secured has not been contradicted during her cross examination. In the absence of any cross examination, the plea of DW-2 that there was chances of failure of sterilization operation deemed to have admitted by the plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff has not led any evidence which can show or suggest that the doctor who performed the operation was negligent.
27 The defendant have also placed on record that consent form filled at the time of performing sterilization operation which was thumb marked by the husband of the plaintiff at point B. A perusal of the said consent form clearly shows that it is clearly stipulated in the said consent form in Hindi that there was a chance of failure in the sterilization operation and Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 14 /20 in the event of failure a person who is undergoing such operation would not held responsible the surgeon and shall not claim any damages for the said failure. The aforesaid stipulation of the consent form clearly shows that the plaintiff and her husband were made aware about the chances of failure of sterilization operation and the plaintiff consented to undergo sterilization operation knowing fully well that there may be chance of failure.
28 It is also relevant that PW-1, during her cross examination admitted that she was leading normal life without any complications so she never visited the defendant hospital after the sterilization operation. She further stated that there was a pregnancy of about one and half months when it comes to her knowledge first. She visited the Safdarjung Hospital where they advised her for re-operation but she denied over the same. She has not taken any advice from any doctor to the effect that she got pregnant after the sterilization operation because the said operation was not conducted correctly.
29 The plaintiff has also examined her husband Sh. Dashrath Pandit as PW-2 who admitted in his cross examination that he put his signatures on certain forms before conducting the said operation. He also admitted that there was no complications till 2003. He also admitted that he along with his wife visited the defendants hospital in year 2003 after having pregnancy doctors advised him and his wife for MTP. He also admitted that he and his wife voluntarily without any pressure refused for the MTP. He volunteered that he does not want to do Jeev-Hatya. He has further Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 15 /20 stated that he has not taken any opinion from any other doctor or specialist in respect of failure of sterilization operation. He volunteered that it is his own opinion that the operation was not carried out by the due care and caution so why it has been failed.
30 The aforesaid testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly shows that when plaintiff got pregnant after sterilization operation they themselves took a voluntary decision to continue with the said pregnancy and refused to go for MTP as advised by the doctors. The method of sterilization so far as known to medical science which are most popular and prevalent are not 100% safe and secure. In spite of the operation having been successfully performed without any negligence on the part of the surgeon, the sterilized woman can become pregnant due to natural cause. Once the woman misses the menstrual cycle, it is expected of the couple to visit the doctor and seek medical advice. A reference to the provisions of Medical termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 is relevant. Section 3 of the said Act permits termination of pregnancy by the registered medical practitioner, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in certain circumstances and within a period of 20 weeks of length of pregnancy. Explanation II appended to sub-Section (2) of Section 3 provides ---
"Explanation II. - Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 16 /20 pregnant woman."
31 Thus under the law, a valid and legal ground for termination of pregnancy have been provided. If the woman has suffered an unwanted pregnancy, it can be terminated and this is legal and permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971.
32 The cause of action for claiming compensation in cases of failed sterilization operation arises on account of negligence of the surgeon and not on account of child birth. Failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claim. It is for the woman who has conceived the child to go or no to go for medical termination of pregnancy. Having gathered the knowledge of conception in spite of having undergone sterilization operation, if the couple opts for bearing the child, it ceases to be an unwanted child and compensation of maintenance and upbringing of such child cannot be claimed.
33 The aforesaid fact clearly shows that the plaintiff would be entitled for claiming compensation against the defendant on the ground that despite undergoing sterilization operation she conceived the child but for becoming entitled to claim compensation, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead and establish by leading evidence that the doctor who performed said operation was not competent and has not exercised due care and caution. The plaintiff, however, in the instant case, has neither averred nor led any evidence on record which can show or suggest that doctor who performed the operation was negligent in performing the sterilization Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 17 /20 operation.
34 In view of my above discussion, my issue wise findings is as under:-
35 ISSUE NO. 1 Whether there was any negligence on the part of defendant while performing sterilization operation upon plaintiff, if so, its effect? OPP In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that plaintiff has failed to prove on record that there was negligent on the part of the defendant or their doctor while performing the sterilization operation upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has thus failed to discharge the onus of Issue No. 1, same is accordingly decided against plaintiff.
36 ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the sterilization operation performed by any method carried risk of failure as per the established medical norms as alleged in written statement? OPD In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that defendants has successfully proved on record that sterilization operation performed by any method carries risk of failure as per the established medical norms. The defendants has successfully discharged the onus of Issue No. 2, same is accordingly decided in favour of the defendant.
37 ISSUE NO. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any damages, if so, to what extent? OPP In view of my findings on Issue No. 1 & 2, I am of the considered Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 18 /20 view that plaintiff is not entitled to claim compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.12,62,000/- along with interest against the defendants because plaintiff has failed to prove on record that the doctor who performed the sterilization operation was negligent.
38 The defendants have examined Dr. Achla Batra as DW-2. The said witness during her cross examination has stated that there is a provision that if the operation is unsuccessful and person conceive in that case government pays Rs.20,000/- but she is not aware if the said provision available when the said operation was performed. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has placed on record a Family Planning Insurance Policy 2011-12 during the course of arguments.
39 A perusal of Section 1 C of the said policy shows that in case of failure of sterilization, compensation to the limit of Rs. 30,000/- is given as per the said policy. Ld. Counsel for the defendant contended that said policy came into being in 2011-2012 whereas the sterilization operation of plaintiff was conducted in the year 2001. The Family Planning Insurance Policy 2011-2012 has been started by the Government for Welfare of the Citizen who has undergone sterilization operation. The said policy was propounded for the welfare of the person who undergone sterilization operation despite the same become pregnant and has to deliver a child. No doubt that said policy stipulates that it would relate to the claim arising out of the sterilization operation conducted after 29.11.2005, but I see no reason or justification as to why the benefit of this policy should not be extended to the plaintiff. The defendant at least should have offered Rs.
Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 19 /2030,000/- to the plaintiff as a compensation in terms of the Family Planning Insurance Policy 2011-2012 during the pendency of the suit. The defendants, however, have not given any such offer to the plaintiff, therefore, they can be held liable to pay at least a sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with reasonable interest.
40 In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that defendants are liable to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest @ 9 % per annum (Simple) from the date of filing of the suit of the suit till its actual realization. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided.
41 RELIEF.
In view of the above, suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is partly decreed with cost. A decree for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with interest @ 9 % per annum (Simple) from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court ( PITAMBER DUTT)
On the 25th of November, 2013 Additional District Judge
Delhi
Suit no. 79/11 Page no. 20 /20