Delhi District Court
Dr.Ashish Dewan vs Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. And Anr on 14 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.497/2017
DLST010037062017
DLST-01-003706-2017
In the matter of:
Dr. Ashish Dewan
S/o Late Dr. N. R. Dewan,
R/o 29/704, East End Apartments,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Extensions,
Delhi-110096. ..... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd.
C-5/29, SDA, Opposite IIT Main Gate,
New Delhi-110016.
Through its Director Dr. Pankaj Bajaj.
2. Dr. Pankaj Bajaj,
Director,
Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. ,
C-5/29, SDA, Opposite IIT Main Gate,
New Delhi-110016. ..... Defendants.
Date of institution : 22.05.2017.
Date of final arguments : 30.04.2024.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.05.2024.
CS No.497/17 Page No.1/19
Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
JUDGMENT
Suit for Rendition of Accounts and Recovery
1. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff Dr. Ashish Dewan against defendants Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. and Dr. Pankaj Bajaj for rendition of accounts and recovery of Rs.8,95,000/- alongwith pendent-lite and future interest @ 15% per annum for the services rendered by him during his period of contract with the defendants.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is an orthopedic surgeon of repute and has been practicing in and around Delhi for the last 20 years. It is stated that plaintiff is a specialist in joint replacement and offers a wide range of professional services including knee replacement, hip replacement and other orthopedic surgeries and procedures at his clinic and various other hospitals who sought his professional services by way of various revenue sharing agreements.
3. It is further stated that defendant no.1 is a hospital run by defendant no.2 who is responsible for its administration and day to day functions. In the year 2014, defendant no.2 approached the plaintiff for professional services at defendant no.1 hospital and it was agreed between defendant no.2 and plaintiff that plaintiff would perform various orthopedic surgeries including knee replacement, hip replacement and other procedures and offer consultations to the patients admitted at defendant no.1, for which plaintiff would be paid surgeon's fees for the professional CS No.497/17 Page No.2/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. services rendered by him at the hospital on case to case basis. Pursuant to above agreement, plaintiff started rendering his professional services at defendant no.1 from April, 2014 which he continued till October, 2015. It is further stated that owing to the callous approach of the defendants of not disbursing the amount due to the plaintiff for the professional services rendered by in at the hospital on time, the plaintiff terminated the agreement and stopped offering his professional services at defendant no.1 in October, 2015. The plaintiff conveyed his decision of severing all professional relations with defendant no.1 in October, 2015. It was orally agreed by defendant no.2 that outstanding payments due would be paid to plaintiff by first week of November, 2015.
4. However, defendants failed to make the outstanding payments to the plaintiff despite regular demands made by him, so thereafter, plaintiff sent an email dated 25.11.2016 addressing to the Director, Accounts Department of defendant no.1 for payment of Rs.2,70,000/- for the professional services rendered by him to the hospital. No reply was received from the defendants to the said email. Plaintiff then sent a reminder through email dated 05.12.2016 but no action was taken by the defendants.
5. Aggrieved by the inaction of the defendants, plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 16.01.2017 calling upon defendant no.1 to pay the dues within 30 days of receipt of the legal notice. Legal notice was duly replied to by defendant no.1 vide reply dated CS No.497/17 Page No.3/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 06.02.2017 alleging that certain outstanding payments were due from plaintiff's admitted patients and certain payments were pending from panel/CGHS, therefore, account would be settled only after receiving the payments from the said authorities.
6. It was further stated that a bald allegation was made that plaintiff had to pay an amount of Rs.58,832/- to defendant no.1. Regarding the money due to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 deferred the same again on account that they had not received the amount from the admitted patients or panels.
7. When plaintiff went through the record of payments made by the defendants to plaintiff, he came to know that in addition to Rs.2,70,000/- as stated in the legal notice dated 16.01.2017, defendant had not made payment of 22 more surgeries which plaintiff undertook between 08.07.2014 to 27.10.2015 at defendant no.1 hospital. According to estimation made by plaintiff, defendant no.1 had to pay a sum of Rs.5,13,000/- for 22 surgeries/procedures in addition to Rs.2,70,000/-. On realizing that defendant no.1 had not paid for above 22 surgeries also to the plaintiff, plaintiff again sent a legal notice dated 06.03.2017 to defendant no.1 calling upon the defendants to provide a statement of account indicating the total amount due to the plaintiff with respect to 22 surgeries and to pay the said amount in addition to Rs.2,70,000/- within 15 days. Plaintiff till date had not received reply to the said legal notice from defendants nor defendants have made the payment.
CS No.497/17 Page No.4/19Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
8. It is further stated that on 19.07.2019, counsel for defendants handed over a CD containing copies of the bills generated by defendant no.1 to counsel for plaintiff. Plaintiff after going through the CD came to know that defendant no.1 had also not paid the plaintiff for additional six surgeries he performed at defendant no.1. Accordingly, as per estimate made by the plaintiff, defendant no.1 had to pay additional amount of Rs.1,12,500/- to the plaintiff in addition to Rs.2,70,000/- and for 22 surgeries.
9. Plaintiff therefore prayed for rendition of accounts by defendants in respect of 22 surgeries performed by plaintiff and decree for the amount found due to be paid to plaintiff and for direction to defendants to pay Rs.8,95,000/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @15% from the date of institution of the suit till actual realization of the decretal amount and also the cost of the suit. Hence, the present suit was filed.
10. Defendants were summoned and they filed their appearance.
11.Written Statement: Joint written statement was filed on behalf of both the defendants wherein it was stated that plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands and was guilty of suppression and misrepresentation. It was an admitted fact that plaintiff had worked with defendant no.1 as an Orthopedic Surgeon upon an oral agreement between the parties. It is denied that defendant CS No.497/17 Page No.5/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. no.2 had agreed to pay the outstanding dues to plaintiff by the first week of November. It was stated that plaintiff was aware that defendants were dealing with different patients (penal/CGHS/etc.) and there was no fixed time to receive the payment and generally it took time to receive payment from them. The part payment was received by defendant no.2, out of which some payment was made to plaintiff and some payment was made to necessary vendors. Defendant no.2 had already intimated the plaintiff that the outstanding amount will be paid after receiving the same from patients/panels. It was denied that a bald allegation was made that plaintiff had to pay the defendant no.1 a sum of Rs.58,832/-. It was also denied that defendant no.1 had not paid the plaintiff for said 22 surgeries in addition to Rs.2,70,000/-. It was admitted that defendant had to pay only Rs.2,70,000/- in whole and plaintiff had to pay Rs.58,832/- to defendant. It was submitted that as per Schedule A of plaint, out of 22 cases payment of 4 cases had been made by defendants to plaintiff and payment of 5 cases was to be recovered from concerned departments and part payment of Rs.1,25,000/- had already been made to plaintiff by defendants for rest of the cases. Defendants also submitted that as per the legal notice the plaintiff was only entitled to Rs.2,70,000/- for his professional services after statutory deduction of Rs.30,000/- as TDS.
12.It was further stated that as per agreement between the parties, defendant no.2 had to pay to the plaintiff for his profession services to defendant no.1 after receiving the amount from CS No.497/17 Page No.6/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. patients/penal/CGHS. As the defendants had not received the amount from them, the said amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was not paid to plaintiff. Defendants denied all the remaining averments of plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint.
13.Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendants controverting the stand taken by them in their written statement and reiterated the facts of their plaint.
14.From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 27.02.2020.
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts as prayed in clause (a)? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.8,95,000/- as prayed in clause (b)? OPP. (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP (4) Relief.
15.Plaintiff's Evidence: During plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon following documents:
1. Mark PW1/1 is copy of monthly statement for the months of June and August, 2014 and March to June, 2015.
2. Mark PW1/2 is copy of ledger account from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016.
3. Mark PW1/3 is copy of email dated 25.11.2016.CS No.497/17 Page No.7/19
Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
4. Mark PW1/4 is copy of letter dated 05.12.2016.
5. Mark PW1/5 is copy of email dated 16.01.2017.
6. Ex.PW1/6 is copy of legal notice dated 16.01.2017 sent by plaintiff to defendant.
7. Ex.PW1/7 is reply dated 06.02.2017 sent by defendant to plaintiff.
8. Ex.PW1/8 is copy of legal notice dated 06.03.2017 sent by plaintiff to defendant.
9. Ex.PW1/9 (colly) are postal receipt and tracking report.
10. Ex.PW1/10 is AD Card.
11. Mark PW1/11 is copy of Form 26AS with is Annual Tax Statement for the year 2016-2017.
12. Ex.PW1 is compact disc of bills.
16. PW1 was duly cross-examined by counsel for defendants. He stated in his cross examination that he had joined Cygnus Orthocare Hospital in the year 2013/14 as Consultant where his batchmate Dr. Pankaj Bajaj was the Director. There was no written agreement but only an oral agreement and plaintiff could not produce any proof of verbal agreement. Witness stated that he had even done revision knee replacement of a patient in case of loosening or infection but did not remember the name of any patient. He further stated that no full and final settlement was done at the time of his leaving the hospital. He did not remember the exact amount to be paid by the hospital however he admitted that he had several times called the hospital and had also sent a legal notice and emails demanding Rs2,70,000/- from the CS No.497/17 Page No.8/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. defendants. He further stated that he used to treat all his personal patients in the hospital and his consultation fees was collected by the hospital for empanelled patients and from the other patients, he used to collect cash. He also stated that he used to pay the hospital after receiving the cash payment from his cash patients after performing the operation. He stated that he had operated upon more than 100 patients in the span of two years and he used to deposit the amount at the reception after receiving the same from the patients after surgeries and the hospital used to issue a receipt. He further stated that less than 5% patients were cash patients and rest were empanelled patients. He admitted in his cross-examine that the hospital used to generate bills for his cash patients in which the surgeon's fee column remained blank. He denied that he filed the present suit out of jealously as Dr. Pankaj Bajaj became the Director of the hospital.
17. In his further cross-examination he further stated that fees for every operation was different. He could not tell the name of 10 patients on whom he had performed hip replacement or knee replacement surgeries. He could not even tell for which surgery he was given Rs.2,70,000/- as the entire record was maintained by the hospital. He could not remember if he had worked for one and half year in the hospital.
18. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff in support of his case and plaintiff's evidence was closed and defendants led their evidence.
CS No.497/17 Page No.9/19Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
19. Defendant's Evidence: Defendants examined Sh. Vinod Kumar, Accountant in the defendant hospital as DW1 and who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.DW1/A. In his examination, the witness stated that he was working as Accountant in defendant no.1 hospital which was now closed due to fire accident and was not operational. Witness used to maintain details of salary, patients records and accounts of the hospital. The plaintiff joined in the year 2014 and there were two types of patients attended to by the plaintiff, one who used to approach the plaintiff directly and others who approached the defendant no.1 hospital directly. Witness stated that it was agreed that plaintiff would pay service charges to the hospital for his own patients and would retain the surgeon's fees. Witness further stated that plaintiff used to take his professional fees directly from his own patients and defendant had no role in the said fees. Plaintiff only used to deposit the hospital charges. The fees was given to the plaintiff from the other patients/empanelled patients as and when it was released from the concerned departments i.e. CGHS/Insurance /empanelled etc. The witness admitted that at the time of leaving, the plaintiff had total dues of Rs.2,70,000/- for all his professional services/ consultation charges after deduction of TDS and the plaintiff had to pay Rs.58,832/- to the defendants. The said Rs.2,70,000/- had to be paid after receiving from patients and defendants never denied the said payment. The witness further admitted that 3 emails were sent to the plaintiff for release of amount till December, 2016 and finally a legal CS No.497/17 Page No.10/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. notice was sent on 16.01.2017. The said notice was duly replied to on 06.02.2017, as per which, hospital had not received an amount of Rs.5,49,639/- from the patients of the plaintiff who were CGHS empanelled. Witness again stated that full and final settlement had been done and payment of Rs.2,70,000/- had been made to the plaintiff during his tenure and the same was reflected in the email, reminders etc. Witness stated that TDS of Rs.30,000/- was also deposited in March, 2016 without knowledge of the plaintiff. He further stated that defendants had deposited a draft of Rs.2,70,000/- as directed by the court on 21.01.2019 and the execution was disposed of on 16.01.2019. Hence, no case was made out against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
20. In his cross examination, DW-1 stated that he had no authority letter on behalf of the defendants to depose in the court and he had worked in the defendant hospital from November, 2013 till August, 2020. He had not filed any account statement with respect to the payment made to the plaintiff. The list of patients operated upon by the plaintiff were already Ex.PW1 and Ex.DW2/7. He admitted that all the payments were made to the plaintiff by bank transfer in case of CGHS patients and fees varied from case to case. He further stated that no cash payment was made to the plaintiff and hence there was no record of the same.
21. Sh. Pankaj Bajaj, Medical Director of defendant no.1 hospital CS No.497/17 Page No.11/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. was as DW-2, who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.DW2/A and relied upon following documents:
1. The copy of ledger account of Dr. Ashish Dewan from 2013 to 2017 is Marked as DW2/A colly.
2. Copies of mails are exhibited as Ex.DW2/2, Ex.DW2/3 and Ex.DW2/4.
3. Copy of legal notice dated 16.01.2017 is Ex.DW2/5 colly.
4. Copy of reply of legal notice dated colly is Ex.DW2/6.
5. Copy of details of patient operated by plaintiff is Ex.DW2/7 colly.
22. In his cross examination DW2 stated that the number of operations conducted by the plaintiff is a matter of record and that the plaintiff was entitled for complete surgeon fees from the patients. Witness admitted there were about 300-400 bills of OPD in the CD Ex.PW1. He admitted that payment of CGHS patients was done by bank transfer/cheque and he had placed on record the proof of payment of CGHS panel patients Mark DW2/1. He also admitted that there was no bank statement on record and that the minimum amount in surgeon fees varied from case to case.
23. No other witness was examined by defendant in support of her case and defendants' evidence was closed.
24. Final arguments were addressed by both the parties and written arguments were also filed by both the parties. I have heard the CS No.497/17 Page No.12/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. arguments and perused the records carefully.
My Issuewise findings are as follows:
Issue No.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts as prayed in clause (a)? OPP Issue No.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.8,95,000/- as prayed in clause (b)? OPP. AND Issue No.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
25. All three issues are being taken up together being interlinked. Onus to prove all three issues is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought rendition of account from defendants in respect of 22 surgeries performed by plaintiff and decree for the amount found due to be paid to plaintiff and direction to defendants to pay Rs.8,95,000/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @15% from the date of institution of the suit till actual realization of the decretal amount and also the cost of the suit.
26. He has stated that he is a reputed orthopedic surgeon specializing in knee and hip replacement/surgery, who was providing his services to the defendant no.1 by way of a verbal agreement. The plaintiff was paid surgeon's fees for professional services on case to case basis. Due to delayed payments by the defendants, plaintiff terminated the agreement in 2015. The plaintiff demanded his outstanding payment of Rs.2,70,000/- and sent reminder mail also on 05.12.2016. When no payment was CS No.497/17 Page No.13/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. made a legal notice was sent on 01.01.2017 and instead of making the payment, defendants demanded Rs.58,832/- in reply to legal notice.
27.Plaintiff subsequently discovered that in addition to Rs.2,70,000/- defendant had not paid for 22 more surgeries and there was an outstanding of Rs.5,13,000/- and an amendment was made in the plaint with respect to the same. Suit was filed for rendition of accounts and recovery. The defendants entered their appearance and filed their written statement admitting their liability to the extent of Rs.2,70,000/- qua which judgment was passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The amount was paid in the execution petition on 16.02.2019.
28. On the application moved under Order 11 Rule 12, 14 and 16 CPC, the defendants handed over a CD containing copies of bills on 19.07.2019 and the plaintiff discovered non-payment of 6 additional surgeries. Consequently plaintiff amended the plaint for recovery of additional Rs.1,12,500/- totaling to Rs.8,95,000/-.
29. The defendant no.1 had supplied the details of all the patients operated upon by the plaintiff in the form of CD as well as hard copy as per the directions of the court. It is an admitted fact that there was no agreement executed between the parties and there was an oral consent according which the plaintiff was attending to his personal patients in defendant no.1 hospital. The plaintiff CS No.497/17 Page No.14/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. has himself admitted that he used to treat his patients in the hospital for which consultation fees used to be collected by the hospital for the empanelled patients and from the other patients he used to collect cash. This fact has been verified by the defendants' witness also.
30. It is also taken note by the court that the plaintiff throughout the trial was not sure about the total amount that he had to claim from the defendants. Initially the plaintiff claimed Rs.2,70,000/- and sent notice, emails, reminders etc. for the same. Later, he amended his claim by adding cost of 22 more surgeries in his evidentiary affidavit and again added cost of 6 more surgeries making the total amount to Rs.8,95,000/- as his claim. The plaintiff himself is making contradictory claims which casts a doubt upon the version of the plaintiff.
31. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff on being specifically questioned if he remembered the names of any 10 patients upon whom he had performed replacement surgery, the plaintiff could not name even a single patient. The plaintiff could also not bring any document on record to show that he had performed operations in the hospital. He further stated that the records were maintained by the hospital itself.
32. Although the defendants have admitted Rs.2,70,000/- but the plaintiff could not tell for which surgeries performed by him, the said Rs.2,70,000/- had become due.
CS No.497/17 Page No.15/19Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
33. Plaintiff has also admitted in his cross-examination that he used to collect cash from his personal patients and it was only in case of the empanelled patients, the hospital used to collect the consultation fees.
34. Plaintiff has further stated in his cross-examination that he operated upon about 100 patients during the period he was with defendant no.1 hospital. He used to deposit the amount at the reception after receiving the same from patients upon whom surgeries were performed by him. He further stated that he used to receive a receipt from reception but no receipt was placed on record by him.
35. The ledger account which was demanded by the plaintiff by moving an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and was supplied by the defendants justified that Rs.2,70,000/- had to be paid to the plaintiff which were duly paid by the defendants to the plaintiff in the court.
36. It is a settled law that the case of the plaintiff should stand on his own legs. In case titled as Harsh Vardhan v. Union of India, RSA No.801 of 2006 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court and in case titled as Om Prakash v. Amit Chaudhary, AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 1151, 2019 (6) ADR 201, the courts emphasized that if the defendant did not admit the facts alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff must prove its case by leading CS No.497/17 Page No.16/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. cogent evidence.
37. Plaintiff has alleged that defendants' liability for payment is evident from the table of bills and copies of bills filed before the court by the defendants. Defendants nowhere refuted that the surgeries were carried out by the plaintiff. It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendants had failed to provide proof that they had remunerated the plaintiff for 28 surgeries performed by him. It is an established fact that it for the plaintiff to prove that he had not been paid for the 28 surgeries and not for the defendants to prove that defendants had remunerated the plaintiff for 28 surgeries. Plaintiff has himself submitted that he was paid on a case to case basis but he has not been able to explain that for which all cases had he demanded an initial amount of Rs.2,70,000/- and the said amount was for how many surgeries.
38. Furthermore, the plaintiff only remembered that he had not been paid for 22 more surgeries after a list of total number of patients and surgeries was filed by the defendants.
39. Plaintiff has filed the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled Naresh Kumar Bansal v. Trimurti Hitech Company Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7079, wherein the burden of proof has been explained by referring to Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that "The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no CS No.497/17 Page No.17/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. evidence at all were given on either side.
Illustrations A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession.
Therefore the burden of proof is on A. A sues B for money due on a bond.
The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies.
If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the burden of proof is on B".
40. In the case in hand, although it is admitted that surgeries were being performed by the plaintiff for defendant no.1 hospital, plaintiff has not been able to tell how many surgeries had he performed and what was the amount accruing for each of the surgery which were performed and not paid for. Hence, it cannot be said that the burden of proof was on the defendant to show that they had made the payment to the plaintiff for all the surgeries performed by him. Rather, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show which all surgeries performed by him remained unpaid. It is pertinent to note that defendants admitted their liability of Rs.2,70,000/- in their written statement itself and even paid the said amount to plaintiff upon the direction of the court.
41. From above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion CS No.497/17 Page No.18/19 Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. that the defendants have already produced all their accounts before the court upon specific direction after application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC was allowed.
42. As far as issue nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the plaintiff has failed to bring material evidence on record and has relied upon the documents produced by the defendants while demanding his dues. As the plaintiff has not been able to discharge the burden of proof, hence it can be inferred that the suit of the plaintiff has not been able to stand on its legs, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the Rs.6,25,000/- (Rs.2,70,000/- have already been paid out of Rs.8,95,000/- demanded by the plaintiff). In consequence, plaintiff is also not entitled to any interest as sought in issue no.3. Hence, all the three issues are decided accordingly.
Relief:
44. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PURVA Announced in open court PURVA SAREEN On 14th May 2024. SAREEN (Purva Sareen) Date:
2024.05.18 District Judge-01, +0530South, 14:30:52 Saket Courts, New Delhi.CS No.497/17 Page No.19/19
Dr. Ashish Dewan V. Cygnus Orthocare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.