Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Much reliance has been placed on evidence of Dr N. K. Vasudev and it has been submitted that the claim should not have been dismissed on aforesaid technicalities. Dr. Vasudev is an Orthopedic Surgeon. It is really surprising as to why the appellant, who claims complete paralysis of upper and lower limps should have gone for the treatment of Dr. Vasudev. Then Dr. Vasudev does not seem to have treated him. His evidence appears to be only for the purposes of proving that he has become totally disabled and entitled to compensation. Is it Dr. Vasudev's normal practice ? Usually, a Doctor is consulted for better treatment. In the instant case, Discharge Certificate would indicate that the patient was cured and discharged from the hospital only by giving cervical traction. In case the patient had been cured, there was no reason why he did not report back to the Medical College for further treatment and remained satisfied by obtaining certificate from Dr. Vasudev. In the opinion of this Court, the certificate issued by Dr. Vasudev does not speak highly of the doctor and makes him suspect in the eyes of this Court. A doctor's job should be to cure the ailment rather than issue certificate without treatment. A doctor, who specialises in issuing certificate without treating the patient, has to be treated with contempt and his evidence rejected. Under the circumstances, this Court is not able to hold the evidence of Dr. Vasudev sufficient for awarding compensation.

6. It is a peculiar case of its own type and makes this Court suspicious about the claim. If the appellant was really the victim, there was no occasion for him to go to a private doctor and spent money in obtaining certificate. The normal behaviour of a poor person, who had been earlier cured in the Medical College, would be to go back to the Medical College. Then if the person appearing before the Court was really the person met with the accident and had suffered paralysis, there was no reason why the Medical College would have discharged him after recommending cervical traction. Cervical traction is not the cure of paralysis. The totality of circumstances, therefore, do not satisfy the conscience of this Court about the credience of the appellant's claim. In deed, this Court feels that there is something fishy about the claim and is, therefore, reluctant to help the appellant.