State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Subhash M. Nargolkar vs Mrs.Babynanda S. Kalbhor on 23 December, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASTHRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 2250 OF 1998 Dt. of filing : 10/10/1998 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 691 OF 1996 Dt. of order : 23/12/2010 ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PUNE Dr.Subhash M. Nargolkar Indira Maternity Home 1277, Jangli Maharaj Road, Pune 411 004. Appellant/org. Opponent V/s. Mrs.Babynanda S. Kalbhor At Post Loni, Kalbhor, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune-412 201. Respondent/org. complainant Quorum: Mr.P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S. P. Lale, Honble Member Present : Mr.Raja Thakare, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the respondent.
-: ORDER :-
Per Mr.P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1.
Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by Addl. District Consumer Forum Pune in consumer complaint No.691/1996 decided on 15/08/1998, the opponent has filed this appeal. While allowing the complaint partly, Forum below directed Opponent/doctor to pay compensation of `2 Lakhs to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from 08/12/1995 to the date of order within two months. As such org. Opponent-Dr.Subhash M. Nargolkar has filed this appeal challenging the judgement and award.
2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
3. Complainant filed consumer complaint against Dr.Subhash M. Nargolkar, resident of 1277, Jangli Maharaj Road, Pune (who runs Indira Maternity Home), alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of said doctor. According to the complainant, Opponent is running Hospital at the said address for last 20 years and is known Obstetrics Gynaecologist. She had approached said doctor on 08/12/1995 for large posterior cervical fibromyomata. On 09/12/1995 with the help of sonography report, Opponent performed operation on her at his hospital with the help of his wife Dr.(Mrs.)Ranjana Nargolkar and one Dr.Vidya Joshi and Anesthetist Dr.Vijaya Pathak and removed the cervical fibroid, Uterus and both tubes. Three blood bottles transfusion were given and even after operation, complainant was kept under personal supervision in his hospital during 09/12/1995 to 20/12/1995. Complainant was intermittently given blood transfusion as and when required, but all the while, she was in the hospital taking post-operative treatment and she complained about abdominal pains with fever. Some pathological report, particularly, urine report was called by the doctor. In the urine report, it was found that there was some blood trace and occasional pus cells and on 16/12/1995 second report of urine was called which also revealed of trace of acetone and presence of blood and 4to6/hpf Pus Cells in the urine of the complainant. Again on 18/12/1995 urine culture report was procured from the Laboratory. On 19/12/1995 he called Dr.N.S. Ketkar and took his opinion about case of the complainant. Dr.Deshpande brought his mobile sonography instrument and examined the complainant who was then complaining of fever and pain in the abdomen. On examination with full bladder Dr.Deshpande found that vagina was normal. No collection in uterus, kidneys, liver and gall bladder was healthy. No collection in abdominal wound. Thereafter, on 21/12/1995 doctor found that the complainants condition was showing normalcy and she was fit for discharge. It is the allegation of the complainant that doctor was anxious to discharge her from hospital because he was to be away from hospital from 23/12/1995 to 03/01/1996 since he wanted to attend National Workshop and 38th Congress of the Federation of Ob-gyn. Societies of India. Complainant then insisted that she should be monitored by doctor for one more week since she had still a complaint of abdomen pain and fever.
4. According to the complainant, right from the operation, she suffered abdomen pain and fever till her discharge from the hospital of OPPONENT/doctor despite treatment given with the assistance of local Senior Ob-Gyn. Professional. She was constrained to leave hospital in the absence of Opponent on 24/12/1995, but even after her discharge she continued to suffer abdomen pain and fever and again returned to the hospital of Opponent/doctor on 29/12/1995 only to learn that doctor was absent and not available since he had gone to 38th Congress of the Federation of Ob-Gyn. Societies of India. She took advice of Opponents wife Dr.Ranjana Nargolkar and who advised her to do sonography on 01/01/1996. She was all the while suffering unbearable pain. Hence, she approached Dr.Phadnis. Dr.Phadnis told her that previous doctor was negligent and he had not discharged his obligation properly to arrest her malady of abdomen pain and fever. So, she was admitted in the hospital of Dr.Phadnis with complaint of abdomen pain, etc. On examination Dr.Phadnis found that second operation was required to be performed. Therefore, on 30/12/1995 he performed operation upon abdomen of the complainant for effecting vault blow out and cleaned the same and stopped water discharge. Leakage was stopped and Dr.Phadnis advised IVP after three weeks. Thereafter, she approached Dr.Phadnis after three weeks and found that there was no leakage of urine and vault was healing normal. The complainant filed consumer complaint alleging medical negligence and carelessness on the part of Dr.Subhash Nargolkar, who had performed first operation on her. She claimed `1,50,000/- as compensation and `12,000/- as travelling expenses and she also claimed cost of second operation by filing consumer complaint.
5. Opponent filed written version and justified operation he had conducted on the complainant. Opponent pleaded that he had rightly made diagnosis of Posterior Cervical Fibromymata burrowed into recto vaginal space and said peculiar condition required major surgery with known intra-operative problems as well as probable post operative complications and hazards attending such operation. He claimed that operation conducted on the lady was successful and after operation, thorough theatre checking was done and correct conservative line of watchful treatment was adopted. Patient was stable after operation with satisfactory urinary function output. There was no evidence of primary or late damage. He pleaded that while performing this sort of operation, there is inherent risk of damage likely to be caused to the urinary system. He maintained that there was no evidence that these complications occurred because of primary damage to urinary system caused by the surgeon. He gave details of the treatment contending that he had adopted proper line of treatment and seniors opinions confirmed his line of conservative treatment with blood transfusion. He, therefore, pleaded that he was not guilty of any kind and till he went to attend National Workshop and 38th Congress of the Federation of Ob-Gyn. Societies of India, the patient was recovering well. He, therefore, prayed that complaint is without any substance and it has been filed just to extract moneys from him. As such, he prayed that complaint should be dismissed with costs.
6. Complainant filed affidavit of herself, her husband, her mother-in-law and of her mother and also placed on record sketchy notes of Dr.Phadnis, who performed second operation on her. On the other hand, OPPONENT-doctor placed on record five affidavits, namely of
1) Dr.Anjaneyulu, Director of Ob-Gyn professional of Pune World.
2) Dr.N.S. Ketkar, Radiologist and Sonologist.
3) Dr.S.N. Deshpande, Senior Ob-Gyn Consultant as well as President of Pune OBs-Gyn. Society for year 1995.
4) Dr.S.V. Gupta, Practising Gynaecologist and Convener of the medicolegal call of Pune Ob-Gyn Society.
5) Dr.Mrs.Vijaya Pathak, Consultant Anesthetist.
All justified that whatever was done and performed by Dr.Subhash Nargolkar for curing the illness of Cervical fibroid was proper. It was intended to relieve the complainant from the abdomen pain she was suffering. Opponent-doctor also relied upon some Text Book pages to prove his innocence.
7. Upon hearing rival Advocates, Forum below ultimately held that Opponent was guilty of negligence in providing medical service to the complainant and as such Forum below was pleased to allow the complaint partly and directed Opponent/doctor to pay sum of `2 Lakhs as compensation with interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant from 08/12/1995 to the date of order to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of order. Aggrieved by the said, org. Opponent/doctor has filed this appeal.
8. We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.Raja Thakare for the appellant and Advocate Mr.U.B. Wavikar for the respondent.
9. This was a case of medical negligence and as has been rightly pointed out by Advocate Thakare for the appellant the respondent had not led any evidence of any expert from the field in support of allegations of medical negligence levelled by the respondent against appellant/doctor. What is pertinent to note at this juncture is the fact that Mrs.Babynanda S. Kalbhor has not even filed an affidavit of Dr.Phadnis, who treated her after she had abandoned the service being rendered by appellant/doctor or his hospital. Patient was with Dr.Nargolkar/appellant herein from 08/12/1995 to 20/12/1995. During that period, appellant had conducted surgery on Mrs.Babynanda Kalbhor/respondent herein after informing her that she was suffering from a large posterior cervical fibromyoma requiring a major surgery. Appellant/doctor arrived at this finding after conducting certain tests inclusive of Ultra Sonography and after having done clinical examination of the patient. Previous doctor who was treating Mrs.Babynanda Kalbhor had simply opined that she was suffering from ovarian cyst. But, clinical examination and sonography got done by the appellant to arrive at a proper diagnosis of her ailment confirmed that it was a case of large posterior cervical fibromyoma and it required a major surgery and it was inherently of a complicated nature because in the surgery, large posterior cervical fibromyoma was required to be removed and such surgery can result in a number of known complications. Therefore, appellant had made aware of all these complications attending the surgery to respondent before he took an informed consent from the patient on 08/12/1995. Thereafter, on 08/12/1995 he performed an abdominal hysterectomy + bilateral salpingoopherectomy with complete removal of posterior cervical fibromyoma. This was a difficult surgery but, ultimately it had gone uneventful and it was surely a successful surgery. Immediately after 08/12/1995 patient was found stable and she did not develop known complications till 12/12/1995. However, according to the Advocate Thakare, Learned Counsel for the appellant, thereafter, she showed some symptoms of secondary haemorrhage since there was some sort of oozing and pyrexia, which is also according to Advocate Mr.Thakare one of the most known post-operative complication of such surgery for which his client had adopted conservative line of treatment. Again, urine examination was done on 12/12/1995. It was repeated on 16/12/1995. Haemogram and other tests were also done on 16/12/1995 just to rule out possibility of cause of fever. Thorough examination was done in the Operation Theatre and finding did not indicate any surgical intervention and therefore, his client continued to give watchful conservative treatment. Mr.Thakare further submitted that thereafter, she was given transfusion and senior Gynaecologists and experts like Dr.Suresh Deshpande, Dr.Ketkar, Sonologist were called on 19/12/1995 by the appellant. Sonography too was done. Sonography also confirmed that there was no collection of liquid in abdomen. His client even called senior most Gynaecologist of Pune Prof.Anjaneyulu, who after examining patient reassured and confirmed that the line of treatment adopted by appellant/doctor was quite proper. Senior Physician Dr.V. Joshi was also summoned to examine the patient and to rule out other causes of fever and necessary treatment was continued. Haemogram was taken on 21/12/1995 which revealed that the blood transfusion and line of treatment was successful. Haemoglobin percentage was raised from 8.5% as on 16/12/1995 to 11% on 21/12/1995. Thereafter, patient was discharged after examination on 24/12/1995.
10. Advocate Mr.Thakare submitted that while discharging the patient, his client had specifically asked the patient to come for follow-up examination at any time if required. He fairly admitted that his client was away to attend National Workshop and 38th Congress of the Federation of Ob-gyn. Societies of India at New Delhi from 25/12/1995 to 03/01/1996. Respondent however again came to Opponent/doctors clinic on 29/12/1995 as she was feeling unwell. Respondent was examined by the attending doctor who was In-charge of Opponents clinic in his absence and she was advised to undergo sonography again and come back with report. However, patient had not turned back after 29/12/1995 instead she appears to have gone to Consultant Dr.Avinash Phadnis and as revealed by the respondent that she was operated by Dr.Phadnis on 30/12/1995 and she continued to take further treatment from Dr.Phadnis himself from that day onwards. By explaining the sequence of events, Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr.Thakare rightly submitted that his client was not guilty of any negligence in conducting operation and in taking pre and post operative care of the patient and he had even kept a senior person as locum during his absence to look after the patients like respondent and In-charge doctor had even advised the respondent/complainant to undergo Ultra sonography again and come back with report, but she did not turn up and she preferred to approach another doctor. Advocate Mr.Thakare therefore submitted that his client was not at all guilty in any sort of medical negligence looking to the sequence of events explained above.
11. Advocate Mr.Thakare further submitted that the respondent had not produced on record any certificate or affidavit of Dr.Avinash Phadnis who was the next surgeon, who performed same surgery on respondent-Babynanda Kalbhor probably on 30/12/1995. Had there been an affidavit of Dr.Phadnis, who performed second operation on her on 30/12/1995, matter would have been different. Had he opined in his operation notes that he was required to undertake second operation to rectify the mistakes committed by previous surgeon, we would have held that the appellant was guilty of medical negligence in performing operation on Mrs.Babynanda Kalbhor/respondent herein. But, no such affidavit of Dr.Phadnis was placed on record by the respondent in the trial Forum. Therefore, mere allegation of negligence by layman like complainant and her relatives is not sufficient to hold appellant guilty of medical negligence as alleged by respondent in her complaint. Her allegation appears to be that the appellant caused injury to the urinary track of the respondent. However, there is no proof to show that first surgery performed by the appellant was in any way erroneous or wrongful or it was not carried out with requisite medical skill required to be exhibited by a person of his standing. Her allegation is baseless and her further allegation appears to be that the appellant had negligently left Pune without taking care of respondent before going to out of station.
12. Now, it has come on record that the appellant was required to attend one conference of National Workshop and 38th Congress of the Federation of Ob-gyn. Societies of India being held at New Delhi and for that purpose from 25/12/1995 to 03/01/1996 he was not available in his hospital, but his hospital was looked after by able substitute doctor who was all the while available in his Maternity Hospital. On this ground no negligence can be attributed to the appellant herein. Attending of conference is some time sine qua non for the professionals like appellant herein who has to keep himself appraised of latest technology and latest knowledge imparted in such conferences and if he is required to be away from his hospital for 8-10 days to attend such leading conference or workshop, he cannot be blamed on that count simplicitor. Moreover, before leaving Pune, he had kept one doctor as Locum who was also able and experienced person and who had advised the respondent herein on 29/12/1995 when she came with feeling of fever that she should undergo Ultra sonography examination and come back with report, so that he would give further advice and treatment. But, Mrs.Babynanda Kalbhor-respondent herein thought other way round and she did not turn up with report and she straightway approached Dr.Phadnis, who appears to have conducted second surgery on her on 30/12/1995. In fact appellant had called her in his Maternity Home for taking follow up action after operation after his return from the conference.
13. Advocate Mr.Thakare, Learned Counsel for the appellant rightly submitted before us that it is well settled principle of law that negligence has to be established and cannot be presumed in any case of alleged medical negligence. He submitted that in order to determine whether doctor is negligent or not following factors are required to be considered :-
i) Qualifications of doctor
ii) Experience of doctor
iii) Diagnosis done by doctor is correct or not?
iv) Whether the Nursing Home which he was running had all requisite facilities?
14. Advocate Mr.Thakare submitted that in the case of appellant/doctor on the touchstone of above criteria, it would have to be held that doctor was not guilty of medical negligence. He is M.D., D.G.O.F.I.C.O.G., F.I.C.M.C.H. a highly qualified Gynaecologist. He had 27 years of experience in the profession. He had even treated other female family members of the complainant in the past and though the respondent had come with wrong diagnosis of ovarian cyst, he correctly diagnosed with the help of clinical examination and sonography report and thereafter, after taking informed consent and after making her aware of the attending inherent complications of the surgery, he decided to perform operation. He had conducted operation on respondent by taking due and proper care exhibiting requisite medical skill and he had removed posterior cervical fibromyomo. The surgery was difficult but uneventful and successful. Therefore, Advocate Mr.Thakare submitted that his client was not guilty of medical negligence of any kind and those were baseless allegations made by the respondent just to extract some moneys from the well qualified and well experienced doctor as the appellant herein is. He also submitted that respondent had alleged that there was negligence on the part of appellant for removal of pus caused due to infection. But, this fact is not substantiated by adducing any evidence because no pus or abscess was found in the examination of the patient. Even when Dr.Phadnis examined the patient as per notes written by Dr.Phadnis, complainant had abdominal pain for three weeks, low appetite, insomnia, constipation, Backache and fever for last week. No pus formation was noticed by the subsequent doctor at a site of operation performed by appellant herein. Advocate Mr.Thakare rightly explained that after major surgery, patient can suffer from abdomen pain. Patients appetite can be affected after major abdomen surgery. So, any symptoms exhibited by the respondent post-operatively when he was away from Pune were normally complication of any major surgery of this nature. Therefore, no fault can be found when Dr.Phadnis was told that these were difficulties faced by the respondent. He also emphasized before us that Dr.Phadniss notes did not indicate any error in the surgery performed by his client and which necessitated the second surgery or that the operation had any urinary track injury as was pleaded before the District Consumer Forum.
15. It was tried to be argued by Counsel for the respondent that presence of fever during post-operative period demonstrated that there was infection and pus inside the abdomen and same was not properly drained out by negligent treatment given by the appellant. Advocate Mr.Thakare emphatically submitted that presence of fever post-operatively in any patient would not necessarily mean that she was having pus formation or infection of any kind in the abdominal portion at the site of operation which was performed by the appellant-doctor. The appellant had monitored post-operatively very rightly till she was discharged from his hospital on 24/12/1995. He daily monitored the patient. He had called other senior doctors who had examined the patient thoroughly and had confirmed that the line of conservative treatment being taken by the appellant in respect of respondents case was proper and there was no need to reopen said operational wound to see whether there was any infection inside or pus formation inside the urinary track. Therefore, Advocate Mr.Thakare submitted that case tried to be made out against his client by the respondent was absolutely false and Forum below got mislead by the arguments advanced by Counsel for the complainant and handed out wrong verdict which is required to be set aside by allowing this appeal.
16. We are of the view that the facts on record discussed above are surely not pointing out the medical negligence of any kind on the part of appellant/doctor. Appellant/doctor had taken all due and proper precautions pre-operatively and post-operatively. He had conducted operation after patient was subjected to thorough clinical tests and sonography and then he had come to the conclusion that respondent was requiring operation on abdominal Hysterectomy + bilateral Salpingoopherectomy with complete removal of posterior cervical fibromyoma. He had told the respondent before surgery that it was a major surgery and there can be some complications and he had taken informed consent. Thereafter, with the help of Anesthetist and other doctors, he had performed operation on 08/12/1995. After operation which was successful, patient was stable and did not develop known complications till 12/12/1995. From 12/12/1995 to 21/12/1995 it has come on record, how doctor had monitored post-operatively the patient in question and he had summoned the doctors from various field and even experts from his own field to confirm that his conservative line of treatment was proper and up to the requisite standard. When he discharged the patient, patient was recovering fast, but doctor had advised the respondent to come to meet him on 02/01/1996 by which time, he would be back to Pune. However, respondent approached his hospital on 29/12/1995 and she was advised by doctor In-charge that she should undergo Ultra sonography again and should come with report, so that further line of treatment could be decided, but she did not come up and left the services of appellant and approached another doctor, who in his wisdom thought it fit to subject her to another operation. Whether that operation was necessary is not established by adducing any expert opinion in that behalf. On the other hand, we have five affidavits on record adduced by appellant/Dr.Subhash Nargolkar before the Forum below. Those affidavits were sworn by Dr.Sanjay Gupte, Practising Gynaecologist and Executive Vice-President of Pune Obstetrics and Gynaecological Society, Dr.Suresh Nagesh Deshpande, M.B.B.S., D.G.O., M.D., F.I.C.O.G., Dr.R. Anjaneyulu, Prof. emeritus for life, Ob & Gyn., Dr.Nitin S. Ketkar, Practicing Radiologist & Sonologist and Dr.(Mrs.) Vijaya Pathak, Consultant Anaesthesiologist. These affidavits when considered in the light of virtually no evidence of medical negligence adduced on behalf of respondent lead us to only conclude that the appellant herein was not at all guilty of medical negligence.
17. We have carefully gone through these affidavits and we are finding that each one of the doctor herein is clearly giving opinion that no damage was done to the urinary system whatsoever at the end of surgery. All parameters were gone into by Dr.Vijaya Phatak before he shifted the patient to the Recovering Room. Urine collected in the bag was clear and amounting to 300 ml. The patient was seen by him before she left premises. At that time second blood transfusion had just finished and patients condition was very satisfactory. Dr.Ketkar had done sonography examination of patient/ respondent at the instance of appellant/Dr.Nargolkar on 19/12/1995. On that day, when he went to see the patient, appellant and Dr.S.N. Deshpande were present. He did detailed sonography of entire abdomen and pelvis. During the sonographic study there was no evidence of any free fluid or any localized collection in the pelvis or in the rectoversical pouch. Neither there was any evidence of a mass/lesion in the pelvis. There was no fluid seen even in the hepato-renal pouch or in the subdisaphragmatic recesses. The purpose of sonography is just to rule out any post-operative collection or any mass/lesion. This sonography was done by him on 19/12/1995 and on 24/12/1995 patient was discharged from the hospital. Dr.R.Anjanyulu was Head of the Dept. of Ob-Gyn. At B.J. Medical College, Pune for nearly 17 years and Grant Medical College, J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai for 4 years. He had seen the respondent in the Special Room on reference for senior opinion at the instance of appellant herein. He noted the history and post-operative findings. On examination he found that general condition of the patient was good. There was no distension, guarding, tenderness and rigidity of abdomen and the abdominal wound had healed well. The patient had no urinary complaints. He reviewed the extensive investigation and he was happy with all the findings. He assured the patient that she was all right and suggested monitoring as was already being carried out. Dr.Suresh Nagesh Deshpande, who also M.B.B.S, D.G.O. & M.D. and working as President of Pune Obstetric & Gynaecological Society stated in his affidavit that on December 1995 that he was called by appellant/doctor to attend the patient who had undergone an unusually extensive surgery and was not recovering at an adequate pace. They discussed the case, then he examined the patient, conducted sonography examination with Dr.Ketkar and they found that there was no evidence of abdominal injury during surgery. There was no unusual blood clot. The patients health was stable and it was a matter of time to effect her recovery. He also testified that appellant/doctor after received notice, had extensive discussion with Dr.Avinash Phadnis and Dr.Phadnis categorically denied of having made any statement to the patients relatives regarding any lack of skill on the part of appellant/doctor while treating the patient. Operation was difficult and complicated, the ultimate result was quite successful and there was no suspicion of injury to the urinary track. They thoroughly examined all the sequences and treatment given and they concluded that pre-operative assessment of the patient was adequate, decision of surgery was correct and patient and her relatives were adequately counselled regarding the need for operation, its severity and operation was carried out skillfully. Post operatively, adequate care, investigations and treatment were carried out and patients relatives were adequately informed about post-operative progress of the patient. Dr.Gupte had also gave similar opinion.
18. Considering all these affidavits of experts and opinions given by the experts in this case, it is crystal clear that there was no medical negligence on the part of the appellant/doctor in conducting first operation on respondent/Mrs.Babynanda Kalbhor and that finding arrived at by the Forum below is not sustainable in law looking to the affidavits of experts produced by the appellant. Forum below misdirected itself in appreciating the facts on record and gave an order in favour of respondent/complainant without bothering to examine the affidavits of experts produced by the appellant herein. On going through all these affidavits, we are finding that there was virtually no case of medical negligence made out by the respondent and her relatives, who simply filed laymans affidavits and even notes of Dr.Phadnis does not disclose that there was any mistake committed by the appellant/doctor in conducting first operation.
19. Every second operation on the patient does not mean that first operation was a failure one. Under various circumstances, second or third operation is required to be performed looking to the complications developed in the patient through which no generalize assertion can be made that every second operation means first operation was failure one and such approach should not be adopted by the District Consumer Forum while appreciating the facts involved in medical negligence case. Each case must be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and as against experts evidence laymans evidence should be given lesser importance and while rejecting or turning down the experts testimony, Forum below should be slow because it is the expert, who can opine whether particular doctor was negligent in discharging his professional duties and layman may say that this and that doctor was negligent in conducting operation, but laymans opinion should get lesser weight than the expert opinion from the field. In this view of the matter, we hold that there was no substance in the allegations made by the respondent against appellant herein. Appellant had done his duty carefully, skillfully and taking all due and proper precautions. No fault could be found in adopting the line of treatment in conducting first operation on the respondent. Second operation was in no way a sort of rectification of mistakes committed as alleged, by the appellant herein. In fact, had the respondent approached the appellant/doctor on his return from New Delhi on 03/01/1996, appellant/doctor himself would have taken some remedial steps to arrest the negative things noticed by Dr.Phadnis. Be that as it may be. We are convinced that the Forum below has erroneously decided this case and gave wrong verdict and by allowing this appeal, we will have to set aside and quash the said finding. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The consumer complaint No.691/1996 stands dismissed.
2. However, in the given circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
3.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member dd.