AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NONE is present on behalf of the appellants although being aware of today''s date of admission hearing of the appeal.
AS stated appellants are not present. Appeal has been filed in the year 2003 and was moved before us for admission hearing on 6th August, 2003 when we proceeded to issue notice before admission to the respondent. The matter appeared on our Board in the caption of admission hearing thereafter on number of days and being aware appellants have chosen not to remain present. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available before us with the assistance of Mr. J.M. Baphna who appeared as ''Amicus Curiae''. (For brevity''s sake appellants are hereinafter referred to as ''O.Ps.'' and respondent as ''complainant''). The O.Ps. have filed this appeal challenging order dated 24th September, 2002 passed by District Forum, Sangli holding them being deficient in rendering services to the wife of the complainant in the matter of performance of family planning operation and so holding has made a monetary award in favour of the complainant as and by way of compensation and against the O.Ps. The same award as stated is challenged in this appeal.
It is noticed that the complainant is a resident of a Village Nimaj in District Sangli and he had 3 issues - 2 sons and 1 daughter. The daughter was born as handicapped child being dumb and deaf. After delivery of third child, complainant got family planning operation done of his wife from the O.Ps. on 7th July, 1999 and after operation he was told that operation was successfully performed.
IT is the case of the complainant that due implication was given to the O.Ps. that why family planning operation was required to be undertaken making it further clear that he did not want any more child as he also apprehends that the child may also turn out to be handicapped like his daughter. However, after about 8 months he was shocked to know that his wife was conceived and eventually delivered a male child on 11th November, 2000.
THIS has given cause to the complainant to approach the District Forum and claim damages. The O.Ps. appeared in response to the process issued and served upon them by the District Forum and in paragraph 4 this is what O.P. No. 2 who is appellant No. 1 proceeds to explain: "xxx xxx xxx xxx." It is stated that the complainant filed the affidavit denying and dealing with the stand as taken by the O.Ps. mentioned hereinabove.
DISTRICT Forum proceeded to probe the matter. It is noticed that the O.Ps. produced a so-called consent obtained of the wife of the complainant on the format prescribed in that behalf and Xerox copies of the same, which also forms part of the appeal paper book at page Nos. 20 to 27. The O.Ps. have specifically highlighted to the endorsement which is in vernacular at page No. 23 reading as: "xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx."
THE complainant denied that the endorsement as above was ever made known to his wife and pleaded that when the signature of the wife of the complainant was obtained such endorsement was not at all there. District Forum, which probed the matter, seriously doubted about endorsement as made on the so-called consent as asserted by the O.Ps.
We have also carefully perused the said consent form and in particular the vernacular matter as reproduced hereinabove.
THE bare glance of the same would clearly show that this is a subsequent interpolation done as an afterthought device. Written portion has been interpolated to accommodate the space available above the signature of the wife of the complainant and indeed raise a bona fide and legitimate doubt about the authenticity, genuineness as also correctness thereof. It is obvious that the same has been virtually cramped with little available place near signature of the wife of the complainant which is clear that size of last two lines are in smaller letters. In our view, District Forum has rightly rejected the said evidence in the circumstances and considering the fact as noticed hereinabove. We are also of the same opinion and view that the portion mentioned hereinabove is subsequent innovation and interpolation to serve the purpose. It is not possible to give credence to the same.
BY and large, we find that the District Forum properly appreciated the facts as obtained in the matter herein and has reached the conclusion and we do not find any reason to deviate therefrom. Furthermore District Forum has awarded only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which in the circumstances is otherwise a meagre amount. ORDER 1. Appeal stands dismissed and order of the District Forum impugned therein stands confirmed. 2. Appellant shall pay costs to the complainant in the proceedings herein quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. 3. copies to be furnished to the parties.
Appeal dismissed.