PREMLATA DUBEY vs ESCORT HEART COMMAND CENTRE

-THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 4. 3. 2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as ''district Forum'' for short) in Complaint Case No. 109/04 whereby the District Forum had dismissed the complaint.

BRIEF facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are as under: (a) That the complainant is the wife of the deceased Narayan Prasad Dubey. The said Shri Dubey suffered chest pain and was admitted to Medical College Hospital on 11. 5. 2003 where he was examined by Dr. Shashank Gupta who found that the patient had heart attack and advised him to approach Escorts Hospital for treatment.

(b) Thereafter, the patient was taken to Escorts Hospital on 28. 5. 2003 and the doctors advised angiography. After angiography it was found that one artery had 100% and another artery had 60% to 70% blockage and the doctors had advised for angioplasty and kept the patient under observation.

(c) That OPs had told that expenditure for angioplasty would come to Rs. 1,60,000. As the patient belonged to a poor family he had applied to the State Govt. for aid for medical treatment and the Govt. had sanctioned Rs. 1,50,000 to Narayan Prasad Dubey under Rajeev Jeevan Rekha Yojna and a cheque dated 15. 7. 2003 in favour of the OP was received and was deposited with the OP on 18. 7. 2003. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was also deposited in addition to the aforesaid cheque.

(d) That the patient was again admitted to the OP''s hospital on 21. 7. 2003 as his problems had increased. He was administered medicines and it was told that angioplasty will be done after three days. However, even after the aforesaid period angioplasty was not done hence on inquiry by the relatives it was told that the relevant staff for angioplasty comes from Delhi and as the said staff has not come, angioplasty could not be performed. Thereupon the relatives of the patient showed their willingness to take the patient to Delhi.

(e) On 6. 8. 2003 again the patient was taken to the OP''s hospital and the OPs advised him to stop Ecosprin and advised to come again after 6-7 days. Relatives of the patient again told them that they are prepared to take the patient to Delhi but the OPs said that the patient is under their observation and asked them to wait till 15. 8. 2003.

(f) As the patient had deposited entire amount with the OPs they had become helpless. On 16. 8. 2003 again the condition of the patient deteriorated and he was again admitted to the OPs hospital. After Echo- cardiogram the OPs again asked the patient and the relatives to wait for some more time as the new unit was being built up. As the condition of the patient further deteriorated the OPs said they will do PTCA and advised some medicines and asked the patient to come on 6th or 7th September. The complainant took the patient to the OP hospital on 6. 9. 2003 but the doctors told them to continue the medicines and to wait further as the surgery unit was to start shortly. In this way the treatment of the patient was delayed on flimsy grounds.

(g) On 29. 9. 2003 the OPs told the relatives of the patient that as long time has passed angioplasty would not do in the case and by-pass surgery would be required to be done and further told that surgical unit is to start on 6. 10. 2003 and by-pass surgery of the patient would be done on the same day. The relatives said that the treatment of the patient is being unnecessarily delayed. The OPs told that by-pass is the only remedy in the case of the patient and asked the relatives to arrange for an additional sum of Rs. 65,000 for the said surgery and told that after deposit of the aforesaid sum, surgery will be done.

(h) On 6. 10. 2003 the patient was taken to the hospital but after check-up he was directed to come on 14. 10. 2003. He was again directed to make arrangement for blood and was directed to come on 1. 11. 2003. The OPs paid no heed to the complaint of the relatives that the matter is being unnecessary delayed.

(i) On 29. 10. 2003 again the patient was admitted to the OP''s hospital and after some check-up the OPs directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 65,000 imme-diately. The complainant had deposited the said amount after mortgaging her house and requested the OPs that operation may be done urgently as the same has already been delayed for a long time.

(j) On 3. 11. 2003 OP-2 and OP-3 took signature of the complainant and her relatives on some papers and thereafter by-pass surgery of Sri Narayan Prasad was done and he was discharged on 18. 11. 2003 before he had completely recovered.

(k) The patient persistently felt pain and the OPs were informed in this regard. On 25. 11. 2003 the patient was again taken to the OPs for check-up and the doctors told that as the heart was badly damaged some problems is bound to persist. The complainant and other relatives were surprised at the information given by the OPs and said that the patient was under treatment of the OPs for the past so many months and they had never informed the relatives regarding gravity of the condition and on the contrary they delayed the treatment on some pretext or the other. Earlier they had told that angioplasty will be done and subsequently they did by-pass surgery after charging additional sum and after the surgery the OPs said that the problem would persist. Such conduct on part of the OPs amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

(l) The OPs had prescribed some medicines and had said that the patient would get relief but on 4. 12. 2003 the patient was again required to be admitted to the hospital. He was taken to the OPs who demanded further money but the relatives resisted such demand. On 11. 12. 2003 the patient was put on ventilator and the OPs demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 but the relatives resisted the same by telling them that the condition of the patient had deteriorated due to delay in treatment and wrong treatment by the OPs themselves. However, the OPs told them frankly either to bring the money or to get the patient discharged.

(m) The relatives arranged for the money but they were told that expenditure of Rs. 3,000 per day would be required to be paid. Despite repeated demand and payment of money the condition of the patient further deteriorated and on 24. 12. 2003 the patient was forcefully discharged though in bad condition and the relatives of the patient were made to sign certain papers. (n) Thereafter the patient was admitted to Medical College Hospital where the doctors told the relatives that the condition of the patient was very critical and it appeared that the treatment and operation of the patient were not properly conducted. Ultimately despite best efforts by the doctors at Medical College Hospital the patient i. e. the husband of the complainant expired on 27. 12. 2003.

(o) It is alleged in the complaint that had the OPs provided proper treatment immediately after receiving money for treatment on 18. 7. 2003 the condition of the patient would not have deteriorated so much. Delay on part of OPs in treatment of the patient resulted into his death.

(p) The complainant claimed Rs. 15,00,000 towards compensation for negligence on part of the OPs.

The OPs resisted the complaint and filed joint reply. Main averments in the written version were as under: (a) The OPs have denied the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and averred that prior to 11. 5. 2003 the patient had suffered heart attack on 3. 1. 2003 also.

(b) On the basis of angiography report it was told that the blockage in Left Anterior Descending and also in Diagonal was 60% -70% and in Obtuse Marginal it was 100%. OPs had advised for Myocordial Revascularisation (Bypass ).

(c) The OPs have denied that they had advised for Angioplasty. They further denied that the complainant was told that total expenditure in surgery would be Rs. 1,60,000. However, it is admitted that the complainant was told that package for PTCA would amount to Rs. 1,60,000. Estimate for PTCA was given at the request of the patient as at that time only the facility of PTCA was available at the hospital and the financial condition of the patient was such that he was not in a position to bear the expenses for treatment. Estimate for by-pass was not provided as the facility for by-pass was not available.

(d) The OPs have averred that the patient was admitted on 21. 7. 2003 with the complaint of Orthopnia (difficulty in breathing) and was in the condition of heart failure and unstable condition. He was discharged from the hospital on 22. 7. 2003 after his condition had become stable. Medicines were also prescribed. It has been denied that at the time of discharge the OPs had told that angioplasty would be done after 3 days.

(e) The OPs have averred that angioplasty was regularly performed at the OP-1 hospital and denied the allegation that they had told that staff for angioplasty comes from Delhi. It is further averred that due to financial restraints and also his physical condition the patient was not in a position to go to Delhi for treatment. On 16. 8. 2003 the patient was admitted to the OP hospital he was advised for PTCA as at that time only the facility of PTCA was available at the hospital but the patient was also informed that by-pass would be a better option. It is admitted that after prescribing medicines the patient was asked to come on 6th - 7th September 2003.

(f) It is further averred in the written version that the patient was not brought on 6th or 7th as advised but was brought on 29. 9. 2003 and by that time the facility of by-pass was available at the OP hospital, hence the patient was advised for by pass and fixed the date of 6. 10. 2003 for by-pass surgery.

(g) It is averred that the complainant has misstated the facts. Actually the OPs had demanded Rs. 60,000 towards Intra Avortic Balloon Pump and Rs. 5,000 towards medicines and they were also asked to arrange for blood but the relatives wanted time for arranging for money, hence the operation was delayed. The OPs have admitted that the patient was brought on 6. 10. 2003.

(h) On 14. 10. 2003 the patient was again brought to the OP No. 1 hospital and the OPs told that they will get the patient admitted and would conduct by-pass but the relatives sought further time of 15-20 days for arranging for money as well as for blood. Hence, the date for by pass was fixed for 1. 11. 2003.

(i) The patient was operated on 3. 11. 2003 and after he became better and fit for discharge, he was discharged. The allegation regarding forceful discharge has been denied. The OPs have also denied the allegation made in the complaint regarding events subsequent to by-pass regarding deterioration in condition of the patient, demand of further money by the OPs, putting the patient on ventilator, his forceful discharge on 24. 12. 2003 though the patient was in critical condition. The allegation of negligence in treatment and further that the patient died due to such wrong treatment and faulty operation have also been denied.

(j) All the allegations regarding deficiency in service, delay in treatment, getting money deposited though proper facilities were not available at the hospital have been specifically denied. The OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint. The OPs have reiterated the aforesaid pleas by way of additional pleadings also.

The complainant filed her affidavit in support of complaint and the OP Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their affidavits in support of the written version. The OP-3 was also cross-examined before the District Forum. The complainant has placed various documents on record relating to treatment of her husband and the expenses relating thereto

IN the impugned order the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove negligence and deficiency in service on part of the OPs and had dismissed the complaint. Heard the learned Cousel for both the parties on the application filed by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC. The documents sought to be filed were actually being filed in compliance to the direction given to the respondents and relate to the availability of the facility of angioplasty and by-pass surgery at the OP-1 hospital and are important for disposal of controversy between the parties, hence the application is allowed and the documents are taken on record. Final arguments also heard and record perused.

MAIN submissions of the learned Cousel for the appellant are that the OPs/respondents had unnecessarily delayed the treatment of the complainant''s husband and despite taking money the OPs failed to do angioplasty of the patient after angiography on 28. 5. 2003, though the patient was admitted several times to the OPs'' hospital. He further submitted that the patient was advised early PTCA on 21. 8. 2003 but the date given was 6th - 7th September and when the patient approached for admission on 6th he was called later. Subsequently he was persuaded to undergo by-pass surgery and the OPs also demanded additional money for the same. In view of the fact that the patient was a poor man and had deposited huge amount of money with the OP-1 the patient and the relatives had no option but to follow the instructions of the concerned doctor. Hence, on 29. 9. 2003 they agreed for by-pass surgery of the patient. The patient was told that he will be operated on 6. 10. 2003 but again the OPs adopted dilatory tactics and delayed the surgery without any sufficient cause. Finally by-pass surgery was done on 4. 11. 2003 but the patient continued to feel pain and was discharged on 18. 11. 2003 though he had not recovered completely. Despite by-pass surgery the problem of the patient was not rectified and the patient did not recover. He continuously felt pain and was again brought to the OP No. 1 hospital for check up on 25. 11. 2003. Certain medicines were prescribed and the patient was assured of relief. However, his condition did not improve and was again brought to OP No. 1 hospital on 4. 12. 2003. The patient was admitted to the OP No. 1 hospital on 5. 12. 2003. The OPs further demanded money. Condition of the patient did not improve but he was forcefully discharged on 24. 12. 2003. Consequently, he was to be admitted to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital where he died on 27. 12. 2003. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties/respondents reiterated the stand taken before the District Forum and submitted that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on part of the OPs and the patient as well as his relatives are to be blamed for the delay caused in treatment of patient because they made delay in making necessary payments and they failed to turn up as and when advised. He further submitted that prior to 6. 10. 2003 facility of by-pass was not available hence the complainant''s husband was given estimate for angioplasty. He further submitted that prior to coming to the OPs the patient had suffered two heart attacks one on 11. 5. 2003 and the other earlier on 3. 1. 2003 but he failed to take proper care hence his heart had damaged. There was no negligence or wrong treatment or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs/respondents. He further submitted that when the patient was brought to the hospital on 4. 12. 2003. He was suffering from pneumonia and it cannot be said that he died due to any negligence or wrong treatment on part of the OPs. The complainant failed to place any expert evidence on record to prove medical negligence on part of the OPs hence the order passed by the District Forum does not call for interference and the learned Cousel submitted that the appeal be dismissed. In Dr. Laxman Balkrishan Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Babu Godbole and Anr. , AIR 1969 SC 128, it was held by the Apex Court that when a doctor is consulted by a patient the former, namely, the doctor owes to his patient certain duties which are, (a) a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; (b) a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and (c) a duty of care in the administration of the treatment. A breach of any of the above duties may give a cause of action for negligence and the patient may on the basis recover damages from his doctor. Under the aforesaid premises now we will consider whether the opposite parties/respondents are guilty of negligence/deficiency in service or not with reference to treatment given to the complainant''s husband.

ALLEGATION of the complainant is that the OPs did not advise by-pass surgery but had advised for angioplasty and had given estimate for the same. Despite deposit of money as per estimate angioplasty was not performed. Subsequently on 29. 9. 2003 the patient was told that angioplasty cannot be performed in his case and by-pass would be required to be done and additional money was demanded. The first point to be considered is whether the OPs-2 and 3 had initially advised for angioplasty or for by-pass surgery. The OPs have averred in the written version that they had advised for Myocardial Revascularisation (by-pass ). In their affidavits also the OPs-2 and 3 have made the same statement.

IT appears from the material on record that the complainant''s husband Narayan Prasad Dubey was brought to the OP-1 hospital on 28. 5. 2003 for the first time. It appears from Annexure A-1 that the patient was found to be having unstable Angina and was admitted for Coronary Angio. His angiography was done and from the Angiogrpahy Report Annexure A-2 it was revealed that the patient was suffering from Double Vessel Disease Mild LV Dysfunction. He was recommended ''early Myocardial Revascularisation''. However, it is noted that in Annexure A-2 the word ''by-pass'' is not mentioned in brackets after the word Myocardial Revascularisation as has been done by the OPs in their written version and affidavits. Hence, we have to consider as to what does Revascularisation actually mean. The meaning of Revascularisation as provided in Taber''s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, Edition 17 is ''restoration of blood flow to a part. This may be done by surgical means or by removing the obstruction from the original vessels''. Hence, it clearly appears that with reference to Myocardial Revascularisation the term covers both the procedure of angioplasty and that of by-pass surgery. So from the material on record it does not appear that the OPs had advised for by-pass surgery and had given estimate for angioplasty only because the facility of by-pass surgery was not available in the OP-1 hospital. The OP No. 3 in para 21 of his cross-examination stated that it is mentioned in Angiography Report as to whether the patient is advised to undergo surgical treatment or otherwise. However, as noted earlier there is no clear-cut advice in this regard in the Angiography Report. There is not even a whisper regarding advising by-pass surgery prior to 29. 9. 2003 in the documents placed on record. However, in subsequent document i. e. Discharge Summary Annexure A-8 it is mentioned that the angiogrpahy revealed severe double vessel disease and was advised Coronary Revascularisation by Coronary Artery By-pass Grafting (CABG) but in view of the fact that there was no such advice in Angiogrpahy Report or any other document, it cannot be believed that the OPs 2 and 3 had tendered advice prior to 29. 9. 2003 as mentioned in Annexure A-8. Hence on the basis of documents on record we are of the opinion that the OPs had initially recommended/advised for angioplasty and not for by-pass surgery as they are trying to suggest. The next allegation of the complainant is that the OPs caused unnecessary delay in providing treatment and did not do angioplasty though money as per estimate given by the OPs, was deposited on 15. 7. 2003. Further on 29. 9. 2003 the OPs 2 and 3 told the patient that by-pass surgery is required to be performed and demanded additional sum of money. The OPs have denied the allegations and have stated that delay was caused by the patient and his relatives. However, it appears from Coronary Angiogram dated 4. 6. 2003 Annexure A-2 that the recommendation was ''early Myocardial Revascularisation''. Advice and Discharge Summary Ex. N. A. 1 is also Early Myocardial Revascularisation. It clearly appears from Annexure A-l that the patient consulted the OPs on 28. 5. 2003, 21. 7. 2003, 6. 8. 2003, 16. 8. 2003, 21. 8. 2003, 29. 9. 2003, on one more occasion and also on 14. 10. 2003 when finally he was advised for surgical admission on 6. 1. 2003. It clearly appears that the patient consulted the OPs at least four times before 21. 8. 2003 when he was advised early PTCA. OP-3 in his cross-examination had stated that PTCA is the procedure where the blockage in the artery is removed with the help of balloon, without surgical intervention. The aforesaid procedure is also known as angioplasty. As per Taber''s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, Edition 17 Angioplasty means "altering the structure of a vessel, either by a surgical procedure or by dilating the vessel using a balloon inside the lumen". It clearly appears that the OPs had given an estimate to the patient regarding angioplasty on 5. 6. 2003 and the patient had deposited relevant amount on 15. 7. 2003 and thereafter approached the OPs several times but the procedure of angioplasty was not performed. After accepting the amount the OPs were duty bound to provide necessary service for which they had accepted the amount but they failed to do so and learned Counsel for the OPs/respondents tried to throw the blame on the patient by saying that the patient did not contact the OPs. This argument of the learned Counsel for the OPs/respondents is totally baseless and unfounded in view of the foregoing discussion. Hence it clearly appears from the material placed on record that the delay was caused by the OPs. In view of the fact that the OPs were admittedly aware that the patient had suffered Myocardial Infarction in January 2003 and was suffering with Unstable Angina when he was referred to the OP-1 on 28. 5. 2003 and further after angioplasty the report revealed that the patient had Double Vessel Disease and Early Myocardial Revascularisation was recommended there appears to be no justification as to why angioplasty was not performed at an early date after the patient had deposited money for the said procedure. In case the OPs were of the opinion that by-pass was proper remedy in case of the patient they should have advised him accordingly in writing and ought not to have accepted money for angioplasty as has been done by them. The OPs have also alleged that even after the patient and relatives agreed for by-pass they caused delay on the pretext of making arrangement for money and for blood. In this regard we believe that had the relatives been advised for by-pass surgery earlier, time necessitated to make arrangements would have been saved. We can well appreciate that arranging for a sum of Rs. 65,000 is not very easy for people with limited means. Hence we are of the opinion, that the allegation of the complainant to the effect the OPs unnecessarily delayed the treatment, is substantiated.

The OPs have averred in the written version that the allegation of the complainant is false that the staff for angioplasty came from Delhi and they had averred that angioplasty was regularly being performed at the OP-1 hospital. It appears from the documents filed by the respondents in appeal that the facility of angioplasty was available in the OP-1 hospital from 28. 1. 2003 and that of by-pass was available from 6. 10. 2003. If the facility of angioplasty was available in the OP-1 hospital when the patient had deposited money for the said procedure why angioplasty was not performed is the question. OP-3 has in para 24 of his cross-examination stated that upto 21. 7. 2003 the facility for high risk angioplasty and by-pass were not available at the OP-1 hospital. We are of the opinion that this statement of the OP-3 clinches the issue and on the basis of this statement the averments of the complainant regarding delay are supported. It appears that since the patient was a high risk patient as he had suffered Myocardial Infarction in January 2003 and had 100% blockage in one artery and 60-70% blockage in the other. Probably as the Surgical Unit was to be started the OPs bought time and delayed angioplasty. On 21. 8. 2003 early PTCA was advised but the same was not done and ultimately on 29. 9. 2003 the patient was persuaded for by-pass as is evident from Annexure A-l. In case the facility of by-pass was not available and the OPs-2 and 3 believed that patient''s case was fit for by-pass and not for angioplasty they ought to have advised the same in writing and could have referred the patient to a higher centre or their own main hospital at Delhi instead of waiting for completion of new Surgery Unit. Nothing of the sort appears to have been done by the OPs-2 and 3. This act on part of the OPs and the delay caused thereby in treatment of the patient amounts to negligence on their part. It is a matter of common knowledge that delay in treatment in cardiac problems is hazardous. Hence we are of the opinion that the OPs are liable for deficiency in service.

THE complainant has also alleged that the by-pass was not properly performed and the patient continued to have pain. The patient was admitted on 5. 12. 2003 at the OP-1 hospital but he was not properly taken care of and was forcibly discharged on 24. 12. 2003. In Annexure A-11 i. e. the Discharge Ticket it is mentioned that the patient was admitted on 5. 12. 2003 and was discharged on 24. 12. 2003 on request. The following diagnosis is mentioned in Annexure A-11. ''diagnosis- DOUBLE VESSEL CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE- OLD EXT. ANTERIOR WALL MI (3. 1. 2003, STK+)- LV DYSFUNCTION- LEFT VENTRICULAR FAILURE- P/cabgx3 (4. 11. 2003)- VENTRICULAR TACHYCARDIA- PNEUMONITIS (RIGHT LUNG)''

Under the title course in hospital the following is mentioned in Annexure A-11. ''course IN HOSPITAL: patient was diagnosed as having recurrent ventricular tachycardia, left ventricular failure neumonitis, hemodynamic unstability. He was treated conservatively with I/v Cardarone, I/v Dobutamine, I/v Dopamine, I/v Enpinepherine, I/v Milrinone, I/v Lasix, I/v KCL, I/v Mgso4, Blood Transfusion, Antibiotics and other symptomatic and supportive treatment. He is being discharged on request. '' in order to appreciate the diagnosis we must understand as to what is meant by tachycardia. As per Taber''s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, Edition 17 tachycardia means "abnormal rapidity of heart action, usually defined as a heart rate over 100 beats per minute in adults". Ventricular tachycardia means "a series of beats arising from a ventricular focus at a rate greater than 100 beats per minute. The beats usually arise from a single focus and are at a rate of 150 to 200 beats per minute" as per Taber''s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, Edition 17. It appears from Annexure A-11 that besides having neumonitis the patient was having various cardiac problems. Hence over-insistence of the learned Cousel for OPs/respondents that the patient was suffering from pneumonia would not rule out the fact of presence of cardiac problems. As is apparent from Annexure A-11 the patient was diagnosed as having recurrent ventricular tachycardia, left ventricular failure neumonitis, hemodynanic unstability on 5. 12. 2003 i. e. after a short period of 18 days of his discharge on 18. 11. 2003. Even prior to 5. 12. 2003 the patient was having persistent pain. In the circumstances it was for the OPs to demonstrate and prove that such problems had not resulted due to delay in treatment and/or wrong treatment on their part. The OPs 2 and 3 have stated in their affidavits that the pain subsequent to by-pass was due to cutting of sternum and surgical wounds though internal part of the heart was working properly. However, in the light of foregoing discussion we are not convinced that the heart was working properly. As noted earlier it is apparent from Annexure A-11 that the patient was diagnosed as having recurrent ventricular tachycardia, left ventricular failure and hemodynamic unstability. This shows that he was having cardiac problems. In view of the fact that the patient had been consistently under treatment of the OPs and was in the condition as is mentioned in the Discharge Ticket and further in view of the fact that the patient was admitted to the other hospital where he died only three days after his discharge from the OP-1 hospital, it is hard to believe that patient had made a request for discharge. In the circumstances the balance tilts in favour of the allegation of the complainant that her husband was forcibly discharged. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the OPs/respondents are guilty of negligence and deficiency in service. Hence this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint, is set aside. The complainant had claimed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 towards damages for untimely death of her husband due to negligence of the opposite parties/respondents. We are of the opinion that the doctors were definitely negligent on various counts as observed hereinabove and therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case; we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 would be sufficient compensation to be paid to the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence it is directed that the respondents/opposite parties shall be jointly and severally be liable as under: (a) The respondents shall jointly and severally be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 (Rupees seven lacs) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. (b) The respondents shall pay the aforesaid sum together with interest calculated @ 9% p. a. from the date of complaint. (c) The respondents shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand) only towards costs of proceedings throughout.

Appeal allowed.