State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurmeet Singh vs Tagore Hospital on 23 April, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.674 of 2013
Date of Institution: 20.06.2013.
Date of Decision: 23.04.2015.
Gurmeet Singh son of Harbans Singh resident of House No.784-E
Type-I, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Tagore Hospital Pvt. Limited, Banda Bahadur Nagar, Mahavir
Marg, Jalandhar, through its Managing Director.
2. Dr. Tarnaya Goel Surgeon, Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar.
3. Oriental Insurance Company, Divisional Office, 321, G.T.
Road, Jalandhar.
4. National Insurance Company Ltd., 89, Mahavir Marg,
Jalandhar.
....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
29.04.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Assa Singh, Advocate
For respondent no.1&2 : Sh. Ravinder Singh Arora, Advocate
For respondent no.3 &4: Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate
.............................................. First Appeal No.674 of 2013 2 J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 29.04.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar (in short, "the District Forum"), dismissing the complaint of the complainant Gurmeet Singh. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.
2. Complainant Gurmeet Singh has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the allegations that the complainant is an employee-clerk in the office of The Chief Material Manager, Admn. Buildings of the Rail Coach Factory, employed in the office since 27.12.1995. OP no.1 is the premier multi specialty Hospital named as Tagore Hospital at Jalandhar. OP no.2 is a surgeon doctor in the above said hospital, who conducted the surgery on the complainant for the extraction of the diagnosed stone from his kidney whereas OP no.3 is the insurance company. The medical treatment of the RCF staff including complainant is provided in Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital located in RCF Campus for ordinary diseases. The complainant was referred by the RCF to Tagore Hospital Jalandhar with chief complaint of backache since 8 months with history of difficulty in micturation since nine months and with history of painful First Appeal No.674 of 2013 3 micturation since 8 or 9 months. It was diagnosed for an effective treatment or surgical procedure for the removal of Renal Calculus, as the same was diagnosed earlier on June 3, 2009 and on June 24, 2009 by ultra-sonography reports of the whole abdomen of complainant conducted by Amarjeet Scanning and Diagnostic Central, Jalandhar stating that there is a calculus with distal acoustic shadowing in the middle calyx measuring about 6mm to 6.5mm in its maximum dimensions with impression; "right small renal calculus". The case was referred to Dr. T.Goel of Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar on 11th & 12th of September 2009, with reference no.09R4109 for appropriate treatment and for the removal or extraction of the above stone. The complainant was admitted in the Hospital of the OPs on 14.09.2009 for the treatment of removal of the Right Renal Calculus measuring about 6.1. mm to 6.5. mm. Surgical procedure was adopted for the extraction of the same, so that the complainant was relieved of the acute pain in the abdomen, being felt by him for the last 8 to 9 months. The complainant was operated upon on 16.09.2009 through the surgical procedure and laser extraction. Surgical procedure was not conducted, as promised by the OPs for the extraction of the above stone. However a big and wide cut surgical procedure was adopted by the surgeon and this widely ranged cut in the abdomen was a very painful process and patient had to bear the unbearable pain during surgery. OP no.2, Dr. Goel stitched the wide, deep and big cut width/injury in the abdomen, but First Appeal No.674 of 2013 4 the stitching was done negligently. The stitches applied were leaking and bleeding as well. The patient bled profusely and the nursing staff and doctor on duty were not available for about half a day to attend to it. There was excessive bleeding to the extent that the whole bed sheet was drenched in blood in about two hours of the complainant. After more than two hours bleeding, some more and close stitches were applied by an another doctor to stitch the big and wide wound/cut again second time whereby the excessive bleeding was staunched after about two to three hours. Pain killers were given to the complainant, but these pain killers were virtually useless and ineffective. OP no.2 stated that pain would stop when the patient would take good quantity of pain killer and thereafter a lot of water was prescribed by him. He was also told by the doctor that his stone stood extracted and the pain was due to the wide cut operative procedure applied on him, which would heal within a week's time and he would be cured of the disease and relieved of the severe pain. The complainant was discharged on 18.09.2009 and his bed was taken away and given to another patient and he was made to sit on the chair to his entire discomfit. The complainant was discharged as indoor patient on 18.09.2009 with the remarks that "Right PCNL under SA-inferior Calyceal puncture-tract-dialed stone impacked in PUJ-complete clearance-DJ stent put-PCN put" with further treatment. When the pain in the abdomen of the complainant did not stop, he got his abdomen scanned again on 15.10.2009 in KAP First Appeal No.674 of 2013 5 Scanning Centre, Jalandhar. It was revealed in scanning report that the stone stood, as it was of the same size, which was prior to the surgery of abdomen of the complainant, as performed by OP no.2. OP no.1 Tagore Hospital and OP no.2 were unsuccessful in removing the stone from the abdomen of the complainant due to the negligent act. A very painful surgical operation stood confirmed, when the complainant was again scanned on 19.10.2009 by a Doctor in Devi Talab Hospital Jalandhar confirming again that the size and the place of the location of the stone/calculus in the abdomen of the complainant was as apparent or as existent, as before the arduous surgery, performed by OP no.2 at the place of OP no.1 Hospital on 15/16.09.2009. Extracted stone was not shown to the patient/complainant, after the operation was over as well. No X-ray was taken and no X-ray report was shown to the patient that the stone stood extracted in the above surgical procedure. The OPs are, thus, guilty of unfair trade practice and deficient service rendered to the complainant. The complainant immediately after his discharge met the incharge of RCF Hospital and the doctor referred him to Tagore Hospital. The complainant was not supplied the medical record of his surgical procedure by Tagore Hospital. The complainant applied for obtaining the treatment record alongwith scanning report, X-ray report both directly and through RCF Hospital, as well, but they were not provided to him. After discharge from the hospital, the complainant complained about high blood pressure and First Appeal No.674 of 2013 6 suffering of stroke of high blood pressure, continuing too severe pain in the abdomen. It was clear from the sonography, again conducted on the abdomen of the complainant by Devi Talab Hospital Jalandhar that the size and the place of the location of the stone/calculus in the abdomen of the complainant was as apparent or as existent, as before the arduous surgery, even after this surgical procedure. The complainant has alleged unfair trade practice and medical negligence on the part of the OPs, deficient service in adopting the painful surgical treatment and not to remove the stone from his kidney. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OPs praying that OPs be directed to refund the total expenses/charges and the total expenses incurred by him with 12% interest thereupon. He further prayed that OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.50,000/- for future treatment to be incurred by the complainant. The complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for unsuccessful surgery and unfair trade practice and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed separate written reply. It was averred by OP no.1 in the written reply that complainant was referred on 12.09.2009 by RCF Hospital for the management of his Right Renal Calculus. The complainant had ultra-sonography (USG) dated June 3, 2009 and June 24, 2009 done First Appeal No.674 of 2013 7 elsewhere already, which stated a calculus with distal acoustic shadowing in middle calyx measuring about 6 mm to 6.5.mm. The diagnosis was re-confirmed by OP no.1 on 12.09.2009 (Saturday) by doing an intravenous pyelogram (VP) study that showed a large calculus (--1.0 to 1.2cm) in size lodged at right pelviureteric Junction (PUJ) with grade I hydronephrosis. The complainant was admitted on 14.09.2009 (Monday) and after giving 2 days of intravenous antibiotics and counseling and explaining all treatment options, the complainant gave his written consent, underwent right percutaneous nephrolithotonmy (PCNL) on 16.09.2009. It was further averred that the whole surgical procedure took approximately one hour and no big and wide cut was adopted by OP no.2. The post operative vitals of the patient were stable and he was shifted to his private room. The suture used to clamp the PCN tube, became loose and there was oozing from the tube, which was immediately re-secured by the emergency duty doctor on operating doctor advice, who came from his house within no time and checked everything and found his condition satisfactory. OP no.1 denied the allegations of the complainant that there was excessive bleeding or that the nursing staff or the doctor on duty were not available for about half an hour or that the sheet was drenched in blood in about two hours or that the patient felt agonized and weak on account of loss of blood or improper application of the stitches by the doctor and applying more or close stitches by other doctor. OP no.1 further pleaded in written First Appeal No.674 of 2013 8 reply that it is a varying practice to keep the PCN tube open from the very beginning or to clamp it in the initial phase and whatever is thought proper in the case in hand is adopted and was adopted as well. The charge of "wide deep and big cut width/injury in the abdomen and negligent stitching and all stitches applied were leaking and bleeding for 2/3 hours, is totally baseless. Patient's vitals were all stable throughout. OP no.1 further denied the allegations that patient became senseless for some time or that the patient felt that he would die of pain and that the prescribed pain killer pills were virtually bootless and ineffective. It is notable that in immediate post operative period, the patient was not allowed to take orally and for pain only injectables were given. The PCN was removed on 17.09.2009 and the foley catheter thereafter. It was further averred by OP no.1 that immediately after surgery, the removed calculus was handed over to the patient's attendant for further stone analysis. The patient was discharged in a satisfactory condition on 18.09.2009 with proper advice regarding precautions and follow up. With regard to the allegation of medical negligence raised by the patient, a perusal of the medical literature (Innumerable reference in Urology text books and the internet; 2 abstracts attached) be made, where it is clearly held that a small fragment may be left behind during the procedure of PCNL and if symptomatic may require further treatment by ancillary procedures like extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) etc. OP no.1 denied and the other averments of the First Appeal No.674 of 2013 9 complainant contained in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP no.2 also filed a separate written reply on the same version, as filed by OP no.1 in his written reply.
5. Upon notice, OP no.3 appeared and filed its separate written, contesting the complaint of the complainant contending that there was no negligence on the part of OP no.1. It was further pleaded by OPno.3 in its written reply that complainant did not hire any service of OP no.1 Hospital, nor paid for it and RCF Kapurthala, who paid, is not coming up jointly or severally with the complainant. OP no.3 denied the allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In its separate written reply, OP no.4 pleaded that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP no.4 and it insured OP no.2 under professional indemnity policy for doctors. It was further pleaded by OP no.4 in its written reply that there was no negligence on the part of OP no.2 and as such, there is no liability of OP no.4. OP no.4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint of the complainant.
7. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-A to C-D alongwith documents Ex.C1/A to Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavits First Appeal No.674 of 2013 10 Ex.R1/A to Ex.R1/A2 alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-20 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal of evidence of complainant, OP no.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R-3/A alongwith documents Ex.R3/1 and closed the evidence thereafter. OP no.4 also tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP4/A alongwith documents Ex.OP4/B and Ex.OP4/C and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Jalandhar, dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the above order, complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case thoroughly. We are called upon to adjudicate in this case whether OP nos.1 and 2 are medically negligent in not extracting the right kidney stone of the complainant by means of surgical operation. We have respectfully considered the pleadings of the parties on the record. Sh. Gurmeet Singh complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-B on the record and deposed that he was afflicted with painful micturation for the last 8 or 9 months. He was diagnosed as a case of surgical procedure for removal of renal calculus, which was detected on June 3, 2009 and on June 24, 2009 by means by ultrasonography reports of his abdomen conducted by Amarjeet Scanning and Diagnostic Central, Jalandhar. There was calculus with distal acoustic shadowing in the middle calyx measuring about 6 mm to 6.5 mm in its maximum First Appeal No.674 of 2013 11 dimensions with impression: "right small renal calculus". He being an employee of RCF of Indian Railway was referred by RCF Hospital to OP no.1 Tagore Hospital Jalandhar on 11 and 12 September,2009, vide reference no.09R4109 for proper treatment with regard to removal of extraction of the stone. He was operated upon on 16.09.2009 by OP no.2 in the hospital of OP no.1 for the extraction of the above referred stone. The procedure, as promised was not adopted for extraction of the stone and rather a big and wide surgical cut procedure was made by OP no.2 surgeon, which became very painful. The stitching was applied negligently to his wound and it started leaking and bleeding and no nurse or doctor was available thereat to staunch it. The entire bed-sheet was drenched in blood in about two hours and he suffered acute agony. After more than two hours, closed stitches were applied by another doctor to stick the wide cut again to stop the bleeding from the wound. He was rendered senseless on account of excessive bleeding due to above wound. The pain persisted in his wound caused by OP no.2 at the time of above referred surgical procedure. He was discharged on 18.09.2009 in the early morning, but was kept in the chair for whole of the day till evening of 18.09.2009 leaving him to face severe pain to his discomfit. His case is further to this effect that he was again scanned on 15.10.2009 in Kap Scanning Centre Jalandhar after above surgical procedure and it was shown that stone, as it stood earlier, remained in the same place of the same size in his right First Appeal No.674 of 2013 12 kidney, despite undergoing the arduous procedure by him. The surgical procedure was conducted by OP no.2 at Tagore Hospital Jalandhar OP no.1. OP nos. 1 and 2 remained negligent and his calculus was not extracted from the right kidney and it remained as it was before surgical operation. His case is further to this effect that he was further scanned by Devi Talab Charitable Hospital Jalandhar, the stone of the same size in the same place in his right kidney, as it existed prior to operation was found in the same place even after his surgical procedure. His submission is that no Xray was taken and no Xray was shown to the complainant nor the stone, which was allegedly extracted, was shown to him during the course of surgery. His blood pressure soared up and he suffered immensely due to negligent surgical procedure conducted by OP no.2 at Tagore Hospital Jalandhar OP no.1. He has sworn this fact in his affidavit Ex.C-B on the record. On the other hand, the pleas of OP nos.1 and 2, being the hospital and surgeon was that the operation was conducted properly on the complainant and the complainant was referred by the RCF Hospital for this purpose. It was found essential to remove the stone after conducting Xray at the time of admission of complainant in OP no.1 and second time after the removal of his stone. The stand of OP nos.1 and 2 in this case is that they were not medically negligent at all. OP no.1 is a multi speciality hospital of good reputation in the area. This fact was admitted that the complainant was operated on 16.09.2009 by OP no.2 at the hospital First Appeal No.674 of 2013 13 of OP no.1 for right renal calculus. The version of the OP nos.1 and 2 is as follows:
"Under C-arm guidance. (Fluoroscopy), inferior calyceal puncture was made (-1.5cm in size) the tract was serially dilated and Amplatz sheath secured. The pelvicalyceal system showed a large calculus impacted at PUJ with lot of inflammation & oedema. The stone was friable and during the course of retrieval, got fragmented. All visible pieces were picked up and after confirming under C-arm, double-J(DJ) stent was placed and Percutaneous Nephrostomy (PCN)- tube was placed. The PCN tube was tied close with suture."
The post operative vitals of the patient were stable & was shifted to his private room. The suture used to clamp the PCN tube, became loose & there was oozing from the tube, which was immediately re- secured by the emergency duty doctor on operating doctor advice, who came from his house within no time & checked everything & found his condition satisfactory. The allegations that there was excessive bleeding or that the nursing staff or the doctor on duty were not available for about half an hour or that the sheet was drenched in blood in about two hours or that the patient felt agonized and weak on account of loss of blood or improper application of the stitches by the doctor and applying more or close stitches by other doctor, - are nothing but are baseless and unfounded and are First Appeal No.674 of 2013 14 malafide introduced for making a story, yet out of nothing. It is a varying practice- to keep the PCN tube open from the very beginning or to clamp it in the initial phase and whatever is thought proper in the case in hand is adopted, and was adopted. The charge of "wide deep & big cut width/injury in the abdomen & negligent stitching and all stitches applied were leaking & bleeding for 2/3 hours", are totally baseless. Patient's vitals were all stable throughout. The allegation that the patient became senseless for some time or that the patient felt were virtually useless & ineffective, are all false and fabricated. It is notable that in the immediate post operative period the patient is not allowed to take orally & for pain- only injectables are given. The PCN was removed on 17.09.2009 and the foley catheter thereafter. Immediately after surgery, the removed calculus was handed over to the patient's attendant for further stone analysis. The patient was discharge in a satisfactory condition on 18.09.2009 with proper advice regarding precautions & follow up. OP nos.1 and 2 denied any medical negligence in this case on their part.
9. We have to refer to evidence on the record to settle this controversy between the parties. Ex.C-1 is the report ultrasonography of whole abdomen of the complainant dated 03 June 2009, conducted by Amarjeet Scanning & Diagnostic Centre.It has proved that there was calculus with distal acoustic shadowing in the middle calyx measuring about 6.5mm in its maximum First Appeal No.674 of 2013 15 dimensions. Cortical thickness & Pelvi-calyceal echopattern were normal. Corticomedullary differentiation was well maintained. There was no evidence of any hydronephrosis. Ex.C-1/A is the sonography photographs of the abdomen. Ex.C-2 is the another ultrasonography report of whole abdomen of the complainant dated 24 June 2009, conducted by Amarjeet Scanning & Diagnostic Centre, finding the calculus with distal acoustic shadowing in the middle calyx measuring about 6.1 mm in its maximum dimensions. Ex.C-2/A is the photograph of the kidney in working condition. Ex.C-3 is the photocopy of reference slip issued by Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, RCF Kapurthala of the complainant. Ex.C-4 is the photocopy of letter of the complainant to Sr. Manager. Ex.C-5 is the prescription report of Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, RCF Kapurthala of the complainant. Ex.C-6 is the prescription slip of Tagore Hospital Jalandhar dated 01.10.2009 of the complainant. Ex.C-7 is the photocopy of discharge summary of the complainant issued by OP no.2 to the effect that right PCNL under SA. Inferior calyceal puncture. Tract dilated stone impacted in PUJ. Complete clearance. DJ stent put. PCN put. Ex.C-8 and C-9 are the photocopies of deposit slips. Ex.C-10 is the photocopy of report of Uroflowmetry of the complainant. Ex.C-11 is the photocopy of report of lab investigations in the name of complainant Gurmeet Singh. Ex.C-12 and C-13 are the photocopies of prescription slips in the name of complainant issued by OP no.2. Ex.C-14 is the photocopy of ultrasonography report of the First Appeal No.674 of 2013 16 complainant conducted by KAP Scan & Diagnostic Centre on 15.10.2009 to the effect that calculus is seen in lower calyx of right kidney, measuring approximately 6.5 mm. Concretions are seen in pelvicalyceal system of right kidney. There is no hydronephrosis seen. Ex.C-14/A is the photocopy of working condition of the kidney in scan.
10. We find this point established on the record after hearing the submissions of both the sides, that prior to surgical operation of the complainant for extraction of right kidney stone, on 03.06.2009 Ex.C-1 and on 24.06.2009 Ex.C-2, there was stone of 6.5 mm in the right kidney of the complainant. The surgical procedure was conducted on 16.09.2009 on the complainant at the place of OP no.1 by OP no.2. The scan was conducted by the complainant after operation again by independent agency KAP Scan & Diagnostic Centre Jalandhar on 15.10.2009, vide Ex.C-14, wherein the stone of the same size of 6.5 mm was found in right kidney, where it lay before operation. It is evident from perusal of the scanning report prior to operation Ex.C-1 and C-2 and subsequent to operation, vide Ex.C-14 dated 15.10.2009, the stone was not extracted from the right kidney of the complainant and the problem of micturation faced by him did not abate. The scanning reports, as referred to above have proved this fact on the record that stone was not extracted from the right calculus of the complainant. Even, there is scanning report First Appeal No.674 of 2013 17 by Shree Devi Talab Mandir Charitable Hospital dated 19.10.2009, vide Ex.C-16, after the above operation, whereby the calculus was detected in the right kidney of the same size and shape and position 6.1 mm. From perusal of above referred scanning reports, it is evident that the stone was not extracted, despite surgical procedure conducted by OP no.2 from the right kidney of the complainant and the above surgical procedure was carried out at the hospital of OP no.1. OP no.2 is employed doctor of OP no.1.
11. The District Forum primarily placed its reliance on the letter Ex.R-1 by some Doctor of RCF Hospital dated 10.12.2009 to the effect that the stone was approximately the size of 12 mm. On the basis of this letter Ex.R-1, the District Forum reasoned it in the order under challenge in this appeal, that the stone was of the size of 12 mm and it might have fragmented at the time of operation due to its friability. We do not subscribe to this reasoning of the District Forum in this appeal. There is no authentic evidence adduced before us on the record by OP nos.1 and 2 to the effect that the size of the stone was 12 mm at any time and no Xray report, no ultrasonography report or any other reports are on the record to substantiate it. We do not agree with the findings of the District Forum on this point in this appeal. The stone cannot grow to 12 mm from 6.5 mm from 24 June 2009, vide Ex.C-2 till the time of operation on 16.09.2009. The stone of the same size could not be in First Appeal No.674 of 2013 18 the same place even after the operation, as proved on the record by the scannings of the complainant subsequent to his above operation conducted by OP no.2. The only irresistible conclusion drawn by us in this case is that the stone was not extracted by OP no.2 at the Hospital of OP no.1, despite big cut given in the abdomen of the complainant resulting into unbearable pain to the complainant, besides lot of expenditure incurred by him. We find that Ex.R-1 in the absence of authentic proof by OP nos.1 and 2 on the record that the size of the stone was not 12 mm would not be of any consequence. Mere recording of this fact on the record of OP no.1 that stone was extracted without any authentic evidence to support is again inconsequential.
12. The District Forum relied upon law laid down by the Apex Court in Kusum Sharma & Others vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Center & others 1(2010)CPC-29 (SC) and Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & another III(2005) CCR-9(SC). We find that the above referred authorities are factually distinguishable from the facts situation of the case. Herein, despite big cut wound in the abdomen of the complainant, the stone was not removed from the right calculus of the complainant by OP no.2 at the hospital of OP no.1. The stone remained in the same place, where it was before operation. As held by the National Commission in "K.M. Madappa (Dr.) & Anr. vs. Karnataka State Consumer Redressal First Appeal No.674 of 2013 19 Commission & Anr. reported in 2011(1) CPJ-236 (NC) that kidney stones not removed despite repeated operations, it was held to be case of medical negligence and deficient service. Similarly, the reliance of OPs on law laid down in "Badam Agaiah & others Vs. Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy" in Revision Petition no.15 of 2013, decided on 23.05.2014 by the National Commission is distinguishable from the fact and circumstances of the case.
13. As a sequitur of our above referred discussions, we hold that medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP nos.1 & 2 is proved in this case in not extracting the stone from the right kidney of the complainant. The order of the District Forum is not sustainable in this appeal and the same is hereby set-aside by us. We accept the appeal of the appellant and by setting aside the order of the District Forum Jalandhar dated 29.04.2013, we hereby accept the complaint of the complainant Gurmeet Singh and award him the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (one lakh and twenty five thousand), besides Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) as costs of litigation payable to the complainant by OP nos.1 and 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order, failing which, complainant is further entitled to interest on the awarded amount @9% per annum from the date of complaint before District Forum Jalandhar till its realization. On the basis of contract of First Appeal No.674 of 2013 20 indemnification, OP nos.1 and 2 may further claim this amount from OP nos.3 and 4, if legally admissible under the contract of insurance.
14. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 17.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S. GURAM) MEMBER April 23, 2015.
(MM) refer to reporters
(J.S. Klar)
Presiding Judicial Member,