State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research ... vs Smt. Kuldeep Kaur on 28 May, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.246 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 22.02.2010.
Date of Decision: 28.05.2013.
1. Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., through its owner
Dr. D.C. Bansal, New Lal Bagh, Patiala.
2. Dr.D.C. Bansal C/o Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt.
Ltd., New Lal Bagh, Patiala.
3. Dr. Neelima Sodhi (Sr. Consultant) C/o Dr. Bansal Eye Institute &
Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Lal Bagh, Patiala.
4. Dr. Bansal, Incharge Operation Team, C/o Dr. Bansal Eye Institute &
Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Lal Bagh, Patiala.
.....Appellants.
Versus
1. Smt. Kuldeep Kaur W/o late Sh. Sarabjit Singh, R/o Village & P.O.
Daftriwala, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.
2. S.B. Dr. Sohan Singh, Eye Hospital, Chowk Farid, Katra Sher Singh,
Hall Bazar, Amritsar.
3. Incharge of Operation Team, S.B. Dr. Sohan Singh, Eye Hospital,
Chowk Farid, Katra Sher Singh, Hall Bazar, Amritsar.
4. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education& Research, through
Head of Eye Department, Chandigarh.
5. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Dukhniwaran Road,
Patiala.
6. New India Assurance Company Limited, Division Office, 80 Court
Road, Amritsar.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
11.01.2010 of the Additional Bench of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Patiala, at Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Vipul Sabharwal, Advocate for Sh. Amit Rawal, Advocate, counsel for the appellants.
First Appeal No.246 of 2010 2Sh. D.S. Bhinder, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.1. Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents no.2 & 3. Service of respondent no.4 Dispensed with vide order dated 26.03.2010.
Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Ms. V.A. Talwar, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.5.
Sh. B.S. Taunque, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.6.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This order shall dispose of the following 6 (six) appeals:
Sr. Appeal No. Parties Name Appeal against
No. the order
1. F.A. No.246 of 2010 Dr. Bansal Eye Institute Dated 11.01.2010
& Research Centre Pvt. of the Addl. Bench
Ltd. & Ors. Vs Kuldeep of the District
Kaur & Ors. Forum, Patiala, at
Patiala.
2 F.A. No.247 of 2010 National Insurance -do-
Co.Ltd. Vs Kuldeep
Kaur & Ors.
3. F.A. No.286 of 2010 Kuldeep Kaur Vs Dr. -do-
Bansal Eye Institute &
Research Centre Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.
4. F.A. No.248 of 2010 National Insurance Dated 11.01.2010
Co.Ltd. Vs Sarbans of the Addl. Bench
Kaur & Ors. of the District
Forum, Patiala, at
Patiala.
5. F.A. No.457 of 2010 Dr. Bansal Eye Institute -do-
& Research Centre Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors. Vs Sarbans
Kaur & Ors.
6. F.A. No.285 of 2010 Sarbans Kaur Vs Dr. -do-
Bansal Eye Institute &
Research Centre Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.
Out of above appeals, serial no.1 to 3 are cross appeals in the complaint case filed by Smt. Kuldeep Kaur (complainant). Appeals at serial no.4 to 6 are also cross appeals in a separate complaint by Smt. Sarbans Kaur (complainant). Questions of law and facts involved in both the complaints are identical. Even the nature of disease and operations are also similar. Therefore, all the appeals are being decided vide this single order. The facts are taken from F.A. No.246 of 2010 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.First Appeal No.246 of 2010 3
2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants/opposite parties no.1 to 4(hereinafter called "the appellants) and respondents no.2 to 6/opposite parties no.5 to 9 (hereinafter called "respondents no.2 to 6"), making the averments that in the month of July, 2005, she felt that she was unable to see properly through her right eye.
Respondent no.1 along with her son and mother-in-law visited the appellant no.1 on 18.07.2005. Her mother-in-law Smt. Sarbans Kaur was also having the same problem in her left eye and she also took the treatment from the appellants.
3. After medical diagnosis of the right eye of respondent no.1, appellant no.2 Dr. D.C. Bansal informed that the Cataract (white motia) has fully grown and the vision of the right eye has diminished on account of the Cataract. The appellants assured respondent no.1 that they have expert Ophthalmic Surgeons, coupled with latest techniques and facilities available in their operation theatre and the said Cataract will be removed. It was further assured that with the transplantation of new imported lens in the right eye, she will be able to see accurately and properly. The operation shall be of simple nature without any complication or risk involved.
4. Appellants no.2 to 4 operated the right eye of respondent no.1 for the removal of Cataract on 18.07.2005 and appellant no.2 charged Rs.7500/-, including the charges of operation as well as the new imported lens. Some medicines were prescribed which were taken by respondent no.1 as per the instructions. Respondent no.1 along with her son Amandeep Singh and her mother-in-law Sarbans Kaur stayed in the hospital in the intervening night of 18/19.07.2005 and Rs.1,000/- were charged as rent and respondent no.1 was told to come for diagnosis after a week for the dressing of her right eye and she was discharged on 19.07.2005.
First Appeal No.246 of 2010 4
5. Immediately after the operation conducted by appellants no.2 & 3, respondent no.1 did not feel well and felt severe pain in the right eye. The right eye was fully swollen and was watering. Appellant no.1 was informed on telephone, but he assured that with the passage of time, the pain shall vanish and she should take the medicines as prescribed.
6. Appellant no.2 did not perform the operation as per the medical practice and procedure and did not take due care and caution, as was required at the time of operation. Appellants no.2 to 4 did not conduct the ultrasound B-scan on the eye and also failed to conduct the routine prerogative pathological tests. Eko X-ray was also not conducted.
7. Respondent no.1 followed the instructions of the medical prescription given by appellants no.2 & 3, but the pain did not subside and on 23.07.2005, respondent no.1 and her son informed appellant no.2 that her eye has swollen and there is pain in the eye. Appellant no.2 called respondent no.1 at Patiala immediately for emergency treatment and advised them to move immediately to Patiala for treatment.
8. On 23.07.2005, appellant no.2 observed that there is a severe pain and loss of vision of right eye of respondent no.1 and he prescribed some medicines to respondent no.1 and referred her to respondent no.2, who informed respondent no.1 that her right eye had got complications and the condition of her eye is very serious and she has to move immediately to respondent no.2 for emergency treatment, or else her eye will be damaged permanently. Believing the words of respondent no.5, respondent no.1, accompanied by her son Amandeep Singh, approached respondent no.2 for treatment immediately and respondent no.1 was admitted in the hospital in the evening. Respondents no.2 & 3 informed respondent no.1 that the previous operation performed at Patiala in the hospital of the appellants was not successful due to the negligence of appellant no.4 and due to that, there is infection in the right eye and to remove that and to save the vision of the First Appeal No.246 of 2010 5 eye, operation has to be performed immediately. Believing the statement, respondent no.1 agreed for the performance of the operation.
9. On 23.07.2005, respondents no.2 & 3 conducted the requisite mandatory medical tests in their hospital and conducted the operation of the right eye of respondent no.1 on 24.07.2005. Rs.10,400/- were charged for the operation, Rs.850/- on account of laboratory investigations, Rs.3200/- as operation fee and Rs.4050/- were charged for the tests conducted in their own hospital. Respondent no.1 was discharged on 25.07.2005 and she was advised to consult appellant no.1 at Patiala for dressing up of the eye and for further treatment.
10. On 27.07.2005, respondent no.1 along with her son approached appellant no.1 for dressing up and on check-up, appellant no.2 informed respondent no.1 that she should visit respondents no.2 & 3 at Amritsar for further treatment, as there was no improvement in the condition and vision of the right eye and charged Rs.1,000/- as consultation fee.
11. Respondent no.1 along with her son Amandeep Singh and her mother-in-law Sarbans Kaur, who was also having infection in her eye, visited respondents no.2 & 3 on 29.07.2005 for further treatment, as advised by appellant no.1. Respondents no.2 & 3 after diagnosis of right eye of respondent no.1 told her that there remains some infection in the eye and to remove the same, the operation had to be performed and the medical tests are to be conducted by respondents no.2 & 3 in their own hospital by Dr. Rajbir Singh and Rs.1,000/- were charged for the tests and operation was performed on the right eye of respondent no.1 on 30.07.2005. Respondent no.1 was discharged on 03.08.2005 by respondent no.2 and Rs.9500/- were charged. Rs.1335/- were charged for medicine and she remained in the hospital of respondents no.2 & 3 from 30.07.2005 to 03.08.2005 and was advised to come again to the hospital on 18.08.2005. The medicines worth Rs.1500/- were taken as prescribed by respondents no.2 & 3. First Appeal No.246 of 2010 6
12. Respondent no.1 followed all the instructions and the medical prescription, but inspite of that there was no improvement in the pain as well as in the vision of the right eye and she informed respondent no.2 on telephone and again visited respondent no.2 on 18.08.2005, who assured that the vision of right eye shall be restored. Medicines worth Rs.1440/- were prescribed on 18.08.2005. She was again admitted on 18.08.2005 and was discharged on 19.08.2005.
13. On 24.08.2005, respondent no.1 informed respondent no.2 about the condition of her right eye on telephone, but respondent no.2 replied that he has tried his best and now she is not required to visit Amritsar for treatment. She should consult respondent no.4. Respondent no.1 followed the treatment given by respondent no.4 from 29.08.2005 and she was again called on 31.08.2005 by respondent no.4 and again on 07.09.2005 and some medicines were given.
14. On 07.09.2005, respondent no.4 assured respondent no.1 that the previous operations performed by appellants and respondents no.2 & 3 were conducted rashly and negligently without performing the requisite pathological and medical tests and she should continue with the medical treatment given. On 25.01.2006, respondent no.1 again visited respondent no.4 and she was told that there is no scope for further improvement in regaining of the vision of right eye as the previous operations were conducted in gross violations of the rules and practice of the medical profession. Respondent no.1 spent huge amount as detailed below:-
Amount charged by the appellants:
i) Rs.7500.00 Operation fee & cost of Lens ii) Rs.3,000.00 Consultation & rent charges iii) Rs.2,500.00 Vehicle rent charges iv) Rs.1,500.00 Medicines v) Rs.2,500.00 Misc. Expenses Total Rs.17,000/-
Amount charged or spent on the treatment of respondents no.2 & 3:
i) Rs.10,400.00 D/Cutter charges etc.
First Appeal No.246 of 2010 7
ii) Rs.4,050.00 Test charges
iii) Rs.3,200.00 Operation fee
iv) Rs.3,219.00 Advice for operation & medical treatment
v) Rs.850.00 Laboratory Investigations
vi) Rs.1,335.00 Medicines
vii) Rs.1,440.00 Medicine
viii) Rs.2,000.00 For operation on 18.08.2005
xi) Rs.9,500.00 Silicon Oil Charges etc.
x) Rs.18,000.00 Travelling charges by car from
Vill. Daftriwala to Amritsar.
xi) Rs.7,000.00 Misc. Expenses
Total Rs.56,494.00
Amount charged or spent on the treatment by respondent no.4:-
i) Rs.100.00 ii) Rs.884.00 Advance payment iii) Rs.288.00 Hospital charges iii) Rs.807.00 Medicine iv) Rs.183.00 -do- v) Rs.10,000.00 Travelling Charges vi) Rs.3,000.00 Misc. Expenses Total Rs.15,262.00
15. On 21.05.2006, respondent no.4 informed respondent no.1 that there is no scope for improvement. The total amount of Rs.88,756/- was spent by respondent no.1 for getting the treatment from the appellants and respondents no.2 to 4, but there was no improvement and she became completely blind of her right eye on account of gross negligence of the appellants and respondents no.2 to 4 and the risk involved in the operation was never informed nor any due care and caution was taken. Requisite medical tests were not conducted and the appellants and respondents no.2 to 4 are not competent or expert to perform the operation. No routine pre-
operative pathological tests were conducted which were obligatory to perform the operation. This amounts to deficiency in service and resulted in the loss of vision of the right eye of respondent no.1 and appellants and respondents no.2 to 4 are liable to pay compensation for the same.
First Appeal No.246 of 2010 8
16. It was prayed that the appellants and respondents no.2 to 4 may be directed to pay Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation on account of loss of vision of right eye, Rs.1.50 lacs on account of physical and mental harassment, Rs.88,756/- spent on treatment/medicine charges and Rs.11,244/- as costs of litigation.
17. In the written version filed on behalf of appellant no.1, it was pleaded that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action and there is no deficiency in service or negligence. Appellant no.1 employed appellants no.2 & 3, who are qualified doctors and are duly registered with Punjab Medical Council. The complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed to defame appellant no.1. All allegations of negligence are wrong because proper pre-procedure explanation was given with due care and caution and there is no material to prove that the appellant was negligent. Respondent no.1 approached the District Forum without the support of any expert view and the complaint is baseless. There is no deficiency in service provided by the appellants and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Respondent no.1 was not only suffering from Cataract, but was also suffering from High Myopia of her right eye and in High Myopia patients, the ratina of eye is quite weak and becomes unhealthy and appellants no.1 & 2 had not given any assurance to respondent no.1, but she was only advised for Cataract operation. Respondent no.1 was well informed about the possible complications, inherent in such delicate operations. A written consent was also signed by her grandson Amandeep Singh in which the likely complications, that can occur, were clearly written. The charges were most reasonable. The operation was successful and on examination, the eye was found fully recovered and no redness, no pain was found and the patient was comfortable and uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) 6/12 was considered quite satisfactory. On 22.05.2005 i.e. after four days of the operation, she complained of pain in the eye and came to the appellants on 23.05.2005 and was having signs of inflammation and pain in the eye. Appellants no.1 & 2 First Appeal No.246 of 2010 9 diligently and prudently suspected that it could be reactive inflammation or infection and it was not possible to rule out the possibility or some sort of infection and appellants no.1 & 2 put the respondent no.1 immediately on standard anti-infective treatment and the presence of infection is rare, inherent and is a very serious complication of eye and therefore, appellant no.2 referred respondent no.1 to North India's best and famous post segment eye surgeons who have facility to manage such cases and establish the diagnosis after a vitreous tab.
18. Appellant no.2 is highly qualified and experienced Eye-Surgeon and is M.S. Ophthalmology and retired as Head of Eye Department, Govt. Medical College, Patiala and has 40 years of surgical experience in eye surgeries. Appellant no.2 has performed thousands of successful Cataract operations. Appellant no.3 is M.D. in Eye and has surgical experience of over 15 years and has done thousands of successful eye operations. The operation was done, using the latest phaco techniques under the operating microscope with no suture technique. Appellants no. 1 to 3 have the latest and best quality equipments and there was no intra-operation complication. Appellants no.1 & 2 got done all the relevant tests like blood sugar, urine examination, blood pressure, intra-ocular pressure, SLE examination, refraction etc. Ultrasound A-scan was done to find out the power of the IOL. Eko and X-ray is not a relevant investigation in Cataract operation. There was no negligence in performing the operation. Although, the incidence or intra-ocular infection after the Cataract surgery has declined during the past 30 years, but still it is one of the most catastrophic complications of the Cataract surgery. The eye cannot be completely sterilized before surgery as it is surrounded by the lids, cilia, and lacrimal apparatus and is contiguous with nassopharynx and sinuses. There are numerous sources of infection and the same are prescribed in standard text book i.e. "Cataract Surgery and Its Complications" and there is another book on 'Complications in Ophthalmic Surgery'. The patient was informed and fully explained the possible risks First Appeal No.246 of 2010 10 involved in the surgery even under best possible conditions. The post operative complications that occur are beyond the control of the doctors all over the world. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and various literatures were quoted and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000/- .
19. In the written version filed on behalf of appellants no.2 & 4, similar preliminary objections were taken and is verbatim of the written version filed on behalf of appellant no.1 and dismissal of the complaint was prayed with costs.
20. In the written version filed on behalf of appellant no.3, similar pleas as taken by appellant no.1 in its written version were repeated and dismissal of the complaint was prayed with costs.
21. In the written version filed on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3, preliminary objections were taken that respondent no.1 is not covered under the definition of consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of the District Forum and there is no evidence to prove any negligence or deficiency in service against the answering respondents. The treatment was performed by respondent no.2 on standard scientific lines. The process of Consumer Fora cannot become a tool in the hands of unscrupulous persons. The complaint should be dismissed with special costs. There is no cause of action. As per the allegations, the matter in dispute requires detailed evidence and civil court is competent. The compensation claimed is exaggerated. The District Forum has no jurisdiction.
22. On merits, it was submitted that as per the record of the hospital as well as the record produced by respondent no.1 along with the complaint, respondent no.1 visited the hospital of respondent no.2 on 23.07.2005 with reference from appellant no.2. There was history of Cataract surgery with intra-ocular implantation in her right eye about a week ago. She was thoroughly examined and on examination, her best-corrected visual acuity First Appeal No.246 of 2010 11 was perception of light with inaccurate projection of rays in the right eye and 6/12 in the left eye. Slit lamp examination of the anterior segment in the right eye revealed an intense anterior chamber reaction with a hypopyon (sediment of pus). Pupil was small with an absent light reflex. The posterior chamber pseudophokos was present in situ. Left eye examination was essentially normal except for an immature cataract. She was diagnosed as 'Right Eye:-
Post Operative Enopthalmitis (Acute Infection of the Eye). She was advised immediate Vitrectomy to remove the lens in the infected eye and to clean the eye and inject Intra Vitereal Antibiotic. She was admitted and operated upon by respondent no.2 along with team head by Dr. Preetam Singh and during the surgery, Intra-ocular lens was removed and infected pus was removed and Intra Vitreal Antibiotics were injected. The surgery in question was labeled as "Right Eye-Intra Ocular Lens Removal + Vitrectomy + Intra Vitreal Antibiotics under L.A.". During the post-operative period, the eye was sterile and there was hypotony (eye was soft). On 25.07.2005, respondent no.1 was discharged with all the post-operative instructions and she was asked to come for regular check-up on 29.07.2005.
23. On 29.07.2005, respondent no.1 came to respondent no.2 hospital for follow up and on examination, it was found that she had infection in the operated eye. She had been explained very guarded prognosis and was advised repeat Vitrectomy and she was admitted on the same day. On 30.07.2005, she was again operated by Dr. Preetam Singh and his team and during the surgery, whole of the infected exudates was removed and all measures were taken to control infection. Post operative period was uneventful and she was discharged on 03.08.2005, with an advice to come for follow-up on 09.08.2005 and 15.08.2005. On 15.08.2005, the treatment given was given and again on 18.08.2005, she was admitted in the hospital of respondent no.2 and Dr. Preetam Singh gave Anterior Chamber wash to the infected eye and Silicon oil drop was tapping was done under local anesthesia in the operation theatre of respondent no.2 and she was First Appeal No.246 of 2010 12 discharged on 19.08.2005 with advice to come on 26.08.2005 for follow up. At the time of discharge, the operated eye was stable with a positive fundal glow. She was advised a close observation, but thereafter respondent no.1 did not report for further follow-up and the complications were explained. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
24. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.4, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint against the answering respondent is misconceived and there is no negligence. As per the record, patient Kuldeep Kaur was examined in the EYE OPD on 24.08.2005 with history of right eye Cataract surgery on 18.07.2005 with poor post-operative visual gain. She has undergone Pars-plana Vitrectomy (PPV) with removal of Intraocular lens with Intravitreal injection of antibiotics on 24.07.2005. The culture report of Vitreous tap is not available. She underwent Re-PPV with sclera buckling with silicon oil tamponade at Amritsar on 30th July, 2005.
25. At the time of presentation to PGI, her visual activity in right eye was perception of light with inaccurate projection of rays. She had significant corneal oedema with fibrin in anterior chamber. Ultrasound, at that time, showed silicon oil filled eye with exudates in vitreous. She was given treatment and there was also presence of retinal detachment.
26. As per publication published in Indian journal of Ophthalmology, out of 140 eyes, who presented with post Cataract surgery Endopthalmitis fungus constituted 21.5% of all cases followed by equivocal microbiological positively in 18%, bacterial in 10%, polymicrobial in 6.5% whereas 44% samples did not show any culture positively. Out of these 124 eyes, 20% had total loss of vision at last follow up. Poor visual acuity at presentation, presence of intra-ocular lens and shorter symptom-surgery interval were correlated with poor prognosis. It was decided not to do any further intervention. The patient had most of the poor outcome features at the time of presentation to the answering respondent and it was clearly explained to the First Appeal No.246 of 2010 13 patient that in view of the extremely guarded visual prognosis, surgical intervention was deferred.
27. On merits, it was admitted that respondent no.1 attended the answering institute on 24.08.2005. The patient has been given treatment as per the standard technique available in the world and whatever best could be done for the treatment of the patient, was done as explained in the preliminary objections. There is no negligence on the part of the answering respondent and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
28. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.5, in the preliminary objections it was submitted that the complaint is not tenable against the answering respondent. The answering respondent issued the insurance policy vide policy no.401406/46/05/8700000007 for the period 07.04.2005 to 06.04.2006 in the name of Dr. D.C. Bansal and policy no. 401406/46/05/8700000123 for the period 14.09.2004 to 13.09.2005 in the name of Dr. Neelama Sodhi, but the answering respondent has no liability, as there is no negligence or lapse on the part of services of appellants no.2 & 3. The answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, as there is complete disregard of the terms and conditions of the policy. The District Forum has no jurisdiction. Respondent no.1 is estopped by her own act and conduct and has not approached the Forum with clean hands and the complaint deserves dismissal with special costs of Rs.10,000/-.
29. On merits, allegations of the complaint were denied and similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and dismissal of the complaint was prayed with costs.
30. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.6, it was pleaded that respondent no.2 is insured with the answering respondent for the period 11.03.2005 to 10.03.2006 vide insurance policy no.360500/46/04/ 00736. The answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to respondent no.1, since there has been no negligence or deficiency in service First Appeal No.246 of 2010 14 on the part of respondents no.2 & 3. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
31. Rejoinder was filed in which the averments of the complaint were reiterated and that of the written versions were controverted.
32. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
33. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that appellants no.2 and 3 in the reply to the interrogatories have stated that nine routine tests were performed, yet no evidence of these testes has been produced by the appellants no.1 to 4. In the Indoor File Ex.R16, which consists only of 2 pages, under the heading 'Investigations', it was mentioned as under:-
"B.P. : 130/80
Urine : NAD
Random Blood Sugar: 95mg
IOL Power with A Scan: 8.5 D with A constant 118".
There is no report of I.O.P. pressure, visual acuity or fundus examination or adenexa. The most important test was B-scan report, which was not performed and without B-scan report, no eye surgeon could go in for Cataract operation on a patient. The 'Indoor Patient Register' was not produced and contradictory stand was taken and the adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellant. The consent of respondent no.1 was not obtained to conduct the operation, although she was physically and mentally fit for conducting of the operation. Rather, the consent of her son Amandeep Singh Ex.R-17 was obtained. Operation itself was conducted in haste and utmost hurry. Respondent no.1 approached appellant no.1 on 18.07.2005 and on that very day, appellants no.1 to 3 hurriedly conducted the operation. Whether the right eye was fit for Cataract operation or not, could be known only by B-scan which was not got performed. By not getting the essential test conducted and by not obtaining her consent, appellants no.1 to 3 did not First Appeal No.246 of 2010 15 follow the requisite medical standards, expected of them, and their action like proper pre-operative care and caution, leading to the clear opinion that they are guilty of medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the face of this evidence, respondent no.1 was not required to produce any expert to prove medical negligence. The opinion of Dr. Atul Kakkar is not an opinion of an expert, as he passed the master degree in Ophthalmology in 2005 and joined in Kakkar Eye Hospital, Samana in February, 2008.
Appellants no.1 to 4 were held guilty of negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and are liable to pay compensation for the actual expenses incurred by respondent no.1 on her operation /treatment by the appellants as well as by respondents no.2 to 4. For loss of vision of right eye, harassment and agony suffered by respondent no.1, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.150 lacs is quite reasonable and she is also entitled to litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. Appellants no.2 & 3 are duly insured vide the insurance policies. Complaint against respondents no.2, 3, 4 & 6 was dismissed. The complaint was allowed against the appellants and respondent no.5 and they were directed to pay to respondent no.1 the actual expenses of Rs.35,603/- incurred by her on medical operation/treatment and Rs.1.50 lacs as compensation for loss of vision of right eye and for harassment and mental agony, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint i.e. 19.12.2006 till payment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. It was further directed that the liability of the appellants no.1 to 4 to pay the above amount shall be joint and several. Respondent no.5 shall be liable to pay these amounts to respondent no.1 as insurer of appellants no.2 & 3 to the extent of 50% of these amounts against each policy.
34. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.01.2010, the appellants-Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre & Ors. have come up in the present appeal, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order. First Appeal No.246 of 2010 16
35. Respondent no.5-National Insurance Co.Ltd. has also filed the appeal i.e. F.A. No.247 of 2010 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kuldeep Kaur & Ors.), seeking setting aside of the impugned order.
36. Whereas, respondent no.1-Kuldeep Kaur has filed cross appeal i.e. F.A. No.286 of 2010 (Kuldeep Kaur Vs Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.), with a prayer to enhance the compensation.
37. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellants, respondent no.1 and respondent no.5 and heard the arguments advanced on behalf of respondents no.2, 3 & 6.
38. Service of respondent no.4 was dispensed with vide order dated 26.03.2010 of this Commission.
39. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellants, pleadings were repeated. It was further submitted that as per the law, in case of medical negligence, expert opinion should be taken before issuing the summons to a doctor, but the District Forum failed to do so. The District Forum has not considered the record and implicated the treating doctors and labeled them as negligent and the order of the District Forum is bad in law. The Consumer Fora was not an expert and could not determine the medical negligence. As per the District Forum, there was no proper diagnosis of the disease from which the right eye of respondent no.1 was affected, whereas the appellants diagnosed, after careful examination, the case as simple uncomplicated cataract of right eye and all the tests were mentioned meticulously. All the mandatory tests were carried out. The B-scan of the eye is never done in routine tests for performing cataract operation. The B-scan is specialized test done for the diagnosis of posterior segment diseases i.e. tumours of retina and choroids, intra-ocular foreign bodies, pus or blood in the vitreous, retinal detachment with opaque media etc. The District Forum made erroneous observation. Complete record was produced before the District First Appeal No.246 of 2010 17 Forum. It was not mandatory to maintain the operation register separately, but the appellants are maintaining a register, where all the medical activities are entered and the operations done on that day are also mentioned. The tests done were recorded properly in the register. The results were recorded in the shorthand medical language of the doctors, but the District Forum failed to note these findings and results. The operation was not done in haste, as observed by the District Forum. The cataract operation with modern gadgets, modern techniques and minimum invasive surgery like phaco emulsification has become a day care surgery in most of the modern and advanced eye centres and respondent no.1 was operated and discharged on the next day.
40. The opinion of Dr. Atul Kakkar was rejected without any basis. As per section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, any person who has studied ophthalmology can depose as an expert and he could be cross-examined and the expert opinion could not be rejected. The evidence of Dr. Atul Kakkar proves that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The District Forum has not provided the law in this regard. The appellants no.2 & 3 were qualified doctors and there is no evidence to prove that the treatment followed by them was contrary to the practice acceptable to the medical profession. The order passed by the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises and is not sustainable. It was prayed that the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order under appeal may be set aside.
41. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.1/ complainant, pleadings were repeated. It was further submitted that as per the appellants, the loss of vision of the right eye of respondent no.1 has occurred due to post-operative Endopthalmitis (Acute Infection of the eye) and the lens was already implanted in her right eye and the right eye was infected with pus. As per their version, this is a very serious type of infection. In such circumstances, the strict duty was cast upon the doctors to take care of the patient during all stages of treatment. The District Forum discussed the First Appeal No.246 of 2010 18 law on the medical negligence on each and every aspect of the case and found that the appellants and others were guilty of medical negligence. As per the law, the doctor has to rebut the plea of the negligence, by leading evidence, but no such evidence was led. As per the latest law, no expert evidence is required to prove the case of medical negligence, where the medical negligence committed by the doctor is apparent on the face of the record and expected principles of the line of treatment has not been complied. In such circumstances, no expert evidence is required.
42. There were two stages for diagnosis i.e. examination of the eye clinically; and mandatory requisite tests, to understand the microscopic minute details of the internal eye. The appellants no.2 & 3 failed to conduct mandatory requisite tests to ascertain the disease of right eye which was obligatory on their part. No test reports have been placed on record by the appellants inspite of the application given by respondent no.1. Even the operation register was not produced by the District Forum. Contradictory stand was taken regarding the maintenance of operation register in the reply to the application as well as the reply to the interrogatories, which further proves their conduct and adverse inference has to be drawn.
43. As per the appellants no.2 & 3, nine mandatory tests were conducted, but no test report was placed on record which further proves the case of respondent no.1 that no mandatory test was conducted. The operation was conducted in gross violation of the rules of the medical practice. Respondent no.1 further relied upon certain authorities, which shall be discussed in the later part of the order and it was prayed that the appeal filed by the appellants, being without any merit, may be dismissed, and the appeal filed by respondent no.1/complainant may be accepted and the compensation awarded by the District Forum may be enhanced to Rs.4.50 lacs along with interest @ 12% p.a.
44. In the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent no.5- National Insurance Co. Ltd., pleadings were repeated. It was further First Appeal No.246 of 2010 19 submitted that respondent no.1 approached appellant no.3 on 23.07.2005 i.e. after four days of the operation and she was advised immediate medical attentions and was prescribed further medicines. Despite of all care and caution, the post operative complication of Endophtalimits had crept which resulted in the loss of the eye of respondent no.1. At the time of discharge on 19.07.2005, the eye of respondent no.1 was fully recovered. There was no redness or pain and she was comfortable and uncorrected visual acuity 6/12 was found which was quite satisfactory as per the medical terms. The case of respondent no.1 fell in the rear category of Endophtalimits which happens only in two persons out of thousands. This particular complication arose on account of lack of hygiene and care which respondent no.1 was bound to undertake. Appellant no.3 is experienced and qualified person and he has conducted thousands of operations. Appellant no.3 is MD in Ophthalmology and has more than 15 years' experience and the hospital has the best quality equipment. Prior to the operation, all the requisite tests were conducted. Respondent no.1 was suffered from high myopia in the eye and resultantly the retina of the eye was extremely weak and unhealthy. No assurance of 100% cure was ever given by the appellants. The order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. It was prayed that the appeal filed by the appellants as well as respondent no.5-National Insurance Company Limited may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.
45. We have considered the respective written submissions of the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record and other material placed on the file.
46. The argument raised on behalf of the appellants that in case of medical negligence, expert opinion should be taken before issuing the summon to a doctor, is not tenable in view of the law prevailing now. Although, in earlier judgments, it was observed that the opinion of the expert should be taken in a case of medical negligence before coming to any First Appeal No.246 of 2010 20 conclusion, but now it is not required to be done so. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "V. Kishan Rao Vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Another", 2010(2) RCR (Civil)-929(SC), held that "the expert witness is not required to be examined in all cases of medical negligence". Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing a large number of authorities, held that the directions given in Martin F. D'souza's case (supra), cannot be treated as a binding precedent and in para nos.47 to 49, observed as under:-
"47. In a case where negligence is evident, the principle of res-ipsa- loquitur operates and the complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing (res) proves itself. In such a case, it is for the respondent to prove that he has taken care and done his duty to repel the charge of negligence.
48. If the general directions in paragraph 106 in D'souza's (supra) are to be followed, then the doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitur which is applied in cases of medical negligence by this Court and also by Courts in England, would be redundant.
49. In view of the discussions aforesaid, this Court is constrained to take the view that the general direction given in paragraph 106 in D'souza (supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent and those directions must be confined to the particular facts of that case.
47. As per the above proposition of law, principle of res-ipsa-loquitur has been again made applicable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and once the medical negligence is attributed to a doctor, then the onus shifts upon him to rebut the same and to prove that he followed the correct procedure and took all the care and caution which a skilled man is required to take and now it is not incumbent upon the complainant to prove the medical negligence single handedly, but the onus keeps on shifting and in the present case, respondent no.1 has attributed the medical negligence to the appellants and the appellants were legally bound to prove that there was no medical negligence while performing operation. The appellants, before coming to the conclusion that the surgery of the right eye is necessary, were supposed to carry out the mandatory tests to know the exact position and about the fitness of the patient to undergo the operation. The appellants, in order to properly First Appeal No.246 of 2010 21 diagnose the disease, did not carry out the requisite tests which were necessary. The surgery of an eye for cataract is very delicate surgery and has to be performed with utmost care and caution. The routine tests were stated to have been performed by the appellants, such as, as stated by them in the reply to the interrogatories which are reproduced below:-
i) Minute detailed clinical examination of the eye ii) Adenexa iii) Blood Pressure for hypertension iv) Urine examination v) Blood sugar examination vi) I.O.P. pressure vii) Visual acuity viii) I.O.L. Power calculations ix) Fundus examination, if possible.
48. If the appellants have carried out the above tests, they must have maintained some record, including the reports, but the appellants did not produce any record or any report regarding the above tests carried out by them and once, the material documents are not produced or withheld, then the adverse inference is required to be drawn against the appellants. In the reply to interrogatories, it was stated that all operations performed are recorded in the register maintained by appellant no.1, but no such register was produced and that further raises eyebrows that without maintaining such an important record, the appellants were conducting the operations of cataract etc.
49. As per the versions of the appellants, after the operation, respondent no.1 developed complications and she was diagnosed as a case of Post Operative Enopthalmitis and the same was diagnosed by respondent no.2-S.B. Dr. Sohan Singh Eye Hospital and as per the literature, it is a normal complication and no B-scan test was required before operation. This plea of the appellants is not tenable in view of the law laid down in case "Sourindra Mohan Ghosh Vs Dr. D.V. Pahwa", 2001 (1) CLT-624 (West First Appeal No.246 of 2010 22 Bengal State Commission) relied upon by the District Forum and as per that, in case of surgery of an eye for cataract, the status of the affected eye can be ascertained only by B-scan prior to the surgery and in case, the Eye Surgeon conducts eye surgery without B-scan report, he is guilty of negligence. The District Forum has relied upon another authority in case "K.N. Lal Vs R.K. Akhaury", IIII (1997) CPJ-112 (Bihar State Commission), in which it was held that once the essential tests were not carried out before conducting the cataract operation, it amounts to medical negligence and deficiency in service, for which the patient is entitled to compensation.
50. Respondent no.1 was conscious and fit enough to sign the consent statement, but strangely enough, her consent was not taken nor she was made aware of any complications which could she face after the operation. There was no logic in taking the consent of her son Amandeep Singh for conducting the operation on the eye of respondent no.1. As stated above, the appellants have relied upon the literature Ex.R-10 which deals with 'Results of the Enopthalmitis Vitrectomy Study', but the guidelines or the conclusion drawn in the literature Ex.R-10 become applicable only when the appellants could prove that the operation of the eye of respondent no.1 was conducted after taking due care and caution as is expected of a medical practitioner with skill and the requisite tests which are mandatory are performed because without conducting the requisite tests, the fitness of the person to undergo the operation cannot be adjudged. In Indoor File Ex.R-16, under the head "Investigations", only "blood pressure, urine, random blood sugar, IOL power with A Scan 8.5 D with Constant 118 inch" was mentioned. The District Forum has rightly observed that no test of IOP pressure, visual activity or fundus examination or adenexa was conducted. As discussed above, the B-scan was also not performed. Dr. Preetam Singh of respondent- S.B. Dr. Sohan Singh Eye Hospital filed his affidavit Ex.R-2 and stated on oath in his affidavit that since the lens was already planted in her right eye, First Appeal No.246 of 2010 23 Ultrasonography of her infected eye (i.e. B-scan) was advised which revealed intragel echos with an attached retina. She was advised immediate Vitrectomy to remove the lens in the infected eye and to clean and inject Intra-Vitereal Antibiotic. Surgery upon her infected eye was performed. Intra- ocular lens was removed and infected puss was removed.
51. Respondent no.1 then consulted respondent no.4-PGI, Chandigarh and as per the history record, respondent no.1 had eye cataract surgery on 18.07.2005 with poor post-operative visual gain. She has undergone Pars-plana Vitrectomy (PPV) with removal of Intraocular lens with Intravitreal injection of antibiotics on 24.07.2005. She underwent RE-PPV with sclera buckling with silicon oil tamponade at Amritsar on 30.07.2005.
52. At the time of presentation to the PGI, her visual activity in right eye was perception of light with inaccurate projection of rays. She had significant corneal oedema with fibrin in anterior chamber. Ultrasound was done and she was treated and there was presence of retinal detachment. Respondent no.1 had the above symptoms which co-related with poor prognosis and the further intervention was not carried and she was explained all this and the surgical intervention was deferred.
53. The argument that the District Forum has ignored the expert evidence of Dr. Atul Kakkar, is also not tenable because he took the Master Degree in Ophthalmology in 2005 and the surgery was also conducted in the year 2005, as such, he cannot be considered to be expert and the District Forum has rightly discarded the same.
54. The order passed by the District Forum is detailed and speaking order and the District Forum has dealt with the every aspect of the case and rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants were negligent in performing the operation of respondent no.1, who has lost her vision, and has awarded the amount spent on the treatment as well as the compensation and since appellants no.2 & 3 were covered under the insurance policies issued by respondent no.5 insurance company, held their liability joint and several. First Appeal No.246 of 2010 24
55. So far as the appeal filed by respondent no.1/complainant Smt. Kuldeep Kaur for enhancement of compensation, no ground is made out to enhance compensation and the relief awarded by the District Forum.
56. As a result of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants (F.A. No.246 of 2010) is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 11.01.2010 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
57. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
58. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellants and respondent no.5 jointly and severally to respondent no.1/ complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.247 of 2010:-
59. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.246 of 2010 (Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kuldeep Kaur & Ors.), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.247 of 2010 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Kuldeep Kaur & Ors.) is dismissed and the impugned order appeal dated 11.01.2010 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
60. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
First Appeal No.246 of 2010 25
61. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant and respondents no.2 to 5 jointly and severally to respondent no.1/ complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.286 of 2010:-
62. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.246 of 2010 (Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kuldeep Kaur & Ors.), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.286 of 2010 (Smt. Kuldeep Kaur Vs. Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) is dismissed. No order as to costs.
First Appeal No.248 of 2010:-
63. Similarly, in F.A. No.248 of 2010 (National Insurance Company Vs Sarbans Kaur & Ors.), respondent no.1/complainant Smt. Sarbans Kaur got operated her left eye from respondents no.2 to 5 on 18.07.2005 and Rs.5500/- was charged. Medicines as prescribed by respondents no.2 to 5 were taken. Respondent no.1 was accompanied by her daughter-in-law as well as grandson Amandeep Singh and Rs.3,000/- were charged as consultation fee and rent for the room. Immediately, after the operation, there was severe pain in the left eye of respondent no.1, but respondents no.2 to 5 assured that it will vanish with the medical advice and prescription. Respondents no.2 to 5 failed to conduct routine prerogative pathological test and Eko X-ray. Risk involved in the surgery was also not performed. Pain did not subside. Respondent no.3 called respondent no.1 at Patiala for emergency treatment and on checking, referred her to respondent no.6.
64. Respondent no.1 along with her daughter-in-law and grandson Amandeep Singh approached respondent no.6 on 29.07.2005 where she was admitted. After conducting the requisite medical tests, respondents no.6 & 7 performed the operation on her left eye on 30.07.2005 by charging Rs.1,000/- for tests, Rs.10,400/- for the operation, Rs.700/- for lab. Investigation and First Appeal No.246 of 2010 26 Rs.4050/- for the tests conducted in their own hospital. She was discharged on 03.08.2005. Rs.12,350/- were charged for room rent and consultation fee. However, there was no improvement in the pain and vision of left eye of respondent no.1.
65. Thereafter, respondent no.1 along with her grandson and daughter-in-law visited respondent no.8 on 11.08.2005. She paid Rs.50/- for test of chest, Rs.800/- as advance payment and Rs.3225/- on 17.08.2005 for clearing the balance of ward expenses. She was discharged on 17.08.2005 by respondent no.8. On 31.08.2005, respondent no.8 informed that previous operations had been performed by respondents no.2 to 7 rashly and negligently and against the rules and practice of medical profession and there was no scope for further improvement to regain the vision of the left eye.
66. It was prayed that respondents no.2 to 8 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs on account of loss of vision of left eye, Rs.1.50 lacs for physical and mental harassment, Rs.83,400/- towards cost of treatment, operations, medicines and tests etc. and Rs.16,600/- as litigation expenses.
67. Respondents no.2 to 5 contested the complaint by filing their written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.246 of 2010.
68. The District Forum vide the impugned order dated 11.01.2010, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.246 of 2010, allowed the complaint against the appellant and respondents no. 2 to 5 and they were directed to pay to respondent no.1 the actual expenses of Rs.30,711/- incurred by her on medical operation/treatment and Rs.1.50 lacs as compensation for loss of vision of left eye and for harassment and mental agony, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint i.e. 19.12.2006 till payment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. It was further directed that the liability of the appellant and respondents no.2 to 5 to pay the above amount shall be joint and several. The appellant shall be liable to pay these amounts to First Appeal No.246 of 2010 27 respondent no.1 as insurer of respondents no.3 & 4 to the extent of 50% of these amounts against each policy.
69. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.246 of 2010 (Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kuldeep Kaur & Ors.), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.248 of 2010 (National Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Sarbans Kaur & Ors.) is dismissed and the order under appeal dated 11.01.2010 passed by the District Forum in CC No.530 of 2006 is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
70. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to Smt. Sarbans Kaur, respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
71. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant and respondents no.2 to 5 jointly and severally to respondent no.1/ complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.457 of 2010:-
72. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.246 of 2010 (Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kuldeep Kaur & Ors.) as well as the appeal i.e. F.A. No.248 of 2010 (National Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Sarbans Kaur & Ors.), the F.A. No.457 of 2010 (Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. Vs Smt. Sarbans Kaur & Ors.) is dismissed and the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the District Forum in CC No.530 of 2006 is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
73. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to Smt. Sarbans Kaur, First Appeal No.246 of 2010 28 respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
74. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellants and respondent no. 5 jointly and severally to respondent no.1/ complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.285 of 2010:-
75. In F.A. No.285 of 2010 (Smt. Sarbans Kaur Vs Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.), the appellant/complainant Smt. Sarbans Kaur seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum, but no ground is made out to enhance the compensation already awarded.
76. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.246 of 2010 (Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kuldeep Kaur & Ors.) as well as the appeal i.e. F.A. No.248 of 2010 (National Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Sarbans Kaur & Ors.), the F.A. No.285 of 2010 (Smt. Sarbans Kaur Vs Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.) is dismissed. No order as to costs.
77. The arguments in all these appeals were heard on 14.05.2013 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
78. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
79. Copy of the order be placed in the following cases:-
Sr. Appeal No. Parties Name
No.
2. F.A. No.247 of 2010 National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs
Kuldeep Kaur & Ors.
3. F.A. No.286 of 2010 Kuldeep Kaur Vs Dr. Bansal Eye
Institute & Research Centre Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.
First Appeal No.246 of 2010 29
4. F.A. No.248 of 2010 National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sarbans Kaur & Ors.
5. F.A. No.457 of 2010 Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Vs Sarbans Kaur & Ors.
6. F.A. No.285 of 2010 Sarbans Kaur Vs Dr. Bansal Eye Institute & Research Centre Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member May 28, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)