Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs P. Rajkumar

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 12th September 2013, in I.A. No. 820 of 2013 in M.C.O.P. No. 2035 of 2010, whereby and where under, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, was pleased to dismiss the Application filed by the Petitioner to reject the Medical Bills issued by Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai.

Brief Facts:

The Respondent filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai, claiming compensation on account of a motor accident. The vehicle was insured with the Petitioner.

The Petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and contested the Claim Petition.

The Trial Court recorded the evidence on the side of Respondent. The summons issued to Dr. M.J. Aran Kumar, who issued the bill on behalf of Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai, was not received by him and as such, the Tribunal closed the evidence.

The Petitioner wanted to reject the Medical Bills issued by Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai primarily, on the ground that it was not marked through the concerned Medical Officer. The Application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai. The Order dated 12th September 2013, is put in issue, at the instance of the Insurance Company.

Submissions:

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by placing reliance on the entries found in the Bill, contended that the Hospital collected huge amount on various heads, which has nothing to do with the treatment given to the Respondent. The learned Counsel by way of illustration submitted that a sum of Rs. 27,500 was collected from the respondent by way of procedure charge. Similarly, amount was collected under various other heads. According to the learned Counsel, it was only to cross-examine the Witness with respect to the Bill issued by him, the Insurance Company wanted the Trial Court to examine Dr. M.J. Arun Kumar. It was further contended that the learned Trial Judge erred in dismissing the Application.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned Order. According to the learned Counsel, documents were marked without objection. Subsequently, the official deputed by the Hospital was also examined. There is no need for further examination of Witnesses to prove the document already marked on the side of claimant.

Discussion:

The Respondent filed the Original Petition in M.C.O.P. No. 2035 of 2010 claiming a sum of Rs. 31,75,000 towards Compensation. The Respondent produced the Receipt issued by Hannah Joseph Hospital, K.K Nagar, Madurai, to prove the Hospital charges. The Respondent was earlier admitted in Apollo Hospital. Thereafter, he was admitted in Hannah Joseph Hospital.

The Respondent produced a Receipt dated 24th December 2010 marked as Ex. P20, to prove that he spent a total sum of Rs. 4,34,480 towards his treatment as an in-patient in Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai. The respondent has paid Patta to summon Dr. M.J. Arun Kumar, who is stated to be the owner of Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai. Even though summons was taken on several occasions, the Witness failed to turn up. The employee, who was examined on behalf of Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai, clearly admitted that he was not in the know of things with respect to the amount collected under various heads. It was only under such circumstances, the Petitioner filed the Application in I.A. No. 820 of 2013.

There is no dispute that the Respondent is entitled to get the amount spent by him for treatment. The Bill in question was issued by a Private Hospital. It is to be mentioned here that after taking treatment from Apollo Hospital, the Respondent was admitted in Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai. The Petitioner has not disputed the Bill issued by Apollo Hospital. The Petitioner has got a reason to insist the examination of Dr. M.J. Arun Kumar, who issued the Bill in question.

The Respondent examined the Medical Officer, attached to the Apollo Hospital, to prove the treatment given to him and the amount spent for such treatment. It is true that the respondent also took Summons for the appearance of Dr. M.J. Arun Kumar, who treated him at Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai. The Medical Officer, for the reasons best known, avoided the Court, in spite of receiving Summons at least on two occasions.

The Petitioner is prepared to pay the amount claimed by the Respondent, provided the Bill is proved in the manner known to law. When there is a serious dispute with respect to the Bill issued by Hannah Joseph Hospital, on certain heads, necessarily, the Respondent should clarify the said doubt. Since the Respondent failed in his attempt to examine the Medical Officer, who issued the Receipt, the Petitioner took efforts by filing the Application. Even though the prayer is to reject the Bill issued by Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai, the present request of the Petitioner is only to Summon the Doctor concerned for cross-examination with respect to the Bill. There is nothing on record to suspect the bona fides of the Petitioner in making such a request.

The Tribunal is expected to arrive at a finding with regard to the quantum payable to the Claimant. Both sides should be given reasonable opportunity to submit their case before arriving at a decision by the Tribunal to pay Compensation. The claim made by Hannah Joseph Hospital, under various heads, including a sum of Rs. 27,500 by way of procedure charge alone made the Petitioner to doubt the Bill. The Petitioner is, therefore, perfectly correct in its contention that they should be permitted to examine Dr. M.J. Arun Kumar, with reference to the Bill dated 24th December 2010.

The learned Trial Judge arrived at a conclusion that it is not necessary to examine the concerned Medical Officer as a Witness to prove the document. I am not in a position to agree with the views expressed by the learned Trial Judge. Though the reasoning is correct that Ex. P20 cannot be rejected, on account of the non-examination of Medical Officer, still it cannot be said that the Petitioner is not entitled to insist that the Medical Officer should be examined to prove the amount collected under various heads.

The Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, 2010 (3) MWN (Civil) 442 (SC) : 2010 (4) SCC 491, observed that mere filing or exhibiting a document does not amount to proof of its contents. The Supreme Court said:

"31. Under the law of evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a Court."

The Respondent himself made two attempts earlier to examine Dr. M.J. Arun Kumar as a Witness on his side. It was only for the purpose of proving the Bill, Medical Officer was summoned. Merely because the Doctor evaded Summons, it cannot be said that it is not necessary to examine him as a Witness. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Trial Judge was not correct in dismissing the Application in I.A. No. 820 of 2013 without summoning the Medical Officer.

Disposition:

In the result, the Order dated 12th September 2013, is modified, by directing the learned Trial Judge to summon Dr. M.J. Arun Kumar for examination. The Order insofar as dismissal of Application to reject the Medical Bill marked as Ex. P20 is confirmed.

The learned Trial Judge is directed to summon Dr. M.J. Arun Kumar, Neuro Surgery, Hannah Joseph Hospital, 134, Lake View Road, K.K. Nagar, Madurai-20, as a Witness on the side of the respondent to prove the bill issued by Hannah Joseph Hospital, Madurai, on 24th December 2010. In case the concerned Medical Officer fails to appear before the Court in spite of receiving summons or evades Summons, the Trial Court should ensure his presence by issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant, directing the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, to produce him, on the date of hearing.

The learned Trial Judge is further directed to decide the Claim Petition on merits and as per law, without in anyway being influenced by the observation made in the Order in I.A. No. 820 of 2013.

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs, Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.