State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chudamani Sahu vs Shri Ramkinker Hospital Through Dr. ... on 21 April, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2016/05
Instituted on : 15.02.2016
Chudamani Sahu, Aged 31 years,
S/o Shri Khorbahra Ram Sahu,
Village - Tarponga, Post - Vishrampur,
Police Station & Tehsil - Simga,
District Balodabazar (C.G.) ... Complainant.
Vs.
(1) Shri Ramkinker Hospital,
Through : Dr. Navneet Jain and Dr. (Smt.) Karuna Jain,
Bilaspur Road, Opposite Saropi Tank
Simga, Balodabazar (C.G.)
(2) Kanwar Hospital,
Through : Dr. Smt. Sarla Nihlani,
Gaushala Road, Bhatapara,
District Bhatapara - Balodabazar (C.G.)
(3) Shri Balaji Super Speciality Hospital,
Through : Director /Competent Authority,
Dubey Colony, Mowa,
Raipur (C.G.)
(4) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Manager,
Divisional Office No.2,
Sai Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.)
(5) United India Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Manager,
Amar Complex, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Opposite Parties
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
// 2 //
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the complainant - Chudamani Sahu.
Shri N.K. Shrivastava, Advocate for O.P. No.1 - Ramkinker Hospital.
Shri J.K. Agrawal, Advocate for O.P. No.2 - Kanwar Hospital.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate for the O.P. No.3 - Shri Balaji Super
Speciality Hospital.
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the O.P. No.4 - The Oriental Insurance
Company Limited.
Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, Advocate for the O.P. No.5 - The United India
Insurance Company Limited.
ORDER
Dated : 21/04/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs seeking following reliefs :-
(a) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the complainant, towards the amount spent in treatment of his wife as well as other miscellaneous expenses.
(b) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs), which will be spent, to look after and to foster three years son Krishna Kumar, because the wife of the complainant died.
(c) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) towards loss of consortium.
// 3 //
(d) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) towards compensation for mental agony because his three years son Krishna Kumar is continuously suffering mental agony.
(e) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards cost of litigation and advocate fees and to grant any other relief, which this Commission deems fit.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that on 12.09.2012, the wife of the complainant Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu delivered first son Krishna Kumar. Thereafter when she again became pregnant, then during her pregnancy, the complainant had taken his wife from time to time to Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalay, Kabir Dharmnagar, Damakheda, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), which is 8 kms away from his Village. The blood & urine of wife of the complainant, was tested and after conducting sonography and other tests, the complainant was informed that the condition of the mother and child, is normal. After conducting above tests, the complainant was directed to again bring his wife for check up after one month. Accordingly, the complainant had taken his wife for check up to the above hospital and after conducting all tests, it was informed that the condition of the mother and child is normal and the complainant was directed to again come for check up after one month. Accordingly, when the complainant had taken his wife to the above hospital for check up, the condition of the mother and child, was found normal. The doctor, who was present in the hospital informed the complainant that earlier she delivered a child through // 4 // cesarian operation, whereas in the above hospital there is no facility to deliver child through cesarian operation, therefore, the complainant has to take his wife in such hospital at the time of delivery where facility of cesarian delivery, is available. On 24.08.2015, prior to delivery, the complainant had taken his wife to O.P. No.1 hospital for check up and examination where after conducting check up and examination, it was informed to the complainant that now there is some time in delivery, but there was no expected development in the child and the reason for it is that the wife of the complainant is blood anaemic. Medicines and injections are being given and course of 10 injection has been prescribed. The above injections be got administered by the complainant to his wife from any nearby doctor for 10 days i.e. one injection in one day and the complainant followed the above direction. On 17.09.2015, all of sudden, the wife of the complainant suffered labour pain, therefore, the complainant had taken her to O.P. No.1 hospital and with the help of medicines and injection, the pain was stopped. After examination, it was informed that there is one month time in delivery and the probable date of delivery is 12.10.2015. The mother and child both are alright, therefore, the complainant was directed to take his wife her home. The complainant had taken his wife to Village Devri, which is two kms away from Bhatapara, with an intention that in case of delivery, no problem would be occurred because the hospital is not far away. On 19.09.2015, the wife of the complainant was suffering from severe pain, then at about 6.00 A.M., the complainant had taken his wife to O.P. No.2 hospital instead of O.P. No.1 // 5 // hospital, where, after conducting preliminary test, the complainant was informed that the child is not having heart beat, therefore, complete check up is required. The wife of the complainant was got admitted in O.P. No.2 hospital and after three hours of admission, it was informed to the complainant that the child had died in the womb, therefore, by conducting operation, the dead child has to be taken out, otherwise there will be danger to the life of the mother. The complainant gave his consent for the operation. The doctor has advised for L.T.T. operation of the wife of the complainant, because if the dead child is taken out through operation and in future if she is again having pregnancy, then there would be risk in delivery. After obtaining consent of the complainant, his wife was taken to operation theatre and the dead child was taken out through operation. After 1 ½ hours, the complainant came to know that his wife was suffering from Jaundice, but in the O.P. No.2 hospital there is no facility of treatment of Jaundice, therefore, the complainant has to take his wife to Raipur for better treatment. The complainant and his relatives have requested to O.P. No.2 to make arrangement for ambulance and the complainant is ready to bear the expenses, but the O.P. No.2 expressed her inability. The complainant also requested for Government Free Ambulance Service 108 and 102, but it was informed that they are not carrying patient from the private hospital. The complainant made arrangement of private vehicle and on 19.09.2015 got admitted his wife in the O.P. No.3 hospital. During the course of coming from O.P. No.2 to O.P. No.3 hospital, there was continuous bleeding. During taking the // 6 // patient from O.P. No.2 hospital to O.P. No.3 hospital, there was excessive bleeding to the wife of the complainant, due to which two bed sheets and the seat of the vehicle smeared with blood. After conducting examination, the O.P. No.3 informed the complainant that the condition of his wife is very critical, therefore, next 48 hours is very important. In the meantime, the O.P. No.3 conducted various tests and treated the patient, looking to the paucity of blood to the patient, the blood valuing Rs.15,000/- has been infused and on 20.09.2015, the O.P. No.3 informed the complainant and his relatives that Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was kept in ventilator and her health is improving, whereas the complainant and his relative did not see any symptom of improvement. On 22.09.2015, at about 9.00 A.M. the O.P. No.3 informed the complainant and his relatives that the condition of the patient is very critical, then the complainant and his relative went to see her and they seen that there was no movement in her hand and eyes. Even then the O.P. No.3 told the complainant if he wishes, he can take his wife to another hospital for her treatment. The O.P. No.3 obtained consent of the complainant in this regard and after recovering a sum of Rs.45,000/- i.e. treatment expenses, called the ambulance. When the ambulance reached, the wife of the complainant was carried along with ventilator to the ambulance by O.P. No.3 and prior to shifting in the ventilator and when the ventilator instrument is removed, the wife of the complainant died. The O.P. No.3 refused to give Death Certificate of his wife. The last rites of Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was performed on 23.09.2015 at Village Tarponga. The O.P. No.1 to 3 committed medical negligence, due to which // 7 // the complainant had lost his wife and child inspite of spending Rs.2,00,000/-. The O.P. No.1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed instant complaint and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in prayer clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P. No.1 filed its written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant against O.P. No.1 in the complaint. The O.P. No.1 has averred that the complainant did not bring his wife on 24.08.2015 prior to delivery for test and examination to the O.P. No.1 hospital. On 24.08.2015, the wife of the complainant came to O.P. No.1 hospital due to pain in abdomen. During examination, Dr. Navneet Jain asked wife of the complainant regarding duration of pregnancy, but she told that she did not have information regarding the same, then Dr. Navneet Jain asked her regarding last date of menstruation, but she told that exactly she did not remember the last date of menstruation. On examination, it came to know that she is having pregnancy of near about 8 months and there is mark of operation in the lower part of abdomen of wife of the complainant. After conducting examination, Dr. Navneet Jain, for knowing exact period of the pregnancy, advised for sonography of the patient and sent her to Apollo Diagnostic. The doctor of the O.P. No.1 only treated the wife of the complainant for pain in abdomen and he did not treat her for any other disease. After one day, the wife of the complainant and her relatives again came to O.P. No.1 with Sonography report, thereafter Dr. Navneet Jain of O.P. No.1 hospital examined the Sonography report, in which the probable date of the delivery was // 8 // mentioned as 10.10.2015. As there was lot of time remained for delivery and when the complainant and his wife were asked for delivery of the child at O.P. No.1 hospital, then wife of the complainant told that her parental home is situated at Devri which is 2 km away from Bhatapara and she wishes that delivery will be got done at hospital situated at Bhatapara, therefore, as a lot of time was remained for delivery, so the doctor advised her to take Folic Acit and Calcium tablets. On 17.09.2015, the wife of the complainant again came to O.P. No.1 hospital and informed that she was having pain in abdomen and vomiting problem, then Dr. Navneet Jain of O.P. No.1 hospital had given injection Dotrin and Pentacide for decreasing pain in abdomen and acidity. As at that time, in Simga the light was off and in the O.P. No.1 hospital also light was off therefore, in absence of light, it was not possible for the doctor of O.P. No.1 hospital to conduct any test, therefore, after conducting primary treatment, another treatment was not done and patient was advised to approach another hospital for treatment. Besides it, the wife of the complainant did not come to O.P. No.1 hospital. The O.P. No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The wife of the complainant did not come to O.P. No.1 for taking elaborate treatment and she come to O.P. No.1 hospital two time as outdoor patient having compliant of pain in abdomen, whereas after conducting preliminary test, iron and calcium table was given for paucity of blood and for acidity anti acidic tablet was given. The wife of the complainant came to O.P. No.1 hospital two times as outdoor patient and the doctor of O.P. No.1 received // 9 // fees of Rs.100/- -100/- towards fees. The O.P. No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service or medical negligence. Prior to approaching O.P. No.1, the wife of the complainant was taking treatment from another doctor and on 24.08.2015 when the patient was came as outdoor patient to O.P. No.1 hospital having complaint of pain in abdomen, the O.P. No.1 directed the patient to take Folic Acid and Calcium tablet for increasing blood and calcium and consume it. On 17.09.2015 when she came to O.P. No.1 with complaint of pain in abdomen, as at that time the light was off in the hospital, therefore, the O.P. No.1 prescribed injection Dotrin and Pentocide to cure the pain in abdomen and in absence of light, the O.P. No.1 expressed its inability to conduct any test and advised to approach any other hospital. The medicines, which were prescribed by the O.P. No.1 at both the occasions, wee for better health of the patient and are relating to general standard and they cannot affect the body of the person and a person cannot die. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. No.1. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The O.P. No.2 filed her written statement and averred that the deceased Hiteshwari Sahu was brought to the O.P. No.2 Hospital on 19.09.2015 in very critical condition for treatment. The O.P. No.2 done preliminary examination and it was found that child had died in the womb of the mother, which was immediately informed to the complainant. In the preliminary test it was found that the child was dead. The O.P. No.2 did not inform the complainant that the child was died at womb. At about 6.00 A.M. on 19.09.2015 the patient Hiteshwari Sahu was admitted in // 10 // the hospital. On clinical examination it was found that she was blood anaemic and was suffering from Jaundice. The condition of Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was very serious. It came to know that child had died in the womb of the mother, much prior to the examination of Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu. The Sonography was conducted and after perusal of the Sonography report, it was confirmed that child had died in the womb. In the body of the patient, the symptoms of paucity of blood and Jaundice are seeing and for confirmation of the same immediately it was sent to Soni Biochemical and Pathology Lab, Bhatapara for examination. After conducting pathological test, it was found that the Bilurubin was at very higher level and in that condition when the child had dead in the womb, there was paucity of blood in the body of the patient and she was having jaundice, therefore, there is only option available for the O.P. No.2 to immediately conduct operation. The counselling was done with the persons who come with the patient and information regarding the condition of the patient was given to the complainant and his relatives and it was also intimated that it was essential to take the patient to a higher centre for better treatment. Prior to operation, excessive blood was oozing from the vagina therefore, after obtaining written consent, operation of the patient was done. After conducting operation, it was found that the child had died much prior therefore, the skin of his body was melted which was removed. The measure was taken to stop the bleeding unnecessarily and the relative of the patient was told to take the patient to Raipur for treatment and the O.P. No.2 had informed the above facts, // 11 // prior to conducting test and operation. The O.P. No.1 committed medical negligence, thus the O. P. No.2 is not negligent because the patient / deceased was treated in the O.P. No.1 hospital and it is mentioned by O.P. No.1 during treatment on 24.08.2015 that there is paucity of blood. In the womb of the decease, the child died due to Jaundice and the Jaundice disease was spread to the deceased prior but the O.P. No.1 did not test regarding the same during period from 24.08.2015 to 17.09.2015. The jaundice did not spread out / flair up in 1-2 days. Thus the O.P. No.2 did not commit any medical negligence. In the stage of pregnancy, at the final stage the treatment is possible and best treatment, which was possible was given to the deceased. The deceased did not die due to treatment given by the O.P. No.2. The deceased had gone to another hospital for taking treatment from the O.P. No.2 hospital in alive condition therefore, it cannot be said that the O.P. No.2 committed medical negligence. As per judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Martin D'Souza and Mohd. Isfaq AIR 2009 SC 2049, in the case of medical negligence, prior to sending notice by the District Forum for compensation to the doctor, report of the Medical Board is necessary. In the instant case, no document of Medical Board has been filed. Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. To send a patient to higher centre is not medical negligence. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The O.P. No.3 filed its written statement and averred that patient Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu aged 24 years came to O.P. No.3 Hospital on 19.09.2015 and her Bilirubine was 10.63, Creatinine was 2.67, TLC was -15, // 12 // 200, PTNR - 3.20. According to report it came to know that the patient was suffering from Sepsis, Hepatorenal Syndrome and Fulminate Hepatitis. At the time of admission, the condition of the patient was critical. The relatives of the patient were informed regarding critical condition of the patient. In spite of giving suitable medicines, the body of the patient was not responding. The condition of the patient was very serious and she was in ventilator, but within 2 days the relatives of the patient had voluntarily taken the patient to home, due to which she died and the relatives of the patient are responsible. The doctor and hospital management are not responsible. The O.P. No.3 had fully co-operated to the relatives of the patient and had done all treatment. The O.P. No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The O.P. No.3 made arrangement of the ambulance. The O.P. No.3 did not commit any medical negligence. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The O.P. No.4 has filed its written statement and averred that the complainant has filed the instant complaint against O.P. No.1 Shri Ramkinker Hospital and its insurer O.P. No.4 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. As per provisions of Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy, if negligence is proved by any Court and the Hospital is ordered to pay the compensation, thereafter, if it is proved that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are not violated then the insured along with all facts submit claim before the insurer and the insurer has liability to indemnity it. In the instant case the complaint has been filed saying Shri Ramkinker Hospital as insured without proving the negligence of Shri // 13 // Ramkinker Hospital, therefore, the complaint is pre-mature against the O.P. No.4, and the complaint is not maintainable against the O.P. No.4 and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant or his wife Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu has not paid any premium to the O.P. No.4, therefore, there was no privity of contract between them, Therefore, the complainant and his wife is not consumer of the O.P. No.4 under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence, the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.P. No.4, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In the instant case the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint and has not proved that the O.P. No.4 has committed any deficiency in service, therefore, on this ground, the complaint is not maintainable against the O.P. No.4 and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.4. The complainant or his wife has not submitted any claim before the O.P. No.4 and no dispute has arisen between the complainant and O.P. No.4 from which complaint receives base. The O.P. No.4 did not accept or repudiate the claim of the complainant, therefore, there was no fault of the O.P. No.4, hence no complaint can be instituted against it. In the complaint the complainant averred that Shri Ramkinker Hospital is liable, but he did not prove that the O.P. No.1 obtained insurance policy from O.P. NO.4. The O.P. No.4 has been unnecessarily impleaded as party in the complaint. From para 5 of the complaint, it is clear that the wife of the complainant was properly treated by the O.P. No.1. The policy which is mentioned in the documents has been obtained by Dr. Navneet Jain and his address is mentioned as Shri Ramkinker Medical Institute, Lili Chowk, Purani Basti, // 14 // Raipur and it has no relation with the case. The complainant has not averred that Dr. Navneet Jain has treated his wife or there is any fault of Dr. Navneet Jain, in these circumstances, the complaint is not maintainable therefore, the O.P. No.4 be exonerated from the liability. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.4.
7. The O.P. No.5 has filed its written statement and averred that the complainant has filed the instant complaint against O.P. No.3 Shri Balaji Super Speciality Hospital and its insurer O.P. No.5. As per provisions of Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy, if negligence is proved by any Court and the Hospital is ordered to pay the compensation, thereafter, if it is proved that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are not violated then the insured along with all facts submit claim before the insurer and the insurer has liability to indemnity it. In the instant case the complaint has been filed saying Shri Ramkinker Hospital as insured without proving the negligence of Shri Ramkinker Hospital, therefore, the complaint is pre-mature against the O.P. No.5, and the complaint is not maintainable against the O.P. No.5 and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant or his wife Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu has not paid any premium to the O.P. No.5, therefore, there was no privity of contract between them, Therefore, the complainant and his wife is not consumer of the O.P. No.5 under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence, the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.P. No.5, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In the instant case the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint and has not proved that // 15 // the O.P. No.5 has committed any deficiency in service, therefore, on this ground, the complaint is not maintainable against the O.P. No.5 and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.5. The complainant or his wife has not submitted any claim before the O.P. No.5 and no dispute has arisen between the complainant and O.P. No.5 from which complaint receives base. The O.P. No.5 did not accept or repudiate the claim of the complainant, therefore, there was no fault of the O.P. No.5, hence no complaint can be instituted against it. In the complaint the complainant averred that Shri Balaji Super Speciality Hospital, is liable, but he did not prove that the O.P. No.3 obtained insurance policy from O.P. No.5. The O.P. No.5 has been unnecessarily impleaded as party in the complaint. From the averment made in the complaint it is clear that O.P. No.3 did not commit any medical negligence while treating the patient and he properly treated the patient. It appears that the O.P. No.3 Shri Balaji Super Speciality Hospital, O.P. No.2 Kanwar Hospital and O.P. No.1 Shri Ramkinker Hospital, have not obtained any policy from the O.P. No.5 for the period mentioned. The policy which is mentioned in the documents has been obtained by Shri Balaji Institute of Medical Science Private Limited and it has no relation with the case. . The complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.5.
8. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure 1 are documents relating to preliminary treatment of the deceased during pregnancy, Annexure 2 are medical document provided by the O.P. No.1, Annexure 3 are documents relating to test, Annexure 4 are medical documents // 16 // provided by the O.P. No.2, Annexure 5 are medical documents provided by the O.P. No.3, Annexure 6 is complaint lodged in Police Station, Simga, Annexure 7 is complaint made before Chief Medical and Health Office, Annexure 8 is statement of the complainant, Annexure 9 is Jaccha Baccha Card, Annexure 10 is receipt, Annexure 11 to Annexure 16 are bills for purchase of the medicines.
9. The O.P. No.1 has filed Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy.
10. The O.P. No.2 has filed documents which are Sonography Print of patient Smt. Hiteshwari, Consent letter by patient Smt. Hiteshwari, Blood Test Report of patient Smt. Hiteshwari, Billirubin test report of patient Smt. Hiteshwari by Soni Bio-chem and Computerized Laboratory Bhatapara, Treatment record of Patient Hiteshwari, Statement of Dr. Sarla Nihlani recorded in enquiry by Collector, Balodabazar, referral letter by Dr. Sarla Nihlani, Sonography print of patient Hiteshwari in original, consent letter by patient Hiteshwari in original, blood test reports of patient Smt. Hiteshwari in original, Bilurubin test report of patient Smt. Hiteshwari by Soni Biochem and Computerized Pathology Laboratory, Bhatapara in original, treatment record of patient Smt. Hiteshwari, in original, statement of Dr. Sarla Nihlani recorded in enquiry by Collector, Balodabazar in original, OPD treatment paper of Shri Ramkinker Hospital, Simga, pathological report of Ramkinkar Hospital..
// 17 //
11. The O.P. No.3 has filed Professional Indemnity (Medical Establishments) Policy issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Consent Form given by the complainant.
12. O.P. No.4 has filed Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy Schedule and Conditions.
13. The O.P. No.5 has filed Professional Indemnity (Medical Establishments) Policy issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
14. Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu, who was wife of the complainant delivered first son Krishna Kumar on 12.09.2012 and when she again became pregnant, then during her pregnancy, she was taken from time to time to Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalay, Kabir Dharmnagar, Damakheda, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.).The blood and urine tests were conducted and Sonography tests was also conducted. After conducting Sonography and other test, Smt. Hiteshwari Sabhu and the complainant were informed that the condition of mother and child is normal. The complainant was advised to again bring his wife for check up after one month. The complainant took his wife for follow check up to the above hospital and after conducting all test, it was informed that the condition of the mother and child is normal and the complainant was directed to again come for check up after one month. The complainant took his wife to the above hospital for follow check-up and again it was informed that the condition of the mother and child is // 18 // normal. The doctor of the above hospital informed the complainant that earlier first child was delivered through cesarian operation, therefore, it is possible that second child would be delivered through cesarian operation whereas in Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalay,, there is no facility to deliver child through cesarian operation, therefore, the complainant has to take his wife in such hospital at the time of delivery where facility of cesarian delivery is available. On 24.08.2015, prior to delivery, the complainant took his wife to Shri Ramkinker Hospital (O.P. No.1) for check up where Dr. Navneet Jain and Dr. Karuna Jain checked and examined the wife of the complainant and it was informed to the complainant there is some time in delivery, but there was no expected development in the child and the reason for it is that the wife of the complainant is blood anaemic. The medicines and injections are being given to the wife of the complainant. On 17.09.2015, all of sudden, Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu, wife of the complainant suffered labour pain, then she was taken to O.P. No.1 hospital and with the help of medicines and injection, the pain was stopped. After examination, it was informed that there is one month time in delivery and the probable date of delivery is 12.10.2015. The mother and child both are alright, therefore, the complainant was directed to take his wife home. On 19.09.2015, the wife of the complainant was suffering severe pain, then at about 6.00 A.M., the complainant had taken his wife to O.P. No.2 hospital instead of O.P. No.1 hospital, where after conducting preliminary test, the complainant was informed that the child is not having beat, therefore, complete check up is // 19 // required. The wife of the complainant was got admitted in O.P. No.2 hospital and after three hours of admission it was informed to the complainant that the child had died in the womb, therefore, the operation is required for taking out the dead child from the womb, otherwise there will be harm to the life of the mother. The complainant gave his consent for the operation. The doctor has advised for L.T.T. operation of the wife of the complainant because if the dead child is taken out through operation and if she again become pregnant in future, then there would be risk in delivery. After obtaining consent of the complainant, his wife was taken to operation theatre and the dead child was taken out through operation. After 1 ½ hours, the complainant came to know that his wife is suffering from Jaundice, but in the hospital there is no facility of treatment of Jaundice, therefore, the complainant has to take his wife to Raipur for better treatment. The complainant and his relatives have requested to O.P. No.2 to make arrangement for ambulance and the complainant is ready to bear the expenses, but the O.P. No.2 expressed her inability. The complainant also requested for Government Free Ambulance Service 108 and 102, but it was informed that they are not carrying patient from the private hospital. The complainant made arrangement of private vehicle and on 19.09.2015 got admitted his wife in the O.P. No.3 hospital, where various tests were conducted and the amount was paid by the complainant. On 20.09.2015, the O.P. No.3 informed the complainant and his relatives that Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was kept in ventilator and her health is improving but all of a sudden his wife died. The O.P.No.1 to // 20 // O.P.No.3 committed medical negligence and without taking proper care, the operation was conducted by O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.1 did not take Sonography. The act of O.P. No.1 to O.P. No.3 comes within medical negligence and due to negligent act of the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2, the wife of the complainant died. The O.P. No.3 was knowing that the wife of the complainant had already died, but even then O.P. No.3 obtained money from the complainant and gave false information regarding her health, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation jointly and severally from the OP, as prayed in the complaint.
15. Shri N.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.1 has argued that the O.P. No.1 simply examined the wife of the complainant. Initially the treatment was taken by the wife of the complainant from Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalay, Damakheda. The treatment papers were not submitted to the O.P. No.1. On 24.08.2015, the wife of the complainant came to O.P. No.1 due to pain in abdomen. During examination, the Dr. Navneet Jain asked wife of the complainant regarding duration of pregnancy, but she told that she did not have information regarding the same, then Dr. Navneet Jain asked her regarding last date of menstruation, but she told that exactly she did not remember the date of menstruation. On examination, it came to know that she is having pregnancy of near about 8 months and there is mark of operation in the lower part of abdomen of wife of the complainant. The patient was sent to Apollo Diagnostic for sonography. The doctor of the O.P. No.1 only treated the wife of the complainant for // 21 // pain in abdomen and no further treatment was given by the O.P. N.1 to her. The complainant never contacted the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 did not commit any medical negligence. He further argued that the O.P. No.1 has obtained Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy from the O.P. No.4. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion, therefore, for want of expert opinion, merely on the basis of averments made by the complainant in the complaint, it is not sufficient to reach to the conclusion that the O.P. No.1 has committed medical negligence, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16. Shri J.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 has argued that the deceased Hiteshwari Sahu, was brought to the O.P. No.2 Hospital on 19.09.2015 in very critical condition for treatment. The O.P. No.2 done preliminary examination and it was found that child had died in the womb of the mother, which was immediately informed to the complainant. In the preliminary test it was found that the child was dead. The O.P. No.2 did not informed the complainant that the child was died at womb. At about 6.00 A.M. on 19.09.2015, the patient Hiteshwari Sahu was admitted in the hospital. On clinical examination it was found that she was blood anaemic and was suffering from Jaundice. The condition of Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was very serious. It came to know that child had died in the womb of the mother, much prior to the examination of Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu. The Sonography was conducted and after perusal of the Sonography report, it was confirmed that child had died in the womb. In the body of the patient, the symptoms of paucity of blood and Jaundice // 22 // are seeing and for confirmation of the same immediately it was sent to Soni Biochemical and Pathology Lab, Bhatapara for examination. After conducting pathological test, it was found that the Bilurubin was at very excessive level and in that condition when the child had dead in the womb, there was paucity of blood in the body of the patient and she was having jaundice, therefore, there is only option available for the O.P. No.2 to immediately conduct operation. The counselling was done with the persons who come with the patient and information regarding the condition of the patient was given to the complainant and his relatives and it was also intimated that it was essential to take the patient to a higher centre for better treatment. Prior to operation, excessive blood was oozing from the vagina therefore, after obtaining written consent, operation of the patient was done. The patient was sent by the O.P. to Raipur for better treatment. The O.P. No.2 did not commit any medical negligence and proper care was taken by the O.P. No.2 to save life of Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion, therefore, for want of expert opinion, merely on the basis of averments made by the complainant in the complaint, it is not sufficient to reach to the conclusion that the O.P. No.2 has committed medical negligence, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
17. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.3 has argued that Hiteshwari Sahu was brought to O.P. No.3 Hospital on 19.09.2015 and after examination it was found that Bilirubine was 10.63, Creatinine was 2.67, TLC was -15, 200, PTNR - 3.20. According to report it // 23 // came to know that the patient was suffering from Sepsis, Hepatorenal Syndrome and Fulminate Hepatitis. At the time of admission, the condition of the patient was critical. The relatives of the patient were informed regarding critical condition of the patient. In spite of giving suitable medicines, the body of the patient was not responding. The condition of the patient was very serious and she was in ventilator, but within 2 days the relatives of the patient, had voluntarily taken the patient to home, due to which she died and the relatives of the patient are responsible. The doctor and hospital management are not responsible. The O.P. No.3 had fully co-operated to the relatives of the patient and had done all treatment. The O.P. No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The O.P. No.3 made arrangement of the ambulance. The O.P. No.3 did not commit any medical negligence. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion, therefore, for want of expert opinion, merely on the basis of averments made by the complainant in the complaint, it is not sufficient to reach to the conclusion that the O.P. No.3 has committed medical negligence, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
18. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.4 has argued that the O.P. No.1 is not insured with the O.P. No.4. The Insurance Policy was issued for Shri Ramkinkar Medical Institute, Lily Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.). It means Shri Ramkinkar Medical Institute, which is situated at Lily Chowk, Purani Bastri, Raipur (C.G.) was insured with the O.P. No.4. In the complaint, the address of the O.P. No.1 // 24 // is mentioned "Shri Ramkinkar Hospital, Through Dr. Navneet Jain and Dr. (Smt.) Karuna Jain, Bilaspur Road, In Front of Saropi Tank, Simga, Balodabazar (C.G.). It means the O.P. No.1 is also situated at Simga, which was not insured with the O.P. No.4, therefore, the O.P. No.4 is not liable to indemnity, if any medical negligence is found to be committed by the O.P. No.1. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
19. Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.5 has argued that the complainant has not been able to prove that the O.P.No.3 committed any medical negligence. The Insurance Policy was issued to Shri Balaji Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. Raipur (C.G.), but the complainant made party Shri Balaji Super Speciality Hospital, Raipur. Shri Balaji Super Speciality Hospital, is not insured with the O.P. No.5, therefore, the O.P. No.5 is not liable to indemnity, if any medical negligence is found to be committed by the O.P. No.3. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
20. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and have also perused the documents filed by the parties in the complaint case. 21 "Trust has traditionally been considered a cornerstone of effective doctor-patient relationships. The need for interpersonal trust relates to the vulnerability associated with being ill, the information asymmetries arising from the specialist nature of medical knowledge, and the uncertainty and element of risk regarding the competence and intentions of the petitioners on whom the patient is dependent."
// 25 //
22. The complainant pleaded that his wife Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was having pregnancy and she was taken to Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalay, Damakheda, where her blood, urine tests were conducted and Sonography was also carried out and it was informed that the condition of the mother and child is normal. The complainant was directed to bring his wife after one month. After one month, the complainant took his wife Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu to above hospital for further treatment. The doctors of the above hospital informed that her first delivery was done through cesarian operation, therefore, it is possible that the second child would be delivered through cesarian operation, but in the Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalay, Damakheda, there is no facility to deliver child through cesarian operation, then the complainant took his wife to O.P. No.1 on 24.08.2015. After examining Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu, the O.P. No.1 informed to the complainant that there is some time in her delivery and there was no expected development in child and the reason for it is that the wife of the complainant was blood anaemic. The O.P. No.1 gave medicine and injection to the wife of the complainant. On 17.09.2015, all of sudden, wife of the complainant suffered labour pain, therefore, the complainant had taken his wife to O.P. No.1 hospital, where O.P. No.1 informed that the condition of the mother and child is normal. The O.P. No.1 informed that there is one month's time in delivery and the probable date of delivery is 12.10.2015. Again on 19.09.2015, the wife of the complainant was suffering from severe pain, then the complainant had taken his wife to O.P. No.2 hospital.
// 26 //
23. According to the complainant he took his wife to O.P. No.1 hospital on 17.09.2015 where O.P. No.1 gave injection and medicines, due to medicines and injection, the pain was stopped. The O.P. No.1 informed the complainant that there is one month time in delivery. The O.P. No.1 averred that the wife of the complainant was having only complaint regarding stomach pain. From bare perusal of the complaint and written statement of O.P. No.1 it appears that the wife of the complainant was having pregnancy of near about 8 months, but the O.P. No.1 did not conduct any pathological and clinical tests. Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was having 8 months pregnancy and the O.P. No.1 himself gave probable date of delivery 12.10.2015, therefore, it is the duty of the O.P. No.1 to obtain sonogrpahy report to know whether the child was normal or not in the womb of the mother, but such type of sonography report was not obtained by O.P. No.1. It shows that the O.P. No.1 was not vigilant while treating the patient. The patient was pregnant , therefore, it was the duty of the O.P. No.1 to obtain pathological and sonography reports. The wife of the complainant went to O.P. No.2 on 19.09.2015 i.e. after 2 days from the date of medicine given by the O.P. No.1 on 17.09.2015 and O.P. No.2 informed that the child was dead in the womb of the mother. If the O.P. No.1 could have suggested for the Sonography and Sonogrpahy could have been done, then O.P. No.1 could have been able to know that the condition of the child was normal or not. It indicates that the O.P. No.1 had not taken care of the patient. The act of the O.P. No.1 comes within purview of medical negligence.
// 27 //
24. Now we shall examine whether O.P. No.2 has also committed medical negligence ?
25. So far as the O.P. No.2 is concerned, the complainant pleaded that his wife was suffering severe pain on 19.09.2015, then she was taken to Kanwar Hospital, Bhatapara (C.G.) (O.P. No.2) where preliminary examination was done and doctor informed that the child is not having heart beat, therefore, complete, check-up is required. Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was admitted in the O.P. No.2 Hospital and after three hours of admission, it was informed to the complainant that child in the womb had died, therefore, operation is required to be conducted to remove the dead child from the womb of the mother. The operation was conducted by the O.P. No.2 and the dead child was taken out through operation. After 1 ½ hours, the complainant came to know that his wife is suffering from jaundice, but in the O.P. No.2 hospital, there is no facility of treatment of jaundice, therefore, the complainant has to take his wife to Raipur for better treatment. The complainant requested the O.P. No.2 to provide ambulance, but the O.P. No.2 did not provide ambulance. In the written statement, the O.P. No.2 pleaded that when Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was brought in O.P. No.2 hospital, at that time her condition was very critical and child in womb had died and the child had died due to jaundice suffered by deceased Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu.
26 In the prescription dated 03.03.2015 of Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalaya, Damakheda, it is mentioned thus :-
// 28 // "C/o 4 ½ MA On Int G 4 P1 A1 - 2 abortions IInd I-T2 G 1 G - O - 2 ½ VY IVth (Plalenta Pyaevin) IInd PP Mn 2 MP - 19-1-14."
27. In the prescription dated 09.04.2015 of Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalaya, Damakheda it is mentioned thus :
"C/o : rt. Fibro cystic ..."
28. In Ultra Sonography Report, dated 14.05.2015 issued by Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalaya, Damakheda, it is mentioned thus :-
"Uterus size gravid and shows gestational sac. Turgidity of sac. is maintained Foetal nodes are present.
Foetal movement and cardiac activity is normal. FHR 149 bpm Internal os is closed.
Diagnosis :
Single live intra uterie of fetus of 19 wk 6 days with cardiac activity and good foetal movement."
29. In Obstetric Colour Doppler Report dated 25.08.2015 issued by Apollo Diagnostic Centre, it is mentioned thus :
"Clinical LMP - 19/10/14 (44 wks 2 days) // 29 // IMPRESSION - U.S. Study show features of -
1. Single live fetus at ave. 33 wks 1 days gestation with vertex presentation seen in the uterine cavity.
2. ? IUGR ? Mistaken date.
3. Normal colour & spectral doppler study."
30. The treating doctor and staff should manage the patient with utmost care during treatment specially at advance period of pregnancy, but in the instant case the O.P. No.1 did not handle the case of the wife of the complainant, therefore, it is the duty of the O.P. No.1 to satisfy that there was no lack of care or diligence, hence, the O.P. No.1 committed medical negligence.
31. In Doon Valley Hospital & Ors. Vs. Master Shivanshu & Ors., Master Shivanshu & Ors. Vs. Doon Valley Hospital & Ors. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Doon Valley Hospital & Ors., IV (2016) CPJ 43 (NC) Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"11. ..............In this context, we would like to refer to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences V. Prasanth S. Dhanaka and Others, II (2009) CPJ 61 (SC) = III (2010) SLT 734 = 2009 AIR SCW 3563 case. The Hon'ble Supreme 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. In Savita Garg (Smt.) v. Director, National Heart Institute, (2004 // 30 // AIR SCW 5020, (Para 16), it has been observed as under : Once an allegation is made that the patient was admitted in a particular hospital and evidence is produced to satisfy that he died because of lack of proper care and negligence, then the burden lies on the hospital to justify that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctor or hospital. Therefore, in any case, the hospital is in a better position to disclose what care was taken or what M/s. Soni Hospital v. Arun Balakrishnan Iyer during medicines was administered to the patient."
32. The complainant has filed an application for obtaining Inquiry Report wherein he submitted that the complainant submitted a complaint before the Collector, District Balodabazar (C.G.) and the Collector appointed Dr. S. R. Banjare, Medicine Expert, District Hospital, Balodabazar as Inquiry Officer. On the basis of above application, inquiry report was called by this Commission, but the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Balodabazar sent letter No. Complaint / 2016/ 3722 dated 28.11.2016 to this Commission, in which it is mentioned that Dr. S.R. Banjare was directed to conduct inquiry, but in the meantime, the complainant filed complaint before Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, therefore, the inquiry was kept in abeyance.
33. The O.P. No.2 filed statement of director Dr. Suresh Nihlani and treating doctor, Dr. Sarla Nihlani, Kanwar Hospital, Bhatapara in which it is stated thus :-
"That after obtaining written consent of Smt. Hiteshwari and Shri Ramratan Sahu, the emergency operation was conducted. In the operation // 31 // the dead male child was taken out of 2 Kg 200 gms and in many places the skin was uncovered specially near genital organ. During operation, there was excessive bleeding to the patient, therefore, Uterine Ligation was put on and the bleeding was stopped. As the patient was suffering from jaundice, therefore, she was required to refer Raipur, therefore to stop bleeding, condom catheter was inserted and the vagina was packed. There was no ambulance facility, therefore, the family of the patient themselves had taken the patient to Balaji Hospital, Raipur through their vehicle. The patient was given referral letter. When the patient was shifted to Raipur, then her blood pressure was 120/80, urine output was 500 ml, S.P.O.2 was 100. On 20.09.2015 Dr. Devendra Nayak, Director, Balaji Hospital, Raipur was contacted and was asked about the patient, he informed that today, the jaundice of the patient was increased and serum bilirubine is 15 due to which her liver was becoming fail and her abdomen was swelling. The child had died in the abdomen, therefore, his platelet is decreasing, and the kidney of the patient is becoming fail. The lungs of the patient are not working and there is multi-organ failure."
34. Looking to the statement of Dr. Sarla Nihlani, in respect of the complaint made by the complainant, it appears that after operation, profuse bleeding was occurred to the patient, therefore, Uternine Ligation was put on. In the O.P No.2 hospital there is no facility of ambulance and O.P. No.2 after preliminary examination of the patient Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was knowing that the child had died in the womb and the O.P. No.2 has no advance facility, therefore, it was the duty of the O.P. No.2 to // 32 // immediately refer the patient to a higher centre for better treatment, but the O.P. No.2 referred the patient to Raipur after conducting operation and the blood was profusely oozing out. Due to excessive bleeding, the condition of Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was deteriorated and it was possible that renal failure would be occurred due to operation conducted by the O.P. No.2, It appears that the O.P. No.2 did not handle the case of the patient with due diligence and proper care. It appears that there is lack of care on the part of O.P. No.2.
35. The concept of medical negligence may be studied with reference to the extent of approach of a medical professional towards three under mentioned concepts :-
(1) Duty of care in accepting the patient for treatment. (2) Duty of care in providing appropriate treatment. (3) Breach of duty or commission of negligence in any of them and damage cause by such breach.
When the doctor commit Clinical negligence or surgical mistakes, it comes within purview of medical negligence.
36. In the instant case, O.P. No.2 informed the complainant regarding health condition of the patient Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu belatedly after 1 ½ hours and O.P. No.2 did not provide ambulance to the complainant's wife even knowing that the condition of the patient is very critical and at that time blood was oozing out. It shows that the O.P. No.2 did not properly take care of the deceased and due to carelessness on the part of the O.P. No.2, the condition of the patient Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu, was deteriorated // 33 // and thereafter she was referred by the O.P. No.2 to higher centre O.P. No.3 hospital. It shows that the O.P. No.2 committed mistake, which comes within purview of medical negligence on the part of O.P. No.2.
37. So far as the O.P. No.3 is concerned, the deceased Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was admitted in the O.P. No.3 hospital in very critical condition on 19.09.2015 and at that time her Bilirubine was 10.63, Creatinine was 2.67, TLC was -15, 200, PTN was 320. The patient was suffering from Sepsis, Hepatorenal Syndrome and Fulminate Hepatitis. It means Hepatorenal Syndrome was occurred to the patient with a great intensity and the condition of the patient was very critical and in that condition she was admitted in O.P. No.3 hospital, thereafter the complainant voluntarily taken his wife to home, due to which she died. Annexure 6 has been filed by the complainant which is copy of complaint made by the complainant before Office Incharge, Police Station, Simga, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.). In the said complaint, no allegation was made against O.P. No.3. In Annexure 8, which is another complaint made by the complainant, it is mentioned that he took his wife to Balaji Hospital and when deceased was brought down from the vehicle, we saw that the deceased was smeared with blood and the bed sheet, seat of vehicle and the cloth wore by the deceased was also smeared with blood. She was admitted in the O.P. No.3 Hospital and she was kept in ICU. Dr. Laxmi informed the complainant the actual condition of the patient will be informed after 24 hours because excessive bleeding was occurred to the patient. According to the patient, the wife of the complainant was kept in // 34 // ventilator and when the condition of wife of the complainant was not improved then the complainant himself has taken the deceased from O.P. No.3 hospital. According to the complainant, when his wife was admitted in Balaji Hospital, condition of his wife was very critical and blood was continuously oozing out. The complainant has not filed any evidence against the O.P. No.3 to prove that treating doctor of O.P. No.3 hospital has also committed mistake while treating Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu, therefore, the complainant is totally failed to prove that O.P. No.3 committed any medical negligence. Therefore, the O.P. No.3 is not liable to compensate to the complainant.
38. According to the O.P. No.1, he obtained Professional Indemnity - Doctors Insurance Policy from the O.P. No.4. It is dispute between the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.4 whether the O.P. No.4 is liable to indemnify or not. In the instant case it is not proper to decide the dispute between the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.4. The O.P. No.1 can file a separate complaint against the O.P. No.4 for indemnifying the amount.
39. The O.P. No.3 had not committed any medical negligence, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from O.P. No.3.
40. On the basis of above discussions, we are of the view that O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 have committed medical negligence while treating Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu and the complainant is entitled to get compensation from O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2.
// 35 //
41. The complainant prayed for granting a sum of Rs.47,50,000/-. According to medical record of Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalay, Damakheda, the age of Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu was 28 years. In the Ultrasonography Report also her age is mentioned 28 years. It appears that at the time of death of the deceased was 28 years old lady and she was a house wife. The complainant did not plead regarding income of the deceased and the complainant has not filed any document to prove the income of the deceased. Therefore, it is just and proper to award lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) towards compensation to the complainant against the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2, out of which a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) will be paid by the O.P. No.1 to the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) will be paid by the O.P. No.2 to the complainant.
42. The O.P. No.3 is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant, therefore, the complaint against O.P. No.3 is dismissed.
43. In view of the above discussions, we partly allow the complaint filed by the complainant and it is directed that :-
(i) The O.P. No.1 will pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and the O.P. No.2 will also pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) [Total amount Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs)] towards compensation to the complainant within two months from the date of this // 36 // order along with simple interest @ 9% p.a., on the above amount from the date of this order till realisation.
(ii) The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 will also jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member 21/04/2017 21 /04/2017 21 /04/2017