State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manohar Singh vs Dr. R.K. Jindal on 30 September, 2010
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.926 of 2004.
Date of Institution: 09.08.2004.
Date of Decision: 30.09.2010.
Manohar Singh, aged 49 years, S/o of Sh. Gurbachan Singh, Resident of
H.No.14/363, Near Ram Garhia Gurudwara, Dhuri.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Dr. R.K. Jindal, H.No.77, Dhaliwal Colony, Patiala.
2. Singla Hospital, Dhillon Marg, Bhupindra Road, Patiala, through its
owner/Proprietor/Partner Dr. P.K. Singla.
.....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
28.06.2004 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Sh. Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. A.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Sh. P.L. Singla, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Apeal No.926 of 2004 (Manohar Singh Vs Dr. R.K. Jindal & Another) and First Appeal No.987 of 2004 (Dr. R.K. Jindal & Another Vs. Manohar Singh), as both the appeals are directed against the same impugned order dated 28.06.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum"). The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 926 of 2004' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant/complainant Manohar Singh (hereinafter to be referred as "the appellant") filed the complaint against the respondents, pleading that on December 14, 2001, flow of the urine stopped and he contacted Dr. R.K. Jindal (hereinafter to be referred as "respondent no.1") in the First Appeal No.926 of 2004 2 morning of December 15, 2001, who advised him to get ultrasound test conducted for proper diagnosis. The appellant as advised, got the ultrasound test conducted from Alfa Radiological Centre, Patiala, which showed an enlarged prostrate of the size of about 500 gms. On seeing the report, respondent no.1 advised the appellant to get himself operated upon immediately. Other tests were also advised, which were got conducted from Krishna Laboratory and respondent no.1 advised the appellant to come for operation on December 17, 2001.
3. On December 17,2001, appellant went to the residence of respondent no.1, who charged Rs.12,000/- as fee for operation and he was admitted in Singla Hospital, Bhupindra Road, Patiala. For the purpose of surgery, blood was also arranged and respondent no.1 performed the operation for the complete removal of the enlarged prostrate, at about 4.00 p.m. which lasted till 5.15. p.m.
4. After the completion of the operation, the respondent told the appellant that the operation was successful and a piece of the removed prostrate was sent for biopsy. The report of the biopsy showed that there was no malignancy in the piece which was sent for testing and the appellant was discharged on December 18, 2001, with an advice to come for follow up on December 21, 2001 for removal of the catheter.
5. The appellant contacted respondent no.1 on December 21, 2001 and the catheter was removed by the doctor. Appellant was allowed to go home, but on the same day, the passage of urine stopped altogether once again. The appellant contacted respondent no.1, who asked him to come to the hospital and the catheter was again inserted and for easy flow of the urine, some medicines were prescribed.
6. On December 31, 2001, the appellant suffered the same trauma and the urine again stopped. He again rang up respondent no.1, who advised him to sit in the hot water to ease the pain and the same was done. During the conversation on telephone, respondent no.1 disclosed that only a small part of the enlarged First Appeal No.926 of 2004 3 prostrate was removed. It was a great shock for the appellant because he was earlier given to understand that the excess mass was removed completely. On January 24, 2002, some other medicines to relieve the pain, were prescribed.
7. In April, 2002, the appellant again went for ultrasound test which revealed that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The appellant has paid for the removal of the excessive mass, but even after the operation, it was there and the appellant showed the report to the respondent, but he ignored the appellant.
8. In October, 2002, the appellant again got the ultrasound test conducted by Dr. Hatinder Kaur and it was revealed that a massive gland was there which was making the life of the appellant miserable and when the suffering became unbearable, he consulted Dr. Ajmer Singh on 31.03.2003. More tests and ultrasound were advised and the ultrasound showed the presence of enlarge prostrate of 531 gms. Dr. Ajmer Singh advised CT Scan and biopsy also.
9. On 15.04.2003, Dr. Ajmer Singh operated upon the appellant. Nine units of blood were transfused during and after the operation. The appellant was finally discharged on 24.04.2003 and the follow up treatment was taken, as advised.
10. The biopsy report now showed malignancy which had occurred due to negligence and inhuman treatment given by respondent no.1. The excessive enlarged prostrate because of the non removal, had become malignant, due to negligence on the part of respondent no.1. The appellant has to undergo another operation and he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, on 07.05.2003 for radiation therapy.
11. The appellant has spent more than Rs.70,000/- on his treatment. In addition to that, he is paying Rs.1500/- for every sitting of radiation which is being given to the appellant from 16.06.2003 onward till he is cured. The appellant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.2.50 lacs for harassment, mental pain/ agony and medical treatment along with Rs.3.00 lacs as damages. First Appeal No.926 of 2004 4
12. In reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1, it was admitted that the appellant was having acute problem of stopping of urine and he was advised ultrasound test, conducted from a good and competent radiologist. The appellant has not produced the OPD slip dated 15th September, 2001 in which, the need for open surgery and in case of endoscopy surgery (TUR), the process was to be repeated because of the unusual size of the prostrate, was agreed by the appellant. On seeing the ultrasound test report, the respondent advised him to get the operation, by open/cutting surgery, keeping in view of the large size of the prostrate, but the appellant was adamant for getting the same done by endoscopic surgery (TUR).
13. It was admitted that Rs.12,000/- were taken which included all the expenses related to the operation. In fact, such large prostrate is not possible to be removed completely in one session/sitting of endoscopic method of surgery, which was explained to the appellant before admission. The answering respondent was to perform the operation for endoscopic removal as much as possible, as the appellant had not agreed for the operation by cutting surgery. Immediate relief from obstruction of urine and to establish the histological diagnosis, was the aim which was discussed and explained to the appellant before and after the operation. The whole of the removed prostrate tissue and another biopsy taken by TRUCUT Needle from the remaining prostrate, was sent for Histopathology Examination (Biopsy). The report dated 17.12.2001 is produced by the appellant.
14. It was also admitted that the appellant contacted the answering respondent on December 21, 2001 and the catheter was removed and he was allowed to go home. The appellant contacted the answering respondent on phone, but never complained of any serious problem after the operation, but for a visit in the month of January, 2002. He might have got the subsequent treatment from some other doctor. Since the prostrate was allowed to be operated endoscopically, so the full mass could not possibly be removed. This was explained to the appellant and there was no deficiency in service involved. The First Appeal No.926 of 2004 5 appellant never came to the answering respondent after the operation, despite the advice of regular follow up. Other allegations were denied and it was further pleaded that it was only on histological examination (biopsy of the tissue sent to the pathologist) that the report came out to be Leiomyosarcoma. In a very big prostrate, the TRU could be repeated more than once. It is well recognized and standard surgical procedure. The answering respondent is well equipped and well qualified. He has retired as Professor (Urology) from Government Medical College & Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and has experience of about 30 years in surgery and urology and has performed thousands of operations. There is no negligence on the part of respondent no.1 and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
15. Respondent no.2 also filed separate reply, taking objections that respondent no.2 has been dragged into unnecessary litigation, as there is no allegation against it and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it was admitted that the appellant was admitted in the hospital run by the answering respondent. Their hospital is having the equipments for surgical operation and various doctors hire the operation theater of respondent no.2, to perform surgery according to their own needs and requirements and for that, some remuneration is paid by the concerned doctor to the answering respondent. In this case also, the operation theatre was hired by Dr.R.K. Jindal and the entire surgical operation etc. was done by him. Respondent no.2 has nothing to do with the success or failure of the operation and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
16. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
17. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the respondent can not be absolved of the negligence exhibited by him in the matter of not performing the operation properly and also not conducted the TUR properly and further being not careful in post operative care and there is deficiency in service in rendering the medical service and awarded First Appeal No.926 of 2004 6 compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.1000/- as costs.
18. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.06.2004, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation, medical expenses etc. Whereas, the respondents have filed First Appeal No.987 of 2004 titled as "Dr. R.K. Jindal & Anr. Vs. Manohar Singh", and prayed that the impugned order dated 28.06.2004 be set aside and the complaint be dismissed.
19. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the appellant suffered for two years and he has undergone two operations and spent huge amount on the treatment. The negligence of respondent no.1 has made the life of the appellant miserable, as due to the negligence of respondent no.1, he developed cancer and is taking treatment from the PGI. The bills and other expenses incurred have not been taken into consideration. Respondent no.1 instead of performing open surgery, performed the TUR (Endoscopy Surgery) and the entire mass was not removed. The appellant never opted for TUR operation and there is no document to prove so, and keeping in view all these facts, the enhancement in medical expenses, compensation and litigation expenses, be awarded.
20. On the other hand, behalf of respondent no.1, it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of respondent no.1. Ultrasound test was advised on 15.11.2001 and a large prostrate of 500 gms. was found. All other tests were also conducted before performing the operation by endoscopy. The appellant opted for endoscopy surgery and has withheld the best evidence, by not producing the prescription slips and as per the evidence led by the respondent, the total removal of the mass might have caused the impotency. Dr. Ajmer Singh conducted the open surgery and he also admitted that endoscopic surgery can be performed. There is no medical negligence, but it is only the difference of opinion in following the procedure. The development of cancer can no way be attributed to the First Appeal No.926 of 2004 7 respondent no.1, as the report of biopsy sent by respondent no.1, was negative and only after the operation performed by Dr. Ajmer Singh, the cancer was detected and as such, respondent no.1 cannot be held liable.
21. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
22. Admittedly in this case, the size of the prostrate was very large and it was weighing about 500 gms., before the operation by way of TUR technique, was conducted by respondent no.1. In the ultrasound test report dated 07.06.2002 Ex.C5, weight of the gland was 485 gms. Respondent no.1 in his affidavit Ex.R1, stated that he has explained the options of the treatment by TUR and Open Surgery. He further stated that it was also explained that in case of Transurethral resection of Prostrate Surgery (TUR), the process was to be repeated for more than once because of the unusual size of the prostrate. Respondent no.1 has taken the plea that the appellant requested and agreed for TUR. The OPD slip was handed over to the appellant. This plea and statement of respondent no.1, is not tenable as respondent no.1 being a qualified doctor, was knowing the procedure very well and the consent form/agreement should have been in the custody of respondent no.1. The OPD slip cannot be considered to be a consent form or agreement which respondent no.1 stated that the appellant has not produced the same. Affidavit Ex.R2 relied upon by respondent no.1, is also very important. Dr. Ajmer Singh in his affidavit Ex.R2, deposed that in case of very big enlargement of prostrate, both methods of Open Surgery as well as TUR can be done. TUR is a standard procedure and it can be repeated in big glands. Respondent no.1 has relied upon Ex.R3 written by a Prostrate Cancer Specialist. Ex.R4 is the Year Book of Urology and Ex.R5 is the Journal Watch. Ex.R6 is the Operative Surgery Fundamental International Techniques Urology. These text books have compared the TUR procedure and the morality rate is stated to be less. In Ex.R6, it is mentioned that 60 to 70% of prostatectomies in the United States, are now being First Appeal No.926 of 2004 8 performed by this technique. Occasionally, very large glands may require two sittings for completion.
23. The operation was conducted by respondent no.1 on 15.12.2001 by TUR method and respondent no.1 never asked the appellant to repeat the same, although the appellant re-visited respondent no.1 and explained to him about the pain, he was suffering. On December 31, 2001, the appellant suffered the same problem of stoppage of urine and he contacted respondent no.1, but respondent no.1 never bothered to further investigate the case and to advise him for another TUR. On January 24, 2002, respondent no.1 advised some medicines. Even in April, 2002, the appellant approached respondent no.1 with another ultrasound test report but respondent no.1 did not bother and the appellant was left with no alternative, except to approach another doctor, when his suffering became unbearable. Dr. Ajmer Singh again operated the appellant and removed the entire mass and also sent a part of it, for examination and the histopathology report dated 15.04.2003 showed that the report was suggestive of some malignant mesenchymal tumour, possibly Leiomyosarcoma. At the time of first operation, the Histopathology/ Cytology report Ex.C2 dated 17.12.2001 showed that there was no evidence of malignancy. Thus, it is clear that the malignancy developed after the first operation and was found in the report which was after the operation conducted by Dr. Ajmer Singh. Respondent no.1 cannot escape the liability because it was his gross negligence that he did not repeat the TUR surgery, to take out the excessive mass. As per Ex.R6 also, TUR is performed only in 60 to 70% cases in U.S.A., but not in 100% cases. The technique and high standard of medical care available in U.S.A., cannot be compared in India and it is a matter of common knowledge that those, who can afford, rush to America for treatment of serious ailments or for replacement of vital organs of human body.
24. The appellant has also placed on file, the Text Books relating to the Principles of Surgery Ex.C21 (Fifth Edition), Principles of Surgery (Sixth Edition) Ex.C22 and Campbell's Urology (Eighth Edition) Ex.C23. These Text Books were First Appeal No.926 of 2004 9 also written by experts and the perusal of these texts, show as to when the TUR method is successful and when the Open Surgery is to be conducted. The emphasis has been laid on the size of the gland and in case of large size of the glands, the Open Surgery is preferred. In Ex.C22, the following gives a clear picture about the type of the procedure to be followed, which is reproduced below:-
"Transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) is almost as effective as TURP in glands less than 30 grams in size. In this endoscopic procedure, one or two incisions are made through the prostatic capsule posteriorly. Without removing tissue, this procedure reduces urethral resistance. The procedure can be done on an outpatient basis, and has less risk of retrograde ejaculation, impotence, and blood loss than TURP.
Because of prolonged resection times and the resulting increase in complication rates, very large prostate glands (>60 to 80 g) may be treated by simple retropubic or suprapubic prostatectomy. In these procedures, a lower abdominal incision is made and the obstructing prostatic tissue "enucleated" through an incision in the prostatic capsule (retropubic) or in the anterior wall of the bladder (suprapubic). Complication rates for open prostatectomy are probably no higher than for TURP, but incisional morbidity makes TURP the preferred procedure, if the size of the prostate does not preclude it".
25. In the Text Ex.C23, the following is relevant, which is reproduced below:-
"Cystoscopy, done routinenly in the physician's office as a diagnostic procedure, is not recommended. The only reason for performing cystoscopy in the urologist's office, is if the urologist needs to know the size of the prostate and its configuration in making a recommendation as to the type of therapy that would be useful for this patient ( e.g., transurethral incision if a small prostate or an open prostatectomy, if a very large prostate)".
26. This Text further provides as follows:-
"Open prostatectomy should be considered when the obstructive tissue is estimated to weigh more than 75 g. If sizeable bladder diverticula justify removal, suprapubic prostatectomy and diverticulectomy should be performed concurrently".First Appeal No.926 of 2004 10
27. From the above discussion, it is clear that the methods of TUR and Open Surgery both are useful in removing the excessive mass, but in case of large glands or excessive mass, the Open Surgery is useful and beneficial, but in case of small glands or a mass upto 75 gms., the TUR procedure is recommended and for removal of the entire mass, the TUR is to be repeated.
28. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has contended that respondent no.1 applied the correct method and an error in judgment, is not necessarily the negligence. This argument of the learned counsel for respondent no.1, is not tenable because respondent no.1 has not completed the procedure adopted by him, as he never repeated the TUR. In this case, at the time of first ultrasound test, the mass of the gland was more than 500 gms. and respondent no.1 applied the wrong technique due to his negligence and did not show his bonafide to carry out the TUR again to remove the excessive mass, whatever could be done by that method. As such, he has not shown the care and caution which he was supposed to take. Respondent no.1 has not acted as per the approved methods of performing the urology operation and his negligence made the appellant to suffer due to the lack of care and negligent method of performing the operation and further, it led to the malignancy due to which the appellant has to further take treatment from the PGI.
29. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has relied upon "Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab & Others", AIR 2005 Supreme Court-3180(SC) and "Martin F. D'Souza Vs Mohd. Ishfaq", AIR-2009 Supreme Court 2049(SC). The law laid down in both these authorities by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a latest authority in case reported as "V. Kishan Rao Vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Another", 2010(2) RCR (Civil)-929(SC), wherein it was held that "the expert witness is not required to be examined in all cases of medical negligence". But while defining medical negligence, it was observed in para no.11 (Jacob Mathew's case) as follows:-
"The definition involves three constituents of negligence: (1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party First Appeal No.926 of 2004 11 complaining the former's conduct within the scope of the duty; (2) breach of the said duty; and (3) consequential damage. Cause of action for negligence arises only when damage occurs; for, damage is a necessary ingredient of this tort".
30. In Martin F. D'souza's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para nos.37 to 39, observed as under:-
"37. As already stated above, the broad general principles of medical negligence have been laid down in the Supreme Court Judgment in Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab & Anr. (supra). However, these principles can be indicated briefly here.
38. The basic principle relating to medical negligence is known as the BOLAM Rule. This was laid down in the judgment of Justice McNair in Bolam Vs Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR-582, as follows:-
"Where you get a situation which involved the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not, is not the test of the main on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill.
This test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill.... It is well-established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art".
Bolam's test has been approved by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew's case.
39. In Halsbury's Laws of England, the degree of skill and care required by a medical practitioner is stated as follows:-
"The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way; nor is he guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of First Appeal No.926 of 2004 12 medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men.
Deviation from normal practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. To establish liability on that basis, it must be shown (1) that there is a usual and normal practice; (2) that the defendant has not adopted it; and (3) that the course, in fact adopted, is one no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken had he been acting with ordinary care".
31. In "Kusum Sharma & Others Vs Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others", 2010(2)RCR (Civil)-161(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an error in judgment, is not necessarily negligence, and also relied upon the observation in Jacob Mathew's case on the question of medical negligence.
32. In case "Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs Regency Hospital Limited & Ors., 2010(1)RCR (Civil)-15(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the opinion of expert.
33. In V. Kishan Rao Vs Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed a large number of authorities and held that the directions given in Martin F. D'souza's case (supra), cannot be treated as a binding precedent and in para nos.47 to 49, observed as under:-
"47. In a case where negligence is evident, the principle of res-ipsa- loquitur operates and the complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing (res) proves itself. In such a case, it is for the respondent to prove that he has taken care and done his duty to repel the charge of negligence.
48. If the general directions in paragraph 106 in D'souza's (supra) are to be followed, then the doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitur which is applied in cases of medical negligence by this Court and also by Courts in England, would be redundant.
49. In view of the discussions aforesaid, this Court is constrained to take the view that the general direction given in paragraph 106 in D'souza (supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent and those directions must be confined to the particular facts of that case.
34. In case "Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.", 2009(4) RCR (Criminal)-1(SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the First Appeal No.926 of 2004 13 criminal negligence and civil negligence, opinion of expert witness and in Para no.48, observed as follows:-
"48. In Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Others, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal)-124: 2009(3) RCR (Civil)-174 : 2009(3) RAJ- 634: [2009(7)SCALE-407], this Court held as under:-
"32. We are also cognizant of the fact that 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 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.
It further exhaustively dealt with criminal negligence.
35. The authorities of the Hon'ble National Commission in case "G.K. Rao Vs Bollineni Bhaskar Rao", O.P. No.358 of 1999, Decided on 20.08.2009;
"Varsha Priya Vs Sushma Pandey & Anr.", Original Petition No.2004 of 1998, Decided on 24.04.2009; and "Shashi Prabha Singh & Ors. Vs Escort Heart Institute & Research Centre & New Delhi", Original Petition No.17 of 1997, Decided on 19.02.2009, are not applicable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
36. From the above discussion, it becomes evident that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Agarwal's case (supra), is the law of the land as on today and the principle of res-ipsa-loquitur operates and once the appellant complains about the negligence of the doctor, then it is for the doctor to rebut and prove that he has taken care and done his duty, to repel the charge of negligence.
37. Applying the above ratio of the law to the facts and circumstances of the present case, then it is clear that respondent no.1 Dr. R.K. Jindal has not been able to rebut the evidence led by the appellant and to prove in any manner that he has taken the due care and performed the duty in a manner which does not in any way prove his negligence. Respondent no.1 Dr. R.K. Jindal has failed to prove so, First Appeal No.926 of 2004 14 because he has not brought on record, any consent of the appellant for opting the treatment by TUR instead of Open Surgery. The prescription slip cannot be treated as consent form. Even for the sake of arguments, if the appellant has opted for TUR, then it was for the respondent Dr. R.K. Jindal to rebut the same and to remove the mass till the appellant was cured. Firstly, Dr. R.K. Jindal opted a wrong technique because for the removal of a mass of more than 500 gms., TUR method of surgery was not, at all, recommended and the negligence of respondent no.1 Dr. R.K. Jindal started from there itself. It was not an error of judgment or the option of performing the surgery in one way than the other. The removal of a large size of gland having a mass of more than 500 gms. was not, at all, possible by TUR method of surgery, nor it was recommended by any medical text books and even the post operation care which was required to be taken, was not taken by respondent no.1. Once he knew that the TUR method has not worked well and when the second ultrasound report was shown to him on 07.06.2002, then respondent no.1 should have corrected himself and performed the Open Surgery immediately, but ignored and the wrong treatment led to the development of malignancy and another operation has to be carried out by Dr. Ajmer Singh, who is a expert in the field. The miseries of the appellant did not end there and he has to further take treatment from the PGI, Chandigarh, due to the development of cancer after the first operation conducted by respondent no.1.
38. We are of the view that the compensation of Rs.75000/- awarded to the appellant, is not proportionate to the medical expenses incurred, pain and sufferings undergone by the appellant, mental and physical harassment caused to him and it is required to be enhanced. In our opinion, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation will serve the ends of justice.
39. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Sh. Manohar Singh, appellant is partly accepted and Rs.75,000/- awarded as compensation by the learned District Forum, is enhanced to R.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac) and the remaining order of the learned District Forum is upheld.
First Appeal No.926 of 2004 15
40. Consequently, the First Appeal No.987 of 2004 filed by Dr. R.K. Jindal and Another, for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.06.2004 under appeal and for dismissal of the complaint, being without any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
41. The appellants No.1 & 2 Dr. R.K. Jindal & Anr. of First Appeal No.987 of 2004, had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal on 11.08.2004. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued, if any, be remitted by the registry to Sh. Manohar Singh, respondent/complainant, by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to appellants.
42. Remaining amount shall be paid by respondents Dr. R.K. Jindal & Anr. to the appellant/complainant Manohar Singh within two month from the receipt of copy of this order.
43. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 29.09.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
44. The appeal could be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
45. Copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.987 of 2004 (Dr. R.K. Jindal & Anr. Vs. Manohar Singh).
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member September 30, 2010.
(Gurmeet Singh)