Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1) Patient had grievous cerebral, cerebellar and midbrain traumatic injury as found clinically and radiologically following the accident, Presently -
2) There is paralysis in upper and lower limbs on both sides due to cerebral and cerebellar NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB HC-KAR damage that accounts for neurological disability of 80%.
3) R-facial palsy accounts for 10% disability.

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB HC-KAR certificate issued by him, who is working in Kothari hospital is marked as Ex.P.11. The opinion of the Doctor towards disability of 82% to the whole body. In the evidence, he categorically said that he verified the wound certificate, scanning report and x-ray films and the injured has sustained the injuries i.e., traumatic brain injury and traumatic chest injury and injured has lost consciousness, breathing difficulty and bleeding from scalp abrasions and wounds. This Court also has to take note of the fact that the mother of the injured was examined before the Tribunal that the injured is unable to speak and also to move and he was treated conservatively and also he took the treatment not only at Kalaburagi even at Mumbai hospital also. The evidence of the Doctor is also very clear that injured had grievous cerebral, cerebral and midbrain traumatic injury as found clinically and radiologically. He also taken note of paralysis in upper and lower limbs on both sides due to cerebral and cerebellar damage that accounts for neurological disability of 80%. The Right

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB HC-KAR palsy accounts also for 10% disability and the injured needs support for his daily physical activities by an attendant and it costs about Rs.15-20 thousand every month. The cumulative disability assessed is 82%.

15. No doubt, the counsel appearing for the respondent brought to notice of this Court during the course of argument that the Doctor who came forward to give evidence before the Tribunal is not a treated Doctor and also he is not a neurologist, but the fact is that the disability certificate Ex.P.11 clearly discloses the disability of 82% to whole body and in a case of paralysis in respect of upper and lower limbs i.e., quadriplegia, both sides due to cerebral and cerebral damage that accounts for neurological disability. The tribunal committed an error in taking only 30% of disability as against the permanent disability of 82%. No doubt though he was not a neurosurgeon, but the fact that he is a general surgeon and even he can assess the condition of patient and also considering that when there is a paralysis in respect of