GANTA MOHANA LAKSHMI vs C.V. Ratnam

THE complainant a married woman with three children complained of pain in her left hip in about 1991. Her left leg was short by 1 inch right from her birth. She consulted one Dr. G. Subbarao, Orthopaedic Surgeon at Eluru and was treated by him. In June, 1991 the said doctor told her that she had to undergo an operation and advised her to consult the first opposite party. On 15.6.1991 the complainant consulted the first opposite party who told her that she had to undergo two-stage operation and if necessary her total hip should be replaced. THE complainant got herself admitted in his nursing home on 2.7.1991 and the first opposite party conducted first operation on 5.7.1991. He again conducted the second stage operation on 25.7.1991 and informed her husband that there was total hip replacement and the operation was a success.

ON the first post operative day i.e., on 26.7.1991 her husband found that the toes of the complainant were pale and there was no sensation below the left knee i.e., operated leg. The complainant complained pain in her left hip and leg. When it was brought to the notice of the first opposite party he stated that blood circulation to the toes and sensation to the operated leg would improve gradually. Later the complainant and her husband found that the operated leg was more in length than the right leg. When the opposite party was informed of this he told them that the exact size "Hip Replacement" was not readily available as it had to be imported from abroad and, therefore, in order to avoid delay he adjusted the available hip replacement and the difference in length between the legs could be adjusted by arranging a boot to the other leg. He himself arranged for such a high heel boot at a cost of Rs. 650/-. There was no improvement in the blood circulation to the toes and sensation to the leg and the complainant was suffering continuous pain even after two weeks after the operation and as such her husband informed the first opposite party that he would take his wife to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences for treatment. But the first opposite party insisted and forced them to remain in his nursing home on the plea that she had been improving satisfactorily and would become normal in due course after some exercises. In fact her husband requested the opposite party to avail the services of any specialist from any other hospital to restore the blood circulation to her toes and sensation to her leg. Even then the first opposite party assured them that he would look after everything about her safety. The complainant did not move from her bed for about 25 days and she had been complaining continuous pain in her leg. On 20.8.1991 some persons in the nursing home made her to walk with the help of zimmer frame. When the complainant complained unbearable pain in her leg and was unable to walk the exercise was abandoned. On 22.8.1991 there was swelling of her left foot and there was total change in the colour of toes and they became completely cold by 23.8.1991. Seeing the condition of the complainant her husband wanted to take her to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) for treatment. The first opposite party even then insisted to keep her in his nursing home promising that he would get the services of doctors from NIMS. However, when the complainant and her husband insisted the first opposite party discharged her reluctantly from his nursing home on 23.8.1991. He also gave a letter stating the details of treatment given to the complainant. On 23.8.1991 itself the complainant rushed to NIMS and consulted the doctors. On examination she was told by the doctors that damage was caused to her leg due to lack of blood circulation and that she should have come to NIMS much earlier and at that stage nothing could be done except her leg from above the knee should be removed as otherwise her life would be in danger. Accordingly she was admitted on the same day and her left leg from above the knee was amputated on 27.8.1991. She was discharged on 25.9.1991 with a direction to come up for check-up after one month. But in the meanwhile she suffered pain in her left hip on 15.10.1991 and when she consulted the doctor at Eluru he advised her to go to NIMS only. On 18.10.1991 when she went to NIMS necessary tests were conducted and the doctors told her that hip replacement which was fixed by the first opposite party should be removed by another operation. The complainant was admitted on 18.11.1991 and the said operation was conducted on 25.11.1991. As they forgot to remove the steel wires and bone cement another operation was conducted at NIMS on 16.12.1991 to remove the steel wires and bone cement and she was discharged on 31.12.1991.

The complainant gave a registered notice dated 16.1.1992 to the first opposite party with almost the same allegations as stated above claiming damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- together with expenditure spent in a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/-. A reply dated 29.1.1992 was issued by the first opposite party which is also similar to the counter filed by him in this case. According to the complainant fixing of hip replacement which is not of correct size, making operated leg longer than the other leg which had to be finally removed by the doctors at NIMS, his admission that there was no sensation in toes below the knee, not allowing the complainant to join NIMS for the fear that the defective operation would be known to them even though he noticed that there was no proper blood circulation and sensation to the leg and not consulting a Vascular Surgeon to find out the ways for improvement in blood circulation putting the complainant under continuous pain and suffering for weeks together which ultimately resulted in formation of gangrene was amputation of the leg above the knee are all acts of deficiency in service for which the first opposite party is bound to compensate under law. She is aged about 27 years having three children ranging between the age of 1 years and 5 years having aged in-laws. Due to loss of one leg she became disabled permanently and she is not in a position to look after the needs of her husband nor take care of her children. She cannot even serve her aged in-laws as she has become herself helpless. She has spent about Rs. 55,000/- for her treatment while she was in the nursing home of the first opposite party and another Rs. 56,000/- in NIMS. In view of the denial of the opposite parties she approached this Commission claiming a total compensation of Rs. 4,11,000/-.

IN the written version filed by the first opposite party it is admitted that he has conducted two-stage operation on 5.7.1991 and 25.7.1991 which is successful. About the complaint of pain of the complainant on 26.7.1991 and also that the toes were pink it is stated that if the toes are pink it means that there is good blood circulation and as it was a major operation of four hours it is natural to experience some pain in the post operative period. The allegation that the complainant found the operated leg more in length is absurd. The allegation that as exact size hip replacement was not available he adjusted the available hip replacement is false. The complainant had congenital dislocation of the hip having shortening of 3 inches before the operation. The further allegation that the opposite party insisted and forced the complainant to remain in his hospital and did not allow her to go to NIMS, that there was no blood circulation even after two weeks after the operation and request was made for availing the services of a specialist are all false and baseless. As she was progressing well and was able to move the toes, ankle, knee and hip and as such the thought of shifting her to NIMS or calling for a specialist from another hospital to restore the blood circulation in the toes is absolutely meaningless. When the complainant was made to walk with the help of zimmer frame shows that there was blood circulation as otherwise she would not have been able to walk. So also the doctors working at NIMS are full-time employees and they cannot visit private hospitals for consultation. It is only when the opposite party No. 1 noticed that the tip of the big toe became blue and cold he immediately transferred the patient to NIMS after speaking to a Vascular Surgeon at NIMS. He arranged ambulance besides paying cash of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant''s husband as he did not have enough cash. It is absolutely false that the doctors at NIMS told the complainant''s husband that much damage was caused to the leg of the complainant and the allegation that she should have come earlier is false and baseless. Even assuming that hip replacement and the steel wires were defective the same should have been removed earlier in August, 1991 and need not have waited till October, 1991. There is no negligence on his part as she was sent for Ideopathic Thrombosis of the Iliac Vessels. The first opposite party has taken absolute care and caution and there is no negligence on his part in conducting the operation. He is entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- towards operation and nursing home charges which is due and payable by the complainant. The allegations made in the complaint are defamatory and are intended to lower his prestige and goodwill in the eyes of general public at large and in particular medical profession. He claims a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages for making false and defamatory statements against the complainant as the complainant has filed false and baseless complaint merely to make some money and harass the first opposite party. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious and finally he prays that the complaint may be dismissed. The second opposite party filed a separate written statement stating that the first opposite party has taken every care in conducting operation and treating the complainant. It is curious to mention that the operated leg which is far from truth. The complainant had congenital dislocation of the hip. As such there is shortening of 3 inches before the operation, and there was never any occasion or thought of shifting the complainant to NIMS. The allegations that the first opposite party did not take proper care to fix the correct size hip replacement is false. The allegation that the doctors at NIMS observed that much damage was caused to the complainant and the complainant ought to have come to NIMS earlier is also false. Besides asserting that the first opposite party conducted the operations to the best of his ability being an experienced surgeon and both operations were totally successful, as such the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and for all purposes it adopts the counter filed by the first opposite party and finally prays that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

THE complainant examined herself and her husband as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively besides examining Dr. P. Ramakrishna, Vascular Surgeon who was present when P.W. 1 was operated on 27.8.1991. Exs. A-1 to A-13 were marked. On behalf of the opposite parties the first opposite party himself and his wife Dr. Padmavathi were examined as R.Ws. 1 and 3 respectively while Dr. V.B.N. Prasad who is the Head of the Department of Orthopaedics at NIMS where P.W. 1 was operated for removal of hip replacement was examined as R.W. 2. No evidence is adduced by the second opposite party. The point for consideration is, (1) whether there is any negligence on the part of the first opposite party in performing the operations on 5.7.1991 and 25.7.1991 on the complainant for total hip replacement and for treating her subsequently upto 23.8.1991 and (2) whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation and if so, to what extent. The old adage that problems do not come alone but they come in battalions, amply applies to this case. The problem of the complainant a married woman who is aged 27 years having three children ranging from 1 years to 5 years commenced in April, 1991 when she complained of pain in her left hip. Her left leg is congenitally short in length than the right leg for which she has consulted Dr. Subba Rao an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Eluru who treated her for some time, but suggested her that she had to undergo an operation and advised her to consult the opposite party No. 1 for the said purpose.

THE case of the complainant is that she consulted the opposite party No. 1 on 15.6.1997 who told her that she had to undergo two-stage operation and if necessary total hip replacement; she was admitted in the nursing home of the opposite party No. 1 on 2.7.1991 and she was operated on 5.7.1991. THE second operation was conducted on her on 25.7.1991 for total hip replacement. Though the opposite party No. 1 expressed satisfaction that both operations were successful from the first post operative day onwards i.e., on 26.7.1991 it was noticed that the toes of the complainant were pale and there was no sensation below the left knee i.e., operated leg. When this fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party No. 1 he told that blood circulation of the toes and sensation to the operated leg would improve gradually and they need not worry about the same. A few days after the second operation the complainant and her husband found that the operated leg was more in length than the other. It is alleged when this fact was also brought to his notice the first opposite party he told them that exact size hip replacement was not readily available as it had to be imported from a foreign country and as such with a view to avoid the delay he adjusted the available hip replacement and the difference in length between the legs could be adjusted by arranging a high heel to another leg and he made arrangement for such a boot to the complainant. It costed them Rs. 650/- which is evidenced by Ex. A-1. It is also her case that as there was no improvement in the blood circulation to the toes and sensation to the leg and as she was suffering with continuous pain even two weeks after the operation, P.W. 2 her husband expressed his desire to admit his wife i.e., the complainant in NIMS for treatment. But the opposite party No. 1 insisted and forced the complainant husband to keep her in his nursing home stating that she had been improving satisfactorily. Even to the suggestion of P.W. 2 to enlist the services of any specialist from any other hospital to restore the blood circulation to her toes and sensation to her leg the opposite party No. 1 assured them that he would do everything needful and they need not have to worry about her safety. THE complainant did not move from her bed for a period of 25 days as she was complaining of continuous pain. On 20.8.1991 she was made to walk with the help of a zimmer frame in the corridor of the nursing home but she complained unbearable pain in her leg and was unable to walk. On 22.8.1991 there was swelling on her left foot and it was elevated. By 23.8.1991 there was total change in the colour of toes of the operated leg. However, due to persistance on the part of P.W. 2 the opposite party No. 1 agreed to discharge her reluctantly from his nursing home on 23.8.1991. He gave letter narrating the details of the treatment given to her.

IMMEDIATELY the complainant rushed to NIMS and consulted doctors therein who after examining her, told her and her husband that much damage was caused to her leg due to lack of blood circulation and she should have come much earlier and at that stage it cannot be helped except to remove the leg from above the knee and if it is not done immediately it would be dangerous to her life. Accordingly her leg above the knee was amputated on 27.8.1991. This is the third operation. As we have already seen the first two operations were conducted (two-stage operation) by the first opposite party. Though the complainant was discharged from NIMS on 25.9.1991 with a direction to come back for checking after one month, she complained of pain on 15.10.1991 in her left hip and when she consulted the Orthopaedic Surgeon at Eluru he advised her to go to NIMS again. On 18.10.1991 she went to NIMS and after necessary tests the doctors told the complainant that hip replacement fixed by the opposite party No. 1 should be removed by operation and it was accordingly done on 25.11.1991 which is the fourth operation. This is not the ''be all and end all''. She had to be operated again on 16.12.1991 for removal of the steel wires and bone cement which was not removed during the fourth operation. Of course to which the opposite party No. 1 is not concerned. With all these meticulous details a notice was sent within 15 days after the complainant was discharged from NIMS and the opposite party sent a reply denying the material allegations and the liability to pay any compensation but admitting that he performed the two-stage operation. In addition he stated that the complainant has to pay him a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards operation and nursing home charges. It is also stated that the allegations in the notice are defamatory and intended to lower his prestige and goodwill in the eyes of general public at large and in particular in the eyes of medical profession and as such he claims a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards damages for making such statements.

The undisputed facts are that the complainant consulted the opposite party No. 1 with a complaint that she was suffering from pain in her left hip on 15.6.1991 on the advice of Dr. Subba Rao an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Eluru she met the opposite party No. 1 who advised her two-stage operation for total hip replacement. The first operation was conducted on 5.7.1991 and the second operation was conducted on 25.7.1991 by which total replacement is completed. Though he stated that both the operations were successful it so transpired that on 26.7.1991 the first post operative day P.W. 2 found that toes of the complainant were pale and there was no sensation below the left knee i.e., operated leg. There is no denial of this allegation in the written statement filed by the first opposite party. Apart from this in Ex. A-2 which is a letter addressed by the first opposite party at the time of discharge showing the details of treatment given to the complainant, it was admitted that on the first post operative day there was no sensation to the toes and below the knee for light touch. Therefore, these facts lend support to the case of the complainant that even on the first post operative day i.e., on 26.7.1991 there was no sensation to the toes. In the case sheet maintained by the first opposite party which is marked as Ex. B-3 also shows that on the second post operative day i.e., on 27.7.1991 it is noted left foot, loss of sensation. On the third post operative day it is noted sensation below the knee lost. Foot no sensation. In addition to this pain is noted on both these days. It is even admitted by R.W. 1 that P.W. 2 informed him that there was no sensation below the knee of P.W. 1 to the operated leg. Therefore, it is clear that sensation to the left toes was lost even on the first post operative day and sensation to the foot is lost on the second post operative day and sensation below the knee is lost on the third post operative day. This shows that loosing sensation started from toes is increasing day-by-day which calls for serious attention which was not paid.

THE complainant states that after a few days after the operation on 25.7.1991 herself and her husband found that the operated leg was more in length than the right leg and the answer from the first opposite party according to them was that as exact size of hip replacement was not readily available which had to be imported he adjusted the available hip replacement to avoid delay and that the difference in length between the legs could be adjusted by arranging a boot to another leg. This allegation was stoutly denied by the first opposite party both in his reply registered notice Ex. A-4 as well as in the written statement. In the written statement it is stated that it is impossible. R.W. 1 admits that he has arranged special boots from Sayani Surgicals, Hyderabad, that Sayani Surgicals man came to his nursing home and took measurements for the complainant''s leg, Ex. A-1 is the visiting card and the heel of the boot of the left leg is less than the heel of the boot of the right leg in height. THErefore, it is clear that the denial of opposite party No. 1 that there is no increase of the length of the left leg than the length of the right leg has no basis as the documentary evidence clearly points out otherwise. THErefore, the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party assured the complainant that the difference in length between the legs could be adjusted by arranging a boot to the other leg has to be accepted. The next allegation of the complainant is that there was no improvement in the blood circulation to the toes and sensation to the leg and she was also suffering with continuous pain even two weeks after the operation and as such her husband told the opposite party No. 1 that he wanted to take his wife to NIMS for treatment. But the first opposite party insisted and forced them assuring that she had been improving satisfactorily and she would become allright in due course after some exercises. Even the request of the husband of the complainant to enlist the services of any specialist from another hospital to restore the blood circulation to her toes and sensation to her leg fell on deaf ear and the opposite party No. 1 merely assured that he would look after everything and they need not have to worry about the safety of the complainant. But in the written statement what is stated by the opposite party No. 1 is that the complainant was progressing well without any complication. She was able to sit up in the bed and able to move the toes, ankle, knee and hip. Therefore, the thought of shifting the complainant to NIMS or calling any other specialist is absolutely meaningless and the complainant husband has never made any such reference. Therefore, we have to see which version is true.

THE case sheet marked as Ex. B-3 shows that even on 9th and 10th post operative day also the complainant is not able to move the foot or the toes. If the complainant was progressing well as is projected by the opposite party No. 1 without any complications and she was able to sit up and able to move the toes, ankle and knee the proposal to move the patient to NIMS or calling for a specialist does not arise. But as already seen by the third post operative day there was no sensation below the knee as well as to the left foot. THErefore, the statement of opposite party No. 1 that the complainant was progressing well cannot be true. THE allegation that shifting or calling for a specialist from another hospital to restore the blood circulation in the toes is absolutely meaningless cannot be accepted and it can only be concluded that the request of the complainant''s husband fell on a deaf ear. The next allegation of the complainant that when she visited NIMS the doctors who examined her stated that already much damages was caused to her leg due to lack of blood circulation and she should have come much earlier and at that stage amputation of the leg cannot be helped. According to the opposite party No. 1 this allegation is false and baseless. The complainant started loosing sensation starting from toes on the first operative day and increased to the foot on the second post operative day and by the third post operative day it increased upto the knee of the left leg. Under these circumstances the opposite party No. 1 would have done well if he had called a Vascular Surgeon to examine P.W. 1 or advised her to go to another hospital where Vascular Surgeon is available. He did neither. Apart from that this view of ours gains support from the evidence of P.W. 3 who opined that this critical ischaemia condition displayed through angiogram report dated 24.8.1991 could be present even one month earlier. Therefore, the contention of the complainant in this regard is also well founded. In fact in Ex. A2 letter written by him it is mentioned physiotherapy was stopped on 23.8.1991 and toes were found to be cold with bluish discolouration. In the written statement he has stated that when he observed the tip of the big toe became blue and cold immediately he transferred the patient to NIMS after speaking to a Vascular Surgeon at NIMS and arranged an ambulance. It is relevant to know when the symptoms of gangrene started. Gangrene is nothing but death of tissues. It may happen due to non-supply of blood. Thrombosis comes due to clotting of blood in the blood vessel. In his evidence the opposite party No. 1 says that there was no formation of gangrene to the operated leg when she was in his nursing home. He admits that he has not got the complainant examined by a Vascular Surgeon. As already seen from the evidence of P.W. 3 that angiogram report showing the critical ischaemia could be present even one month earlier. R.W. 1 states in his evidence that he himself referred the complainant to NIMS because he observed that the complainant having intra abdominal pain and duskyness of the toes while in Ex. A-2 he has stated toes were found to be cold and bluish. He admits that he cannot say whether thrombosis is the main cause of gangrene. He says he does not know whether the incidence of thrombosis is common in all the major operations. While P.W. 3 says that the angiogram shows that whole arterior system was blocked and the angiogram confirmed that there is a block in the blood vessel. There are reports in the medical literature that this is one of the complications that could arise out of a total hip replacement. Evidently opposite party No. 1 did not take precautions to avoid such incidence of thrombosis while undertaking such a major surgery. The complainant submits that there was no blood circulation or sensation to the left leg below the knee between 26.7.1991 and 23.8.1991. Even then the first opposite party did not allow them to go to NIMS as the defects in the operation would be discovered. According to her the defects are due to the total replacement of the hip because the first opposite party instead of importing hip replacement from abroad has used the available hip replacement with certain adjustments which did not suit her. That is why the left leg which was short by 1 inch or more than the right leg has become longer than the right leg. She complained of unbearable pain. The first opposite party in Ex. B-3 case sheet noted pain on some days and noted as severe pain on the third post operative day, 4th post operative day, 13th post operative day, etc. Hence it is clear that P.W. 1 suffered severe pain for number of days after the operation. In juxtaposition to this there was improvement as contended by the complainant while she was under the treatment at NIMS. Hence according to her the treatment of opposite party No. 1 is not correct. R.W. 1 in his evidence could not say that the complainant was able to walk with the assistance of zimmer frame and what is simply suggested to P.W. 2 the husband of the complainant is that the complainant is able to walk with the help of zimmer frame.

IN Bailey and Love''s Short Practice of Surgery, 21st Edition at page 241 it is stated incidence of thrombosis can be as much as 50 per cent following major hip surgery. For prevention in page 242 it is stated that low-dose heparin may be started. The contention of the first opposite party No. 1 is that heparin was not used because of blood flow (bleeding) as it may effect healing process of wound. This explanation was not stated anywhere earlier. IN page 242 it is stated low molecular weight heparins are now becoming available and they are as effective, but have a reduced risk of bleeding complications. IN page 216 it is stated that dry gangrene occurs when the tissues are desicated by gradual showing of the bloodstream. The affected part becomes dry and wrinkled, discoloured from disintegration of haemoglobin and greasy to the touch.

FROM these observations we are constrained to conclude that the left leg was effected by gangrene due to thrombosis or obstruction to the supply of blood through blood vessel which could not have occurred overnight but as seen it is a slow process that has taken about a month and the first opposite party has not taken proper care or diligence to arrest it. As the patient was in his hospital only from 25.7.1991the date of second operation to 23.8.1991 during which period only gangrene has set in developed and reached a stage where it has become incurable, as such the only option open to the Surgeon was to amputate the leg from a little above the knee. As the patient had no other opportunity or scope to consult anybody in our view the responsibility purely and totally rests on R.W. 1 (the first opposite party). It is seen from the evidence that the husband of the complainant entreated him to allow them either to join NIMS where Vascular Surgeon is available or to indent the services of Vascular Surgeon, the first opposite party went on silencing P.W. 2 saying nothing to worry and everything would be normal. It is not out of place to mention that R.W. 1 himself admits in his evidence that there are no private Vascular Surgeons anywhere in the twin cities and the unit NIMS is the best where such a facility is available and, therefore, in his written statement he admits that when the tip of the big toe became blue and cold he immediately transferred the patient to NIMS after speaking to a Vascular Surgeon at NIMS. We could only conclude that he had taken this right step and perhaps saved the life of the patient. We would have been happy if he had taken this decision much earlier before the condition of the patient became critical and perhaps amputation of the leg could have been avoided. He has not filed the case sheet until 2.2.2000 nearly 7 or 8 years after the complaint was filed. The contention of the first opposite party that there was much improvement in the condition of the complainant and that she was able to move the toes, ankle, knee, hip, etc., and that there was no formation of gangrene to the operated leg while she was in his nursing home as seen from his evidence are not correct. For the foregoing reasons we are constrained to hold on the basis of the evidence on record that the first opposite party is liable to pay compensation in view of deficiency in service.

The complainant submits that she was aged about 27 years at the time of the operation and having 3 minor children of tender age, as her leg was amputated she would not be able to look after her children as she ought to have and also taken care of her old parents-in-law and on the other hand she herself became dependent on them. Having regard to all these circumstances she claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages for loss of leg. She also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- being the amount spent by her for her treatment. In view of Exs. A-1 to A-131 out of which most of them are receipts showing the amount spent by her either towards hospital charges, medicines and other incidental charges we are of the opinion that this sum cannot be reduced and it has to be awarded.

BEFORE we consider the claim for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of compensation we have to observe that the complainant has to undergo 5th operation to remove certain steel wires and bone cement pieces which were not removed while conducting the 4th operation of hip removal on 25.11.1991. Of course, the complainant says that while performing the operation on 25.11.1991 they forgot to remove the wires and bone cement. She has not claimed any compensation on this account against those who are responsible for this. Although prima facie it looks that there is deficiency in service on the part of those who conducted the operation on 25.11.1991 since the complainant has not claimed any compensation on this count and since no notice or opportunity was given to them we would not be justified going into that aspect. Be that as it may, the fact remains and it is suffice to mention that the complainant was subject to one more operation for nothing. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we have no doubt that the complainant had suffered severe pain for number of days and also suffered amputation of her leg and she has to put up with this permanent partial disability throughout her life. Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- would be just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice. This sum together with a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- which was spent for treatment and other expenses i.e., in all Rs. 2,61,000/- shall be paid by the opposite parties with interest at 12% from the date of the complaint till the date of payment. The complaint is accordingly allowed in part as indicated above with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Six weeks time is granted for payment. Complaint partly allowed.