State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Holy Cross Hospital vs O.Ambika on 1 August, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/12/575 ( Date of Filing : 20 Jul 2012 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/05/2012 in Case No. CC/10/152 of District Pathanamthitta) 1. HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL AROOR P.O PATHAMTHITAA KERAALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. O.AMBIKA KANYAKONIL HOUSECHANGAMKARI KOLLAM KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D PRESIDING MEMBER SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 01 Aug 2023 Final Order / Judgement KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.575/2012 & APPEAL No.614/2012 JUDGEMENT DATED: 01.08.2023 (Against the order in C.C.No.152/2010 of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta) PRESENT: SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN :
MEMBER A 575/2012 APPELLANTS:
1.
The Administrator, Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta
2. Dr. Sheeba Baby, Gynaecologist, Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta (by Adv. M.C. Suresh) Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1.
O. Ambika, W/o Vinayan K.N., Kanyakonil House, Changamkari P.O., Kollam
2. K.N. Vinayan, Kanyakonil House, Changamkari P.O., Kollam (by Adv. Suresh Kumar C.R.) A 614/2012 APPELLANTS:
1.
O. Ambika, W/o Vinayan K.N., Kanyakonil House, Changamkari P.O., Kollam
2. K.N. Vinayan, Kanyakonil House, Changamkari P.O., Kollam (by Adv. Suresh Kumar C.R.) Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1.
The Managing Director, Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta -
691 523
2. Dr. Sheeba Baby, M.D., D.G.O., Reg.No.23319, Gynaecologist, Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta - 691 523
3. Managing Director, Life Line Hospital, P.B.No.46, 14th Mile, Adoor, Pathanamthitta (by Adv. M.C. Suresh) Common Judgement SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER These two appeals arose from the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (referred to as District Commission as short) in C.C.No.152/2010.
2. C.C.No.152/2010 was filed by the complainant seeking compensation for the alleged medical negligence on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3. The complaint was allowed in part and the first opposite party was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) to the complainant along with costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) with interest @10% per annum. The complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as costs to the third opposite party for unnecessarily impleading him in the list.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Commission opposite party Nos 1 & 2 filed appeal No.575/2012 and the complainant filed Appeal No.614/2012 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. Since both appeals arose from the same order these appeals are disposed of vide this common judgement.
The case of the complainant in brief is stated hereunder:-
4. The complainants are husband and wife. The first complainant, who became pregnant during her early thirty's did the ante natal check-ups at Lord Matha Hospital, Pacha till 10.01.2010. During February 2010 the first complainant was brought to her parental home as part of the custom prevailing in her community and thereafter started consultation in the Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor. The doctor assured better care and treatment to her. The complainant was under the treatment of the second opposite party ever since her first visit to the hospital. The entire period of pregnancy was uneventful except that the umbilical cord was found around the neck of the baby in an ultrasound scanning conducted on 19.05.2010.
5. On 26.05.2010 as per the direction of the second opposite party the complainant was admitted in the hospital. On that day at about 10.30 p.m the second opposite party had attended the complainant and administered some drugs. The complainant had developed certain complications and she complained to the nurses who said that they had contacted the doctor and received instructions from the doctor and told the complainant to wait or walk around the ward during night. The relatives of the complainants were unhappy as the complainant was facing discomfort during the whole night.
6. On 27.05.2010 at 7a.m. the complainant was shifted to the labour room. After 9.30 a.m. the second opposite party reached the labour room and soon after another Gynaecologist Dr. Sarada was also called and all the team members in the labour room had a serious discussion and a total confusion was felt in their attitude. In the meantime, the movement of the child was totally stopped. By 10:00 a.m. the nurses and other staff were panically running up and down and they brought certain instruments to the Labour room. At 10:30 a.m. the second opposite party had called the husband of the complainant and informed that the baby had passed meconium and hence an emergency surgery is required and she sought for the willingness from the husband. After sometime a person came out of the Labour room and informed that the condition of the first Petitioner is stable and the baby is not breathing well. It was also further told that the baby had to be transferred to Lifeline hospital and there after the child was taken to the Life Line Hospital in an ambulance accompanied by Dr. Manju and a nurse. While taking the child to the hospital Dr. Manju was giving artificial resuscitation to the child and when they reached the hospital the child was put on ventilation. After one hour the bystanders were informed that the child is no more.
7. Reports of the first and second opposite parties would show that everything was normal till 9.30 a.m. The discharge summary is a cooked up one to the effect that by 10.15am the patient collapsed suddenly and went in to hypertension. The summary also shows that the FHR was irregular. It is to be noted that the pregnant lady had to face distress for fourteen hours and in such a situation she was left unattended by the doctor which act amounts to deficiency of service. In the discharge summary an entry is seen that there was a 'J' shaped rent in the body of the uterus and such an aspect was not in the scanning report. Several contradictions are seen in the medical records. The discharge summary does not show that the cord was around the neck of the baby, but such an aspect was seen in the ultrasound scan. There was gross negligence, delay and carelessness which resulted in the death of the child. The complainants claim Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs) as compensation for the pain and sufferings.
8. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed a common written statement with the following contentions:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no negligence or deficiency in service as alleged. The complaint is drafted by suppressing the true facts with an object of gaining undue financial advantage. The patient, the 1st complainant was a primigavida with her LMP on 24.08.2009 and her expected date of confinement on 30.05.2020. Her EDC as per the Ultra Sound Scan was on 26.02.2010. The initial ante natal check-up was done from Lourdes Matha Hospital at Edathua. As per the advice of the 2nd opposite party the patient underwent two Ultra Sound scanning on 18.03.2010 and 10.05.2010 respectively. There were no anomalies or abnormalities in the reports. On 20.05.2010 per vaginal examination was done which revealed the cervix as soft, uneffaced and closed vortex at -3 station. She was advised to get admission on 26.05.2010 and accordingly she reported before the hospital on the said date. But she had no labour pain. The 2nd opposite party informed the complainant about the need for cervical ripening with zitotec per vaginally. After getting written informed consent cervical ripening was done at 11 p.m on 26.05.2010 as a part of the standard procedure for inducing labour. Foetal heart rate and maternal vital signs were closely monitored throughout. She developed mild contractions in response to the cervical ripening. On 27.05.2010 at 7.30a.m Syntocinon drip was started and by 9.30 a.m. onwards she was getting regular uterine contractions and at 9.45 a.m. slight variations in foetal heart rate were noticed. Hence Syntocinon drip was stopped and intravenous fluids started and thereafter foetal heart rate picked up.
9. The 2nd opposite party conducted per vaginal examination and cervix was found favourable and labour was progressing normally. So the 2nd opposite party had decided to proceed by closely monitoring the foetal heart rate and maternal vital parametres. By 10.15a.m. suddenly the patient collapsed and went into hypertension, the foetal heart rate becoming irregular. Patient's relatives were informed about the situation and after getting written informed consent for caesarean the 2nd opposite party conducted emergency caesarean under general anaesthesia with the help of Gynaecologist Dr. Sarada, Surgeon Dr. Suresh and Anaesthetist Dr. P.G. George. Intra operatively the baby was found partially out of uterine cavity and at 10.40a.m. the patient delivered a severally asphyxiated male baby weighing 2.6kg. The baby was immediately handed over to the Paediatricians Dr. Manju, Dr. Shekhar and Dr. Chintu Oommen. There was a 'J' shaped rent in the body of the uterus anteriorly and extending to the lower uterine segment on the left side. Haematoma was present on the left mesosalpinx. The 2nd opposite party had exercised due diligence. But the occurrence of spontaneous uterine rupture is a medically accepted known complication. The child had no spontaneous respiration activity due to severe asphyxia. The child was resuscitated with ventilation, external cardiac massage, intubation and injection Adrenalin. Since there was no improvement, the child was shifted to 3rd opposite party's hospital having Neonatal ICU. The opposite parties had tried all possible measures to save the baby. The death of the baby was not caused due to any carelessness or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
10. The health condition of a patient can be assessed by investigations and other check-ups and no doctor can assure about the health conditions by any means. The cord around the neck as noted in the USG dated 10.05.2010 is not a major event for the reason that the cephalic presentation of the baby with liquor adequate. After doing cervical ripening the patient had only mild contractions during the night of 26.05.2010. The patient was kept under observation after cervical ripening and it is incorrect to state that on 25.07.2010 at 7a.m. the patient was transferred to labour room on account of the compulsions of her relatives. The opposite party denied the pleadings contained in the complaint. Non-mentioning of 'J' shaped rent in the body of the uterus in the scan report is not a ground to discard the finding of the 'J' shaped rent. No contradictions are seen in the medical report prepared by the opposite parties. The opposite parties seek for dismissal of the complaint.
11. The 3rd opposite party had filed a separate version with the following contentions:
The complaint is wholly misconceived. The allegations of negligence against the opposite party are devoid of any bonafides. The complainants are not "consumers" to this opposite party. As per the records a baby born to one Ambika delivered by LSCS in 1st opposite party's hospital was brought and the 3rd opposite party had received the baby in the NICU at 11.15 a.m i.e., thirty five minutes after delivery in cardio respiratory arrest with decompensated shock, severe cyanosis and occasional heart sound. The 3rd opposite party had put the baby on ventilator. Even after intensive resuscitative measures, baby expired after two hours. The 3rd opposite party would also seek for the dismissal of the complaint.
12. In the appeal memorandum filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents the following contentions are seen raised:
The District Commission had failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence in its correct perspective. The District Commission ought to have noted the pleadings of the complainants that the mother or the child did not develop any eventuality during the pregnancy period. The 1st complainant has no case that she ever demanded for caesarean operation for safe confinement after admission. The District Commission ought to have found that the opposite parties had adopted well settled medical protocol and there was no specific indication for conducting caesarean operation. The District Commission went wrong in holding an inference that the delivery of the patient was in between 11p.m. and 9.30 a.m. without considering the medically recognised stages of progressing labour. The District Commission did not consider the fact that after 11 p.m. the procedure for pre-Cervical ripening was done and the patient was closely monitored. The District Commission has committed a serious error in formulating an opinion that the 2nd opposite party had shown negligence in observing the developments in the patient and ignored the expert opinion given by DW2 that the doctor need not frequently examine the patient as the patient can be monitored by the nursing staff. The finding of the District Commission that all the complications arose on account of the delay in conducting the surgery is wrong and erroneous. The District Commission has committed a serious error in awarding Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) as compensation.
13. The complainant in the appeal memorandum to appeal A.614/2012 raised the following contentions:
The District Commission should have considered the pain and sufferings of the complainants and awarded adequate compensations. The District Commission failed to consider the fact that the complainant did not conceive for the second time. The 3rd respondent is a necessary party who is liable to disclose the situation and condition of the child when received till declaration of death. The compensation is too meagre.
14. The evidence consists of the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 on the side of the complainant and Exhibits A1 to A10. The opposite parties had examined DW1 and DW2 and the treatment records of the 1st complainant and the deceased baby are marked as Exhibits B1 and B2.
15. The 1st complainant had appeared before the District Commission as PW1 in support of the averments contained in the complaint. Exhibit A1 is the copy of the discharge summary which would show that on 26.05.2010 at about 10.30p.m. PW1 was admitted by the 2nd respondent. Exhibit A2 is the discharge summary issued by the 3rd opposite party with respect to the baby. Exhibit A3 is the certificate of death pertaining to the child issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Pallickal Grama Panchayath. Exhibits A4 and A5 are the Ultra Sound Scan reports dated 10.05.2010 and 18.03.2010 respectively wherein it is noted that the cord was around the neck of the baby. Exhibit A6 is the discharge record issued by the 1st opposite party when the 1st complainant was admitted to their hospital on 26.05.2010 till discharge on 02.06.2010. Before filing the complaint, a lawyer's notice was issued to the opposite parties, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit A7. Exhibit A8 is the reply notice sent by the 1st opposite party.
16. The complainant had examined PW2, the bystander who had accompanied the patient in the hospital.PW2 gave evidence regarding the instances which transpired on 26.05.2010 at the hospital after the admission of PW1. She spoke before the Commission that PW1 got admitted in the hospital on 26.05.2010 and by 10.30 p.m. on the same day the doctor had administered medicines. Intensive labour pain was developed by next day 4a.m. and PW2 had requested the hospital authorities to avail the service of a doctor. But the doctor did not attend the patient. The doctor came by 9.30a.m. But from 6a.m. onwards bleeding started. The bystanders had requested the hospital authorities to shift the patient to another hospital and on account of the compulsion of the relatives of the patient, PW1 was taken to the labour room by 7a.m. A pandemonium arose in the hospital on account of the demand of the relatives of the patient to shift her to another hospital. But they were pacified by saying that the doctor would reach immediately. By 9.30a.m. the doctor came and she said that meconium had already spread inside the uterus and an emergent surgery was required. Accordingly, patient was shifted to the operation theatre. While shifting to the operation theatre the patient told PW2 that she is scared. Even after caesarean, the relatives of the patient were not allowed to see the new born baby. The baby was shifted to Life Line Hospital without demand from the side of the patient. On reaching Life Line Hospital, the doctor told that they could say anything about fate of the child only after one hour. Thereafter, the doctor declared the death of the baby.
17. The complainant had examined PW3, an expert witness. He was working as Gynaecologist in the Government District Hospital, Pathanamthitta. According to this witness, Williams Obstetrics is the authoritative text book in the field of Gynaecology. Induction of labour should be monitored by a doctor and therefore during the process of induction till delivery, the patient should be attended by a Gynaecologist. Formation of a rent in uterus could be seen in one out of one lakh or two lakhs patients. After starting induction, blood pressure of the patient has to be checked periodically. Exhibit A10 is the general guidelines for managing obstetric problems. Exhibit A10 was published by the Kerala Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. The evidence let in by PW3 would show that a child can survive outside the uterus for barely few minutes. His evidence further shows that rent in uterus could be seen if there is a previous scar or inborn abnormality, abnormal thinning of the lower uterus and on account of previous surgery done on uterus. According to him prolonged labour can also cause rent in uterus. Asphyxia can be caused by engulfing meconium. He also added that it is possible for a Gynaecologist to ascertain as to whether the child is outside the uterus by perusing the Ultra Sound Scan report. According to him, rupture of uterus might have happened prior to the caesarean and that is why the child came out of the uterus. On the basis of the oral evidence let in by PW1 to PW3 and Exhibits A1 to A10, the complainants would allege that there was grave negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party in monitoring the patient after administering medicine for induction. According to the complainant, the medical records would clearly indicate that complication arose by 3a.m and entries are seen in the nurses record in this regard.
18. The 2nd opposite party has tendered evidence as DW1. The case sheet pertaining to the 1st complainant is marked as Exhibit B1. B2 is the case record in respect of the deceased baby. The specific case set up by the respondent is that cervical ripening was effected on 26.05.2010 at 11p.m. by fixing Zitotec per vaginally. The above process is seen recorded in the sixteenth page of Exhibit B1.DW1 had identified the aforesaid writing in the sixteenth page with initials in Exhibit B1. According to her, after the cervical ripening the stage of the patient has to be re-assessed within a period of four to six hours. But Exhibit B1 does not show that such a re-assessment was done by DW1. She has also given further evidence in the cross examination that after application of Zitotec tablet if pain is not developed, then Syntocinon drip has to be given. According to her this procedure was done on 27.05.2010 at 7.30a.m. She also added that at that point of time she was not in the hospital. Her further version in the cross examination would show that after the induction of labour, the patient should be closely monitored by the doctor who administered the same. After giving such an affirmative answer she tried to explain that the physical presence of the doctor is not necessary which will be managed by trained nurses. It is also revealed in the cross examination of DW1 that she had assessed the patient two hours after starting the administration of Syntocinon drip. These circumstances were pressed into service by the counsel for the complainant to substantiate that the 2nd opposite party was negligent in not observing the patient as required. The opposite party had set up a case that rupture of uterus is a complication which may occur in the process of delivery. There is entry in the medical record that on 27.05.2010 at 9.45 a.m. NSG test was done which is carried out for assessing the well being of the foetal heart and uterine contraction. Though such a test was carried out the graphical recording of the said test is not seen in the file. She gave an explanation that the test was not recorded as the situation was emergent. During cross examination when the counsel for the complainant had put a pertinent question to DW1 that if caesarean was done three hours before, the life of baby could have been saved, she gave an affirmative answer and according to her there was no positive signs suggestive of conducting a caesarean at an earlier point of time.
19. The opposite party had examined the Additional Professor in Obstetrics & Gynaecology at Trivandrum Medical College as DW2. On going through the medical records he spoke that after cervical ripening, the patient was properly and periodically monitored by the hospital staff. According to him, the medical records do not show any problems for the patient or the baby till she underwent sudden collapse on 27.05.2010 at 10.15a.m. The evidence given by this witness is to the effect that the rupture of uterus was identified at the correct time and properly monitored and hence the life of the mother could be saved. Uterine rupture, according to this witness is a well known medically accepted complication while the patient is on the process of ripening of induction of labour. During cross-examination when Exhibit A10 (the protocol issued by the Federation of Obstetrics Gynaecology) was shown to the witness the doctor had given evidence that all the protocols mentioned in Exhibit A10 cannot be taken as true and correct. According to him, apart from the text by Williams Obstetrics there are other text books dealing with the issues pertaining to Gynaecology. This doctor had given evidence that during the process of induced labour, the patient can be monitored by the nursing staff also. The medical record further shows that on 27.05.2010 at 6 a.m. the doctor had seen the patient. But Syntocinon drip was started at 7.30 a.m. only. When this delay was brought to the notice of DW2 he spoke that the treating doctor might have felt that the contraction was not adequate to start a drip.
20. On evaluating the evidence let in by DW2 one could see an additional enthusiasm to support the opposite parties. Opinion evidence is a very weak item of evidence which could be accepted if it is found convincing. The evidence adduced by the 2nd opposite party would show that one doctor was called in to the operation theatre for help. When the 2nd opposite party faced a charge of medical negligence, the evidence of the other Gynaecologist who was present in the operation theatre could have been examined.
21. The specific case of the complainant is that complications had arisen on 26.05.2010 at about 3 a.m. severe pain had started. This fact is corroborated through the entry made in page number four of Exhibit B1. In Exhibit B1 it is recorded that at 3 a.m. the patient had complaints of pain and she had mild contractions. So this fact is born out from the medical record. Even after communicating this message, DW1 had no courtesy to come to the hospital and examine the patient. It is true that a doctor need not wait throughout the process of induction, but she must examine the patient if an indication of abnormality is brought to her notice. In this connection the testimony of DW2 is significant.
22. The evidence adduced before this Commission convincingly prove that PW1 was in the hospital after induction without being attended by any doctors. In this regard it can be seen that there was negligence on the part of the doctor in not monitoring the patient after starting induction. The learned counsel for the opposite party would submit that it is not necessary for a doctor to remain near the patient after commencement of the process of induction. He had placed reliance upon Williams Obstetrics to support this fact. The service of a nurse is limited. Examination of the patient by the doctor when she complains of pain and bleeding is a requirement for the proper assessment of the situation. The doctor had set up a case of an exception when the uterus rupture occurred on account of a rent in the uterus. But nowhere in the USG reports such an aspect has been noticed. The learned counsel for the complainant would submit that rent in the uterus is a concocted version so as to prejudice it as a cause for the uterine rupture. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances brought out in evidence we are of the firm opinion that the life of the baby could have been saved if DW1 had monitored the patient at the appropriate time. Even after reaching the hospital and noticing the abnormality by 9.30 a.m., the surgery was started at a belated stage. There was lack of care on the part of DW1 in handling the delivery of the 1st respondent which had resulted in the death of the baby. The learned counsel for the opposite party had cited the ruling of the Apex Court reported in Chandra Rani Akhouri Vs. M.A. Methusethupathri Vol II (2022) CPJ 51 (SC) and canvassed a proposition that there should be sufficient evidence available before the adjudicating authority so as to make the medical practitioner liable for medical negligence. A medical practitioner cannot be found negligent only for the reason that things went wrong from mischances or misadventure or through error of judgement.
23. Each case has to be pursued on the basis of the evidence adduced. Admittedly, no doctor was present in the hospital to attend PW1 when she was in the hospital during the whole night of 26.05.2010 after starting the process of induction. When such patients are admitted in the hospital some alternative arrangements had to be made by the hospital by deputing another doctor for attending emergent situations. Deploying nurses to carry out the entire process and placing reliance upon authorities that the doctors need not be present during the whole process of induction is not a proper course to be accepted. Having an anxious consideration of the entire evidence tendered by both sides, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that DW1 was negligent in attending the 1st complainant when she was admitted in the hospital for delivery. Hence, we have reached at a conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in providing proper care and treatment to the first complainant.
24. The District Commission had entered into a finding that there was negligence on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The 1st opposite party being the employer is also found vicariously liable. But in paragraph 17 of the judgement of the District Commission there is an observation that the District Commission did not find any negligence in the course of treatment adopted by the 2nd opposite party. This observation does not appear to be correct in view of the observations contained in paragraph 8. Though an observation is incorporated in paragraph 17 the District Commission had elaborately dealt with the deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party in not monitoring the patient who was in the process of induction. So the above observations contained in paragraph 17 run contrary to the real state of affairs and the subsequent findings reached by the District Commission. The District Commission had committed an error in making such an observation in paragraph 17 of its order. But it does not affect the final finding reached by the District Commission. So we are inclined to hold that the appeal filed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties has no merits and it resultantly stands dismissed.
25. Now the plea raised by the complainant regarding the inadequacy of the compensation awarded is to be discussed. The District Commission had passed an order directing the 1st opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainants. While fixing the quantum of compensation, an intelligent guess work is inevitable. No concrete yard stick could be accepted in such situations. This is a case where the dream of a mother to get a baby was lost at the last stage of pregnancy. The trauma suffered by the 1st complainant while leading a life with a fully grown-up baby in the womb has to be taken into account. If the 2nd opposite party had diligently conducted caesarean at an earlier point of time, the rupture of uterus or the death of the baby could have been avoided. The learned counsel for the complainants would submit that even after elapsing a period of thirteen years, the first complainant could not conceive for the second time for which the doctor has to be blamed. The subsequent developments cannot be accepted as such in fixing the compensation. But on consideration of the pain & suffering and the agony faced by the victim we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the District Commission does not appear to be adequate. Therefore, the compensation is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs) and the order of the District Commission is modified accordingly.
In the result appeal filed by the complainant is allowed.
A 575/2012 is dismissed. A.614/2012 is allowed. The compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs) and no other modification is ordered to the order passed by the District Commission.
AJITH KUMAR D. :
JUDICIAL MEMBER K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN :
MEMBER SL [HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A] MEMBER [ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R] MEMBER