Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. During cross­examination by the learned counsel for the insurance company - respondent No.2 PW2 denied the suggestion that her treatment is complete volunteered she had to undergo another operation. She admitted that she had not placed on record any document to show that she had to undergo another operation. She admitted that her children had contributed towards her medical expenses on account of the accident. She denied the Rekha Mathur Vs. Parkashni suggestion that she had no difficulty in walking at present volunteered screw of the plate and rod which were inserted were loose due to which she had to get operated and she could not walk properly at present and the doctor had asked her to get the operation done quickly. She denied the suggestion that she had not suffered any functional disability on account of the accident. She denied the suggestion that she had not spent Rs.5 lacs on the medical expenses. She stated that she had placed on record all the bills which were available till the filing of evidence. During cross­examination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW3 denied the suggestion that Ex.PW3/2 is a procured document. She stated that she is married and residing at Noida after her marriage i.e. at M­410, Vivek Vihar, Sector 82, Noida. She stated that at present her mother was residing with her though she was residing at Ram Bagh at the time of the accident. She denied the suggestion that her mother was still residing at Ram Bagh or that she did not reside with her or that she did not attend on her. Thus PW3 was cross­examined on where PW3 was residing and where the petitioner was residing but nothing much turns on the same and fresh address of the petitioner has been placed on record.

24. PW2 had stated that she had placed on record all the bills which were available till the filing of evidence. PW1 had filed the bill of Indraprastha Apollo Hospital Ex.PW1/C (colly) for a sum of Rs.58,347/­. The petitioner has also placed on record other bills and in all has filed bills for an amount of Rs. 1,01,487/­ approximately. Looking to the injuries the petitioner would be entitled Rekha Mathur Vs. Parkashni to the amount of the medical bills. Further the petitioner would have incurred some expenditure towards medicines and medical treatment even during the subsequent period. The petitioner had filed an estimate from Apollo Hospital Ex.PW2/5 for a sum of Rs.99,682/­ which is also Ex.PW3/2 and PW3 had also placed on record the report of the doctor. PW2 and PW3 were extensively cross­examined on the same and PW2 had volunteered that she had to undergo another operation. She admitted that she had not placed on record any document to show that she had to undergo another operation though the documents were filed subsequently by PW3. She had also volunteered that the screw of the plate and rod which were inserted were loose due to which she had to get operated and she could not walk properly at present and the doctor had asked her to get the operation done quickly. PW3 denied the suggestion that Ex.PW3/2 is a procured document. Even the documents filed by PW3 mention that the petitioner wanted removal of implant and as such it cannot be disputed that the implant was still to be removed. However no doctor has been produced in the witness box to prove the estimate or to show that the said amount would indeed be required. However some amount would be required for the purpose. As such an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ (Rs.One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) is awarded towards medicines and medical treatment including the amount of the bills and for future treatment. Rekha Mathur Vs. Parkashni PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE