Complaint filed on: 02-09-2022. Disposed on: 12-09-2023 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU DATED THIS THE12" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 PRESENT [Link], [Link]., LLM., PRESIDENT SRLKUMARAWN, BSe. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER [Link] RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER [Link].1282022 Sri, TMNagaraju, A/a 68 years, $/o Late Muthanna Shetty, ee Beside Sunitha Hotel, SS Pura Main Road, Jayamma Compound, Tumakuru City | Complainant’s (By Sri, [Link], Advocate) Vis Kalyani Biotech Laboratories, Bharani Complex, 1* Cross, [Link] Circle, [Link], Ashoka Nagar, Tumkur, Represented by its Managing Director. Surya Hospital, 1 Main, Vinayaka Nagara, Tumkuru City — $72 101 Represented by its Managing Director. : ...Opposite Party/s (OP No.1 In person) (OP No.2 by Sri. Guru Law Associates ~ Advocate) :ORDER: BY SRI MEMBER This complaint, filed by the complainant U/s 35 of te Consumer Protection Act 2019 to direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000-00+2,49,945-00 and Wrrura2 CC No.128-2022 Rs.5,00,000-00 for mental agony along with interest from the date of complaint to till realization. 2. In this case, opposite parties were / are, M/S, Kalyani Biotech Laboratories, Bharani Complex, Ist Cross, Sri,Shivakumaraswamiji Circle, [Link], Ashoka Nagar, Tumkur, Represented by its Managing Director and Ne Hospital, Ist Main, Vinayaka Nagara, Tumkur City ~ 572 101 Represented by its Managing Director, hereinafter called OP No.1 & OP No 2 respectively. 3. Its a case of the complainant, that the complainant, due to cough, it and even though on 03.09.2020 at about 11.00 AM the inant himself voluntarily went to OP No.1 for blood check-up and 1 /OP 2.1 advised for the test i., RTPCR and collected fee of Rs.5000- 00 and conducted the test by taking sample and given report as COVID +Ve (COVID-19 E-Gene : Detected and Covid-19 RdRp Gene : Detected and Interpretation : +ve for SARS COV2 Molecular Biology Reported on 04.09.2020) and directed the complainant to admit & take treatment at OP No 2, accordingly the complainant admitted as an inpatient at OP No 2 on 04-09-2020 and taken treatment for Covid 19 and discharged on 10-09- 2020 and OP No 2 collected Rs 249945/- from the complainant towards treatment charges. It is further submitted that at the same time, (G9 OF)3 CC No.128-2022 Government of Kamataka, Kamataka State COVID war room has given report, stating that [Link], Male A/a 66 years, SRF 1295480081385 the KALYANI BIOTECH DIAGNOSTICS, TUMKUR conducted COVID test on 03-09-2020 and declared result as, NEGATIVE and meanwhile District Hospital, Tumkur given a report stating that “Covid Result Summary 2020” Complainant : TM. NAGARAJU 66, M, Tumkur , sample received dated:03.09,2020 and sample tested date:05.09.2020 SRF ID No.2954800081385, Results Antigen Negative, The complainant shocked by seeing the results, that the complainant was not suffered from COVID-19 and the OP NO 1 & OP No 2 colluded with each other with bad intention of extracting the money from the complainant illegally. The complainant approached the OP No | & 2, several times to get his money back and even after the legal notices served, the OP No 1 & 2, not eponded, hence this complaint ‘After the complaint registered, Commission notice, served to the OP io | & 2. The OP No.1 appeared in person and filed his version admitting the averments of the Paragraph No.2 and 3 of the complaint. It is further submitted that the averments in Paragraph No. 4 & 5 is not related to this OP No 1. The OP No.! further contended that the complaindat came to their Lab with cough,.cold and fever, the OP No.1 conducted RTPCR test by collecting the amount as fixed by the Government and on 04.09.2020, | Urol | i4 « ce + pene for te comes ey, See SS oe Se som: oy seme: COON) SR ee cee Fe smumeatet far a pe te eee ee Tie Mer = SE DP RSS Pe ac a EO ee ee ‘C2 sete ee See See Wier ee ‘a be Reet See et EP ee SE Ne ES Se eee ‘fee compe watt te pe of see eee Se oe og wsiag fe COW ee sat of euatee pee = Neen Mick ok we, ED Se ESSE Bese, = oo wz fe Dmx Some Tomer merge Amp es ax oe De ‘Bogpeet Tumi, sie fhe es gover sesub as Smet Neoase i ext x cease 2 dois, oom Smt oom ie Ds Soom Tumor = sespmsibie Sor foe sume ent morse: de SIDE Ge Be mak Te Diswic: Hospi Tamir ac 2 necessary gary Ths See ant hee br “Kae5 CCNo.128-2022 non joinder of party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the complainant given a complaint in this regard to the DHO (District Health Officer) and to the D.C of TUMKUR (Deputy Commissioner), and subsequently, on enquiry the complainant failed to establish the allegation made against the OP No 1, by producing supporting documents end the complainant by imagining and using another person SRF ID, filed this false complaint, On these among other grounds, the OP ‘No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint. 5, The OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and files the version contending that the complainant knowingly stated various falsehoods iit simultaneously refining ffom disclosing several othé vital facts i the complaint. The complainant was admittedly symptomatic and has voluntarily gone to the OP No.1 and got him RT-PCR tested and the OP No.1 has declared the test for Covid-19 is positive and thereafter the complainant got admitted to the OP No 2 hospital. This OP No 2 has ‘\followed the standard Covid-19 protocol of admission and treatment with respect to the complainant and provided good quality health care service to the complainant and the complainant recovered / stable and thereafter discharged from the OP No? hospital. It is further submitted that when the complainant complained to the District Health Officer, allegin pI Turpkur alleging similar accusation, the same has been investigated by Taluk Health Officer,4, i 6 CC No.128-2022 ‘Tumkur District and found no substance in the allegation made » the complainant. The OP NO 2 is the 3" private medical establishment in ‘Tumkur city to share the burden of the State Government to provide health care service to the persons affected with Covid-19 virus and the OP No 2 hhas done a commendable job during pandemic and treated many patients The OP No 2 has applied standard charges for the health care services provided and received the same. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of this OP No 2, hence, prays to dismiss the complaint. 6. The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. ‘The complainant at the time of marking of documents submits that he will mati to R4 and Ex RS. DrLokshmikentha J. Pediatrician and Managing Director, has filed his evidence by of affidavit on behalf of OP No.2 and not filed any documents. 7. On 08-02-2023, the OP No 2, counsel filed an application U/O 11, rule 14 of CPC to produce the inspection report of the District Health officer and Taluk health officer, accordingly this commission directed the District Health officer and Taluk Health officer to submit the inspection (Ww oh7 CC No.128-2022 report, after the enquiry, the Taluk Health officer Tumkur, on 20-02-2023 submitted the enquiry report dated 07-02-2023 to this commission. 8. We have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant and OP No.2 Counsel for complainant and OP No.2 also filed their’ written arguments. The OP No.1 did not address the arguments in spite of sufficient was granted, 9, The points that would arise for our consideration are:- 1. Whether the complainant proves the negligenceldeficiency in service on the part of OP No 1 & OP No 2? 2. Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for? 10. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows: Point No.. Point No. In the partly affirmative As per below order EASONS: a ~NBoint Nos.(1) & (2): ‘1 On peiusal ofthe complaint, affidavit evidence, and written brief of mplainant, its revels that the complainant undergone RTPCR test on COVID 19 positive, admitted in OP No 2 hospital as inpatient ##8m:04-09- y 2020 4 10-09-2020, and after the treatment the complainant discharged YrsVp , WZ Ae A “if oe 1 ROR Pe “rote Anite , Bb OF SOOO LIED RES pital we TP MOD MA HALOS et BOA OD 02 PO My fb Meitiy, LA HH BE praecwe OP Cities they bb 1009: AF ese i dl ad a coll ODA Bip NER LL PITRE tag POPE 1 RIS be prigtie OP pee prigpsdiey VPA Uy e8tte A GO Thy wher ” a Ms, OW LAGE iy PAA pe Pos tp PW te PU iy bee 4 HOE YY nt A tif p18 Kea CM! 16 crt 1 Crrertnt Soi tly. atten Ao o foe LY diame © Crist. tate bb te LY LIRLE BE Gilet ob BA el atapeh Susp a ee Aone fay Sie ate AL AAP opie Ea nosy raat AO phy DONE te Bf STi kB POU why WBE ke ZA Ail Ccaggilay mine gf CME ALOT Safin LL. ty I Ph Mid poasscans pmb Mitjie WE wie wills aig yp wt9 CC No.128-2022 medicines purchased on 04.99.2020 for Rs 5491/-, ExPll,to Ex P18, copies of medicines purchased on 05-09-2020 for Rs 833/-, Rs246/- JRSI248/-, RS148/, Rs 2440, Rs 6949), Re244- and 5400, EXPI9, copy of medicines purchased on 06-09-2020 for Rs 2015/-, ExP20 and ExP21, copies of medicines purchased on 07-09-2020 for Rs 4522/- and Rs 2972/-, ExP22 to ExP29, copies of medicines purchased on 08-09-2020 for Rs 221/-, Rs 2670/-, Rs 11291/-, Rs 8250/-, Rs 572/-4R8703/-, Rs 3140/-, Rs 5446/-, ExP30, copy of medicines purchased on 09-09-2020 for Rs 91/- and ExP31 and ExP32, copies of medicines purchased on 10-09-2020 for Rs 1730 and Rs 7519/-, ExP33 copies of inpatient provisional bill for Rs 92920/-, Ex P34 & Ex P35, copy receipt of advance of Rs 40000/- paid by the complainant to the OP No2, ExP36, copy of inpatient final bill for Rs 89000/- ,ExP37, copy of the complaint to DC, ExP38 copy of legal notice Jn perusal of the version and affidavit evidence of the OP No 1, the fo 1, admitted the facts that the complainant on 03-09- 2020,approached the OP NO 1, voluntarily, and the OP No 1 conducted RIPCR test to the complainant by collecting, fee of Rs 5000/- from the complainant, since the test report was positive, directed the complajnant to take treatment immediately in OP No 2,and the Government covid war room test result dated 03-09-2020 of Nagaraju aged 66 years;SRB ID No Wo)| | | : 10 CC No.128-2022 2954800081385 was negative, but the OP No | contention, it’s not related to the complainant, the complainant SRF ID No 2954800083594, result declared as Covid positive. The OP No 1 not admitted the facts that the Dist Hospital Tumkur, sample received dated 03-09-2020 and test dated 05-09-2020 of Nagaraju aged 66 years SRF ID No 2954800081385 was negative Antigen. The OP No 1, contention is that on the same day i.e, 03- 09-2020,another person, named Nagaraju, regn Id 1283,undergone RTPCR test, his, SRF ID No was 2954800081385 and the covid test report was negative and the same day the complainant also undergone RTPCR test with regn Id 1287, SRF ID No 2954800083594, result declared as Covid the complainant, ic. Nagaraju, 66 years, by using test report of another on Le. SRF ID No 2954800081385, regd id; 1283,result was negative, + the complainant filed false complaint to extract money from the Op No 1 The OP No 1 filed ExR1, copy of the Government circular dated 10-07. 2020, ExR2, copy of graph, wherein reflected as M1283, truenat TM SARS Cov2 Nery low,E-geme, RdRp detected positive.ExP3, copy of ICMR details, where in ICMR ID 55713090 & 55715519 pertaining to regd id; i M1287 & M1283, SRF Id; 2954800083594 & 2954800081385 respectively. Ex RS, copy of the OP No 1, prescription for RTPCR dated 03-09-2020, Ex RS, copy of covid test reports. (row)uN CC No.128-2022 13. On perusal of the version and affidavit filed by the OP No 2, its clear that the OP No 2, admitted the complainant on 04-09-2020 as Covid positive symptomatic based on the OP No | covid test report i.e. RTPCR, which was covid positive, the complainant given treatment as per the standard Covid-19 protocol and the complainant discharged on 10-09-2020, the complainant recovered and stable at the time of discharge from the OP No 2 hospital and the complainant paid the treatment charges. 14. The Taluk Health officer Tumkur, report dated 07-02-2023, opinioned that, there is variation in the report of the OP NO 1. On perusal ofthe ICMR date, submited by the Taluk Health officer, this reflected as, A) ICMR ID 55715519, SRF ID; 295480008135,Result; SARS - Cov2 Negative, test Type; RTPCR, Specimen ype; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id M 1287, Date & time of sample collection; 03-09-2020 @ 12.26.28, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 13-09-2020 @ 13.40.26, Date & time of sample testing; 03-09-2020 @ 23.05.56, Date [R ID 55713090, SRF ID; 2954800083594,Result; SARS - Cov? Positive, test ATPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1283, Date & time le collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 120 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, Date inieof result reported; 17-09-2020 @ 19.54.54. clear that, there is an variation in reporting, with respect to the Report Id; 1283 and Report Id; 1287, whereas Report Id; 1283, bill /receipts shows that, person visited lab on 03-09-2020 @ 11.00 AM and Repost Id; 1287, bill /receipts shows that, person visited lab on 03-09-2020 @ 1%00:PM, but i : in specimen information, Report Id; M 1283,details reflected as, Date & time of sample collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample geoa, 2 CC No.128-202 | received @ lab; 04-09-2020 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, Date & time of result reported; 17-09-2020 @ 19.54.54, and Report Id; 1287, shown as, Date & time of sample collection; 03-09-2020 @ 12.26.28, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 03-09- 2020 @ 13.40.26, Date & time of sample testing; 03-09-2020 @ 23.05.56, Date & time of result reported; 19-09-2020 @ 13.39.52. ‘The doubt arised is, when the first person visited the lab for test, assigned Report Id; 1283, accordingly Report Id; 1287 issued to person visited the lab later, accordingly, Report Id; 1283 data reflected in Report Id; 1287 and Report Id; 1287 data reflected in Report Id 1283, hence the Taluk Health Tumkur, opinioned that variation in the Report of the OP No 1 ID to cheat the complainant, even though on 04-09-2020 the complainant not undergone RTPCR test with the OP Nol and in tum the complainant issued legal notice (ExP38) dated 06-10-2020 in this regard, to the OP No 1, the OP No 1,not replied to the complainant and the OP No 1 defense of, the complainant using the covid test result of the same, name and age of other person, i.e. Nagaraju, Male, 66 years, tested on same day complainant covid test report was positive, the OP Nol, in its version page No 3, admitted the facts thatthe, the complainant on 03-09-2020 visited the (Wo? AK, | ize, 03-09-2020 for covid test, report was Negative, where as the -~ +e As, alleged by the complainant, that the OP Nol, created anotherB CCNo.128-2022 OP NO 1, Lab at 11.00 AM and RTPCR test conducted by collecting fee of Rs 5000/- which evidenced by the bill / receipt (ExP4). The OP No 1, in its version, page No 3 in para 8, stated as applicant Name (complainant) is TM Nagaraju, Male, 66 years, SRF ID is 2954800083594, its result declared as, Covid positive and in para 9 of its version stated as another person Name Nagaraju, Male, 66 years and SRF ID is 2954800081385, its result declared as Covid Negative, On perusal of the (ExP5), the molecular biology result which reflected as, patient name; Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1283, referred by Dr Chethan, Reg date, 03-09-2020 @ 11.06, SRF ID; 2954800081385, Results; positive for SARS cov2, Report by Dr Prashanth HV, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;46364,at 11.01, verified by Pavan kumer quality Manager, on contrary, another two molecular biology results, of the OP No 1, produced to the, Taluk Health officer, Tumkur, which reflected as, e Bx name; Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1283, referred by Dr Chethan, 13-09-2020 @ 11.06, SRF ID; 2954800083594, Resultss positive SARS cov2, Report by Dr Shilpa, MBBS, MD, Consultant sbfalogist, Regn No;91137,at 11.01, verified by Pavan kumar quality ““Matiagee, fn contrary, in ICMR data, reflected as, ICMR ID 55713090, . {D/ 2954800083594, Result; SARS - Cov2 Positive, test Type; Dae oe type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1283, Date & ‘time of sample collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 04-09-2020 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, Date & time of result reported; -2020 @ 19.54.54, (2) patient name; Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1287, referred by Dr Chethan, Reg date, 03-09-2020 @ 12,16 SRF ID; 2954800081385, Results; WelM4 CCNo, 128-2022 Negative for SARS eov2, Report by Dr Shilpa, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;91137, verified by Pavan kumar quality Manager, on contrary, in ICMR data, reflected as, ICMR ID 55715519, SRF ID; 295480008135,Result; SARS - Cov2 Negative, test Type; RIPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1287, Date & time of Sample collection; 03-09-2020 @ 12.26.28, Date & time of sample Teceived @ lab; 03-09-2020 @ 13.40.26, Date & time of sample testing; o3%p-2000 @ 23.05.56, Date & time of result reported; 19-09-2020 @ (On perusal ofthe receipt / bill (ExP4) of the OP No 1, which shown as, ‘Name; Nagaraju, Age 66 years, Regn No 1283,Date;03-09-2020 @ 11.00 Referred by Dr Chethan and report on 12.09.2020, on contrary, the receipt / bill produced by the OP Nol to the Taluk Health Officer, Tumkur, which 13.05.2022, when we look at the report on details, in two receipts / bills, it is recorded as date of report on, 13.05.2022, which proves that the OP No 1, created and manipulated the documents, further when we cross check the Specinlen information, of SRF ID; 295480008135,Result; SARS — Cov2 Negative, test Type; RTPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1287, Date & time of sample collection; Date & time of sample received @ lab; 03-09-2020 @ 13.40.26, Date & time of sample testing; 03-09-2020 @ 23.05.56, Date & time of result oC15 CC No.128-2022 reported; 19-09-2020 @ 13.39.52, and the SRF 1D; 2954800083594,Result; SARS ~ Cov2 Positive, test Type; RTPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1283, Date & time of sample collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 04-09-2020 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, Date & time of result reported; 17-09-2020 @ 19.54.54, as the Taluk Health officer Tumkur, report dated 07-02-2023, opinioned that, there is variation in the report of the OP NO 1, pertaining to reporting of Covid 19 test reporting with respect to the Regn No; M1283 & 1287, accordingly it’s clear that, the OP No 1, manipulated the data of Regn No; M1283,as M1287 and data of M1287 as M1283. It’s clear, that the OP NO 1, manipulated the results of the complainant, as the OP NO 1, admitted in its version, that, the complainant visited the lab by (ExP4) OP No 1 receipt / bill accordingly as per specimen ion recorded in ICMR data, sample collected on 03-09-2020 @ complainant SRF ID is ; 295480008135, Reg No, is, 1283 and ICMR ID is ' 5715519 and the Result is ; SARS ~ Cov2 Negative high were evidenced by complainant documents (ExP8, and ExP9) and the Taluk Health officer, Tumkur. The OP NO 1, created another person namely, (perry !j 16 CC No. j28-2022 | Nagaraju, 66 years, , Reg No, is, 1287, Date & time of sample collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample received @ lab: 04-09- 2020 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, accordingly, the OP No I, created the documents, ie, the Bay 1 & 2 (ExR2), wherein the patient ID was 1283, result was detected Covid positive, another document i.e. molecular biology result, ‘patient name; Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1283, referred by Dr Chethan, Reg date, 03-09- 2020 @ 11.06, SRF ID; 2954800083594, Results; positive for SARS cov2, Report by Dr Shilpa, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;91137,at 11.01, verified by Pavan kumar quality Manager, and the OP date, 03-09-2020 @ 11.06, SRF ID; 2954800081385, Results; positive for SARS cov2, Report by Dr Prashanth HV, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;46364, verified by Pavan kumar quality Manager, which accounts to 'unfair trade practices’ and deficiency of service on the part of the OP No 1. another defense of the OP No 1, in para 11 page 4 of his version, that the complainant instead of ereating new SRF ID, used the SRF ID of the person got negative covid result (SRF ID; Vo heyW CC No.128-2022 295480008135),the District Hospital Tumkur, conducted Antigen test and result was negative, it’s clear from the SOP for reporting Covid 19,tests, Government of Karnataka circular No NHM/12/MD-NHM/20-21 dated25- 08-2020, in para 6, stated as, if the suspect is symptomatic another NP/OP swab is collected without generating new SRF ID. 16. On perusal of the OP No 2, case sheet (IP No 10208) submitted by the Taluk Health officer Tumkur, pertaining to the complainant, wherein, in case sheet, in Diagnose column, written as Symptomatic Covid positive, | the complainant admitted to the OP ‘No 2 hospital on 04-09-2020 @ 10.40 AM, and molecular biology result (ExPS) enclosed which was attested by | the OP No 2 doctor, by affixing seal of the OP No2, which proves that the OP No 1 referred the complainant to the OP No2, accordingly, the OP No 2 treated the complainant for Covid positive. The OP No 2, on 04-59-2020, collected Rs 5000/- (ExP36) from the complainant towards lab charges, but service on the part of the OP No 2. ' 17. In this case, in the above discussions, this Commissign is’ in the opinion of, the OP No 1 and OP No 2, colluded with each other with bad intention of extracting the money from the complainant illegally. The OP Wr18 CCNo.128-2022 No 1, being a medical service provider, ie. diagnostic centre, completely failed to fulfill the guidelines, in the instant) case without considering medical ethics, The OP No 1 not diagnosed the complainant sample properly and created false documents / molecular biology result, as covid positive, even though its Negative, and referred to the OP No 2 / hospital for covid positive treatment, accordingly the OP No 2, collected Lab charges of Rs 5000/-from the complainant, but not given any tests reports to the complainant, nor not recorded in the reports, and covid treatment given to the complainant, and collected Rs 160945/- ( Ex P10 to ExP32 and " Ex P36) from the complainant and made the complainant to suffer and reated the test report of the complainant as Covid positive, even though, its Negative, and referred to the OP No 2, for the treatment, accordingly OP No 2, treated the complainant for the Covid positive from 04-09-2020 to 10/b9.2020,by collecting treatment charges of Rs 160945, hence the OP [Link] liable to pay the treatment expenses incurred and paid by the complainant i.e. Rs 160945/- and the OP No 2 is liable to pay Rs S000/- collected from the complainant towards test with interest @ 8 % p.a, from the date of discharge i.e, 10-09-2020, The complainant prays to award Rs (Wes19 CC No.128-2022 5,00,000.00 towards mental agony, but to substantiate, proper evidences not produced by the complainant, by considering the above discussions, this commission is in the opinion of, it’s appropriate and proper to order, the OP No 1 to Pay Rs 25000-00 and Rs 25000-00 towards compensation and punitive damages respectively to the complainant and compelled the complainant to approach this commission, hence OP No | and OP'No 2 are liable to pay the litigation cost of Rs.8000-00 and Rs 8000-00 respectively to the complainant, accordingly we proceed to pass the order as; ORDER: Complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. ‘The OP Nos.1 and OP No.2, is directed to pay Rs.1,60,945-00 (Rupees one lak sixty thousand nine hundred forty five only) and Rs.5,000-00 (Rupees Five thousand), respectively to. the complainant, along with interest @:8.00 % p.a from the date of discharge of the complainant i.e. 10-09-2022 to till realization to the complainant, is further directed the OP No.1 to Pay Rs.25,000-00 (Rupees ty five Only) towards compensation and-another Rs.25,000 ipees twenty five Only) towards punitive damage to the “ The OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.8,000.00 (Ris Eight Thousand only) each (Rs.8,000-00 + Rs,8,000-00 = Rs,16,000-00) towards litigation costs to the complainant. words20 CC No,128-2022 The OPs 1 & 2 are further directed to comply the above ofder within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, btherwise, it carries fine of 150/- per day till realization. tumish the copy of erder tothe complainant and opposite party a of cost. {Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12" day of September2023). We tare? “Be =a Member octet