Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. We would proceed to deal with the submissions of Mr. Kanojia as under:-

10 FA-154-2022.doc A. Medicall bills not proved

18. The appellant would not dispute the medical bills raised by the Kokilaben hospital, Mumbai amounting to Rs.16,21,989/- for the treatment that was administered to the original claimant at the said hospital during the period 25 March 2012 to 29 June 2012. In this regard we would also refer to the uncontroverted evidence of AW-3 i.e. Santosh Sharma-Company Secretary and Assistant General Manager of Kokilaben hospital at Mumbai dated 8 August 2017, who deposed that such bill of Rs.16,21,989/- was duly paid by the family of the original claimant, which would support the case of the respondents in this regard.

11 FA-154-2022.doc

20. In the above context, we may observe that the AW-1 i.e. respondent No.1 had made reference to all such bills and vouchers in his examination-in-chief. It is not the appellant's case that such medical bills, vouchers were fabricated as also deposed by AW-1 in his cross examination. The substantial amount of bills which were that raised by the Kokilaben hospital to the tune of Rs.16,21,989/- were admitted by the appellant and thus uncontroverted. We find that the MACT has correctly applied its mind to the breakup of the remaining amount of medical bills to the extent of Rs.2,39,111/- as referred to by the respondents and also by AW-1 i.e. respondent No.1 in his affidavit of evidence which would include the services of paramedical professionals like physiotherapist who were engaged on a monthly basis to treat the deceased original claimant, as also the monthly expenditure incurred on toiletries i.e. diapers, hand-gloves etc., for medicines at Jaipur and doctors visit including regular tests and continuous followups. It is an undisputed fact that the original claimant was taken to Jaipur after being discharged from the Kokilaben Hospital at Mumbai on 29 June 2012. She was residing in Jaipur since then until she passed away on 17 January 2017. It is not disputed by the appellant that during the period of five years of the original claimant being in Jaipur, she was taking any treatment. It is also not the appellant's case and that any of the bills/medical documents and/or records were fabricated.

B. Disability certificate not proved

23. The disability certificate dated 16 December 2013 produced by the respondents on record before the MACT is issued by the medical board of SMS Hospital, Jaipur. A perusal of such certificate would clearly indicate that the deceased original claimant suffered 90% permanent disability. The description of 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 2 2011 6 BomCR 553 14 FA-154-2022.doc such disability read "Traumatic Quadriplegia (cervical spine injury) for C4-C5 vertebrae". In this context we would refer to the discharge summary/certificate issued by the Kokilaben Hospital dated 29 June 2012, where the primary diagnosis of the deceased original claimant was stated to be "A/H/O/RTA with cervical spinal- cord injury with fracture C4-C5-C-6". The said document is not disputed and/or controverted by the appellant. In fact the discharge summary/certificate of the Kokilaben Hospital which is not disputed by the appellant would corroborate the findings in the certificate dated 16 December 2013 issued by the SMS Hospital, Jaipur to show that the medical condition of the deceased original claimant has not changed from June 2012 onwards and has in fact deteriorated. It is pertinent to note that the reason for such permanent disability i.e. the medical condition of quadriplegia is duly corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Sondeo Bansal, medial practitioner who during his cross-examination by the appellant as recorded on 30 July 2019 would state that quadriplegia means that there are no movements of upper limb and lower limb of the patient as also that quadriplegia results in septicemia which can result in septicemia shock and that quadriplegia causes septicemia and septicemia thrombocytopenia which means decrease in platelets as stated by him during his cross-examination. Despite he being cross-examined, such evidence has remained uncontroverted and unassailed as far as the appellant is concerned and thus stands proved against the appellant.

25 FA-154-2022.doc

31. Further, Dr. Sondeo in his evidence during cross-examination has also deposed that quadriplegia would cause septicemia and has correctly taken note of such uncontroverted evidence of the said doctor which as noted earlier is unassailed by the appellant. For such reasons as discussed above, we find no reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Sondeo that quadriplegia causes septicemia and septicemia causes thrombocytopenia. The condition of quadriplegia and septicemia as the cause of death are corroborated in the death certificate dated 17 January 2017 which is again not disputed by the appellant.