The complainant Jagdish Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Dr. J. S Sra and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 conducted operation of right eye of complainant at his Hospital on 25-10-2016 and inserted EYECRYL lens at the cost of Rs. 35,000/- and she was discharged from the hospital on the same day. The complainant was called for the next day for removing the bandage from her eye. Before discharging the complainant, opposite party No.1 assured complainant that her eyesight will definitely improve with the help of operation conducted by him.
The complainant alleged that on the next day, she visited opposite party No.1 at his hospital and bandage was removed, but her vision was same as was earlier and there was no improvement of any kind in her right eye, rather the same was damaged/lost. The opposite party No.1 prescribed some medicines to the complainant and advised her to take the same for 20 days. She took the prescribed medicines for about 20 days as per directions/advice given by opposite party No.1, but even then, there was no improvement in the condition of vision of the complainant.
It is alleged that again on 16-11-2016 complainant visited opposite party No.1 and complained that even after taking the medicines, there was no improvement and her eye sight was not cured. On this, opposite party No.1 prescribed some medicines for two months.
It is further alleged that again on 02-01-2017 complainant visited opposite party No.1 and on that day, opposite party No.1 performed some procedure upon the effected eye of the complainant and washed her eye. The opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that within few days her eye sight will be fully restored. Opposite party No.1 further prescribed some steroids 40 mg to the complainant. Instead of improving the condition of eyesight of the complainant, rather condition of her eye deteriorated. The steroids prescribed by opposite party No.1 affected her health also. On 07-01-2017 complainant again visited opposite party No.1 for check up and narrated the above said effects and upon which opposite party No.1 advised her to continue with the medicine and steroids. But, everything went in vain, rather the eye and health of complainant further deteriorated.
It is alleged that on 30-01-2017 complainant again visited opposite party No.1 at his hospital and told him that there was no improvement in her eye sight. When complainant asked opposite party No.1 that as to why despite his assurances and despite her taking the medicines and adopting all the procedure prescribed by him, her eye sight, instead of improving, is deteriorating day by day, opposite party No.1 instead of holding and admitting his responsibility, directed the complainant to get herself checked either at Madras or Ambala.
The complainant alleged that on 01-02-2017 she got herself checked from Brar Eye Hospital, near Rose Garden Chowk, Bathinda, where 'ENDOTHELIAL DECOMPENSATION' was diagnosed in her right eye. Concerned doctor at said Brar Eye Hospital cancelled all the medicines being got administered by opposite party No.1 and prescribed new medicines. It was also advised to complainant to get herself treated at Sanjivni Eye and Medicare Centre, Ambala, City immediately.
It is further alleged that on 6th February, 2017, complainant went to Sanjivni Eye and Medicare Centre, Ambala, City and she was operated upon there on 09-02-2017 and discharged on 10-02-107. She further alleged that now eye sight of the complainant is improving day by day but she is still under treatment. The damage caused to her eye sight is permanent and it will require continuous treatment.
The complainant alleged that from the very beginning it was well within the knowledge of opposite party No.1 that due to medical negligence on his part, damage has been caused to the eye of the complainant but despite that instead of disclosing the whole situation to complainant and recommending her in time to approach some better institute for further treatment, opposite party No.1 continued to mislead the complainant. Due to mal-practices, gross medical negligence in profession and negligence/deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, complainant has suffered a lot and her loss is irreparable. The complainant has already incurred an expenditure of more than Rs, 1,50,000/- which is still continuing.
The complainant further alleged that she is entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 4,90,000/- from opposite party No. 1 i.e., Rs. 1,50,000/- as cost of treatment, Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, Rs. 80,000/- as loss of future prospectus and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party No. to pay a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% p.a., as detailed above. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice the opposite parties put in appearance through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No.1 raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the same is a bundle of mis-statements and false allegations. The complainant has grossly inflated and twisted the true facts and there are material omissions therein, rendering the same to be false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant intends to capitalize at the expense of reputation of opposite party No. 1, which is not permissible under the Act. The present complaint is devoid of any merit, rather is defamatory in nature and entails dismissal with special costs under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint. That intricate and contentious questions of fact and law are involved in the present complaint which require extensive oral as well as voluminous documentary evidence, which cannot be decided by way of summary procedure under the 'Act'.
It has been pleaded that the opposite party No.1 has performed his duty as medical practitioner with due diligence, reasonable and proper care, skill and as per the experience available with him. The opposite party had adopted standard and acceptable medical procedure to treat and cure the complainant in the circumstances. The opposite party No. 1 is qualified in the field and has performed numerous surgeries of Eye during his experience of 18 years to the utter satisfaction of the patients. The opposite party No.1 had passed his MBBS from Grant Medical College, Bombay and had passed his Post Graduate Degree i.e. M.S. ( ophthalmology) from Pune University and thereafter he had also served at Sohan Singh Hospital, Amritsar for approx. 2 years and Mahabir Dal Hospital, Bathinda for two years. Even the opposite party No.1 has bagged many Awards for his excellence in the said field and has been delivering the medical literature on the subject of eye in the various conferences, so, held by the medical men, from time to time. Hence, there is no deficiency of any sort, on part of the opposite party No.1 in providing the treatment to the complainant and the present complaint is merely speculative and hypothetical in nature.
Further legal objections are that complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands, rather has intentionally concealed the material facts with an ulterior motive to draw undue benefit therefrom. So, much so that the claim allegedly sought, is highly exaggerated and exorbitant on the fact that no amount of ad-valorem court fees is required to be paid. Even there is concealment of material record and facts on part of the complainant, thereby, revealing malafide intention of the complainant. The complainant has made false allegation regarding her alleged visit on 02-01-2017, 07-01-2017 and 30-01-2017 with the opposite party whereas she has never visited the opposite party No. 1 on the alleged dates and there was no regular follow up of the complainant. That the complainant is not consumer of opposite party No.1 nor is there any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party No.1.
It is pleaded that the opposite party No.1 is indemnified with National Insurance company Ltd, The Mall Bathinda, vide policy No.401000/46/15/8700000557 for the period of 12-02-2016 to 11-02-2017 and as such there is no liability qua opposite party No.1.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 has pleaded that on 24-10-2016, the complainant had approached opposite party No.1 with complaint of decrease of vision for distance of both eyes for the last 2-3 months. The complainant was clinically examined and the optical biometry and slit lamp examination of both the eyes was performed by opposite party No.1. It was found that complainant was suffering from Cataract of both eyes. She was advised cataract Surgery of the right eye. All the pre-operative tests were performed on the complainant on 25-10-2016 i.e. CBS (complete blood count), blood sugar and viral markers. Thereafter complainant was admitted in the hospital of the opposite party No.1 on 25-10-2016 for cataract surgery of right eye. The consent of the complainant was obtained after explaining her the prognosis of the operation and the risks involved therein. She after understanding the same had duly signed the “ consent form” and one of the attendant of the complainant had also witnessed the same. Thereafter the surgery was conducted by the opposite party No.1 in the operation under complete aseptic conditions with all sterilized instruments which were autoclaved with statin class-III autoclave. Pre-operatively the complainant was administered dilating drops (homide drops) and antibiotic drops every 15 minutes before starting the surgery, for two hours. The operation theater was preoperative sterlized by formalin and Hepa Air Filter and UV Light. The operation was performed on stellaris phaco machine and operative microscope. The micro phaco was performed on the right eye. The lens was phaco emulsified using very low ultrasound energy and the surgery was successful and the intra ocular lens was perfectly centered in the capsular bag. Intracameral moxicifloxi was injected to manage any infection and dexamethasone drops were administered on the right eye of the complainant. Thereafter the eye was bandaged by applying eye patch. The complainant was comfortable and had no complaint and accordingly she was discharged and had gone back home by prescribing her certain medicines as per the discharge card issued to her.
It is further pleaded that the complainant had visited the opposite party No.1 on 26-10-2016 and she had reported that she was comfortable throughout the night and there was no pain. The bandage of the right was removed and the eye was cleaned by sterile cotton pad. On slit lamp examination, the lens was perfectly aligned and centered in the bag. The eye was quiet and there were no traces of any infection and there was mild corneal edema. Accordingly, she was prescribed eye drops Diflumac ( steroids) half hourly to control the post operative inflammation; hypersol-5 eye drops two hourly and hypersol ointment at night and dorzox T eye drop twice a day and she was advised to follow up after a three days. It is denied that the complainant was not able to see or that there was no improvement in vision in the right eye or that the same was damaged/lost. It is also denied that she was advised for follow up after 20 days rather she was advised follow up after three days.
It is further pleaded that the complainant did not turn up for follow up and had visited opposite party only on 16-11-2016. On 16-11-2016 the complainant was advised to follow up with the same treatment as there was persistence of mild corneal edema. The complainant had not regularly following up with the opposite party and there was a gap of almost 20 days after 26-10-2016. The opposite party No.1 had advised the complainant for further follow up after one week in order to monitor the condition of the right eye owing to the said gap. However, the complainant did not follow up with the opposite party No.1 after 16-11-2016. The opposite party No. 1 denied that the complainant had visited opposite party No.1 on 02-01-2017 or that any procedure was performed on the affected eye of the complainant and that the opposite party No.1 prescribed steroids to the complainant on the said date.
It is further pleaded that it is all a concoction of events on the part of the complainant who had never followed up with the opposite party No.1 after 16-11-2016 and even she was irregular in follow up prior to the said date. The complainant has failed to produce any prescription slip to the effect that speaks volumes of the malafide intention of the complainant who has raised false allegations. It is denied that the complainant had visited the opposite party for check up on 07-01-2017 and 20-1-2017 and opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to continue with the steroids. The complainant has failed to produce any prescription slip.
It is further pleaded that as per the allegations, there has been no opinion of the said doctor of Brar Eye Hospital on the Intraocular Lens implanted by the opposite party No.1 in the right eye. The complainant has never followed up with opposite party No.1 after 16-11-2016. It is denied that there has been any damage caused to the eye sight of the complainant rather a perusal of the record produced by the complainant reveals that the eye sight of the right eye is 6/6P with best corrected visual acuity that is because of the perfectly centered lens implanted by opposite party No.1. It is denied that there is any medical negligence on party of the opposite party No.1. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
The opposite party No. 2 also filed written reply and raised legal objections that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination, which is not possible in summary procedure under the 'Act'; that complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as opposite party No.2, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complainant has concealed the fact that the opposite party No.1 has performed his duties with due diligence, reasonable and proper care to the best of his skill and experience and no case of medical negligence is made out. The opposite party No.1 is duly qualified in the respective field and has performed numerous surgeries of eye during his experience of 18 years to the full satisfaction of the patients.
Further legal objections that the present compliant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The complainant has not impleaded Brar Eye Hospital, Bathinda and Sanjeevni Eye and Medicare Centre, Ambala City from where he allegedly took treatment after leaving the hospital of opposite party No.1. That the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove any alleged negligence of opposite party No.1. The complainant did not even get the report of any medical expert or team regarding the alleged negligence of opposite party No.1 before summoning the opposite parties or even thereafter till date and that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge.
On merits, the opposite party No. 2 pleaded that as per reply of opposite party No.1, it is clear that the complainant has levelled false allegations that she was not able to see and her entire vision was same as was earlier or there was no improvement or the same was lost/damaged. It is pleaded that the complainant did not follow the instructions of opposite party No.1 and did not approach/turn up for follow up treatment. The complainant did not visit opposite party No.1 on 02-01-2017 and no procedure was performed on the eye of the complainant as alleged and no steroids were prescribed at all. The complainant never turned up for follow up with opposite party No.1 after 16-11-2016. It is denied that the complainant ever visited opposite party No.1 on 07-01-2017 and 30-01-2017. The complainant has not produced on file any medical prescription slip or record to prove any such visit at all. It is further denied that there was any sort of negligence at all on the part of opposite party No.1 and that there is any damage to the eye sight of the complainant due to any treatment of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 2 also denied that eye of the complainant has been damaged due to any medical negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 and that the opposite party No.1 misled the complainant. After denying all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence photo copy of lab report (Ex.C-1), photocopy of reports (Ex.C-2 & C-3), photocopy of prescriptions (Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-5), photocopy of reports (Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10), photocopy of legal notice (Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-12), affidavit of Jagdish Kaur dated 29-01-2018 (Ex.C-13) and closed the evidence.
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. J. S Sra dated 17-12-2018 (Ex.OP1/1), photocopy of medical file containing 16 pages (Ex.OP1/2), photocopy of policy (Ex.OP1/3,) affidavit of Dr. Parul Gupta dated 17-12-2018 (Ex.OP1/4), affidavit of Dr. H.S Sodhi dated 17-12-2018 (Ex.OP1/5), and closed evidence.
The opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 23-10-2018 (Ex. OP2/1) and photocopy of policy with terms and conditions (Ex. OP2/2).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The submission of learned counsel for the complainant is that after surgery, when on the next day bandage was removed by opposite party No. 1from the eye of the complainant, there was no improvement in vision of right eye of the complainant rather the same was damaged/lost. The opposite party No. 1 prescribed some medicine for 20 days. On 16-11-2016, complainant again visited opposite party No. 1 as there was no improvement in the vision of her right eye. The complainant alleged that she made repeated visits to opposite party No. 1 i.e. on 2-1-2017, 7-1-2017 and on 30-1-2017, but there was no improvement in her eye sight despite regular follow up and taking medicines as advised by opposite party No.1.
The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that since the opposite party No. 1 failed to cure the eye of the complainant, on 1-2-2017, she visited Brar Eye Hospital, Bathinda, and got her eye checked where 'Endothelial Decompensation' was diagnosed in her right eye and they advised her to get herself treated at Sanjivni Eye and Medicare Centre Ambala City immediately. On 6-2-2017, complainant visited Sanjivni Eye and Medicare Centre and was operated upon there on 9-2-2017 and discharged on 10-2-2017. The vision of eye of complainant is now improving day by day after operation performed at Sanjivni Eye and Medicare Centre, Ambala. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that due to medical negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1, complainant suffered mentally, physically as well as financially.
On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 is that there is no negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1 in performing surgery. On 25-10-2016, Cataract surgery of right eye of complainant was conducted i.e. micro phaco was performed. The surgery was successful and intra ocular lens was perfectly centered in the capsular bag. Since complainant was comfortable, she was discharged. On 26-10-2016, she visited opposite party No. 1 for removal of bandage. On slit lamp examination, the lens was perfectly aligned and centered in the bag. The eye was quiet and there were no traces of any infection and there was mild corneal edema and corneal edema can be cured after regular follow-up and medication. In this case, complainant did not visit opposite party No. 1 after 16-11-2016.
The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 further submitted that there is no expert evidence to prove any medical negligence on the part of opposite party No.1. As per medical literature “American Academy of Opthalmology” Protecting Sight, Empowering Lives, Corneal Edema is more common after age 50 and women get it more often than men. There is no evidence or report of any expert that operation/surgery conducted by opposite party No. 1 was unsuccessful or opposite party No. 1 was negligent manner. The complainant has suffered another disease i.e. Pseudophakia Bullous Keratopathy, which is not due to surgery conducted by opposite party No. 1. The last visit of complainant to opposite party No. 1 was on 16-11-2016 and she visited Brar Eye Hospital on 1-2-2017 i.e. after three and half month. There is nothing mentioned in prescription slip (Ex. C-5) of Brar Eye Hospital that this disease was due to cataract surgery and surgery performed by opposite party No. 1 is not as per medical ethics.
There is no dispute between the parties that on 25-10-2016 cataract surgery of right eye of the complainant was performed by opposite party No.1 and intra ocular lens was inserted/centered in the capsular bag.
A perusal of file reveals that on 26-10-2016, opposite party No. 1 found that there was mild corneal edema in the operated eye of complainant. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 started treatment. The complainant alleged that after surgery on 26-10-2016, she visited the opposite party No. 1 on 16-11-2016, 2-1-2017, 7-1-2017 and on 30-1-2017, but prescription slip (Ex. C-4) placed on record by complainant reveals that she lastly visited opposite party No. 1 on 16-11-2017. Thereafter she did not visit opposite No.1. Thereafter, after three and half month on 1-2-2017 as per prescription slip (Ex. C-5) she visited Brar Eye Hospital wherein diagnosis Endothelial Decompensation was made. There is nothing in Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5 that surgery performed by opposite party No. 1 was not as per medical norms/ethics.
As per Medical Literature American Academy of Opthalamology – Protecting Sight, Empowering Lives :-
Abstract - “Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy is characterized by corneal stromal edema with epithelial and subepithelial bullae due to cell loss and endothelial decompensation through trauma during cataract surgery. Patients present decreased vision, tearing and pain caused by ruptured epithelial bullae. Cataract affects approximately 20 million people worldwide and this complication can occur in 1 to 2% of the cataract surgeries. This study reviewed the bullous keratopathy etipathogenesis and the clinical and surgical treatment available for this corneal disease.”
It has been further mentioned in this literature that one of the possible cause of Corneal Edema is eye surgery and this complication can occur in 1 to 2% of cataract surgeries. As detailed above, it is also mentioned in above medical literature that bullous keratopathy etipathogenesis and the clinical and surgical treatment available for this corneal disease. The medicine mentioned in this literature to treat Corneal Edema is Diflumox Eye Drops 5 ml, which opposite party No. 1 prescribed (Ex. C-4) to complainant to treat the problem. Cataract surgery was performed on 26-10-2016 and complainant did not visit opposite party No. 1 after 16-11-2017 meaning thereby that she stopped visiting her doctor just after 20 days. The complainant herself is at fault as she instead of approaching opposite party No. 1 visited Brar Eye Hospital that too after three and half months of surgery.
The complainant has failed to prove that opposite party No. 1 is not expert in his field or does not hold degree to perform such surgeries. The complainant has also failed to produce any expert evidence to prove that opposite party No. 1 was negligent in performing her cataract surgery whereas the opposite party No. 1 has placed on file two affidavits of Eye Surgeons. Ex. OP-1/4 is the affidavit of Dr. Parul Gupta, an Eye Surgeon who has served as consultant in Max Hospital, Bathinda and now practising in the name of Gupta Hospital Bathinda. She has mentioned in her said affidavit that Corneal edema is one of the most common complication after cataract surgery. She has further mentioned that endothelial cells have minimal mitotic activity, but with time they migrate and enlarge to fill in a devitalised area if it is not to extensive, but the same has nothing to relate to the cataract surgery that is peformed at the posterial part of the eye whereas cornea is at the anterior. She has also deposed that eye sight of the right eye of patient Jagdish Kaur with Dr. J S Sra reported post operative is 6/6P with best corrected visual acuity that implies that the lens has perfectly implanted in the right eye of the patient.
Ex. OP-1/5 is the affidavit of Dr. H S Sodhi, MS, who has experience of about 30 years in this field. He has deposed in his affidavit that Corneal edema is one of the most common complications after cataract surgery. Post operative corneal edema is a consequences of inadequate endothelial pump function that results in hydration (water logging in the layers of cornea) and opacification of the Corneal Stroma. The incidence of endothelial decompensation after cataract surgery is less than 1%. Some times in cataract surgery even the perfect eye can cause loss of endothelial cell, which is a common complication. So, the occurrence of any common complication cannot be equated with negligence.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled C P Sreekumar, M S (ortho) Vs. S Ramanujam 2009 (4) CLT 319 has held that :
“Complainant failed to produce any evidence as to doctor's lack of skill and expertise in performing the operation – held, bald statement of complainant cannot be accepted – when he has neither produced contrary evidence nor rebutted doctor's version that aggravation was due to muscular spasm – Negligence cannot be attributed to the hospital staff with certainty.
Hon'ble Supreme in the case Titled Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2005) 6 SCC 1 has also held that :
48.(2) Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of a occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgement or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
It has been further held that :-
“ ....(3) No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient as the professional reputation of the person is at stake.
(4) A surgeon with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient.”
Hon'ble National Commission in the case titled Shiv Dial Singh Vs. Shree Sanatan Dharam Mahavir Dal Hospital & 2 Ors and Dr. Ashok Sharma C/o Shree Sanatan Dharm Mahavir Dal Hospital and Dr. J K Gupta C/o Shree Sanatan Dharam Mahavir Dal Hospital – 2014 (3) CPC 411, has held that :-
“Medical negligence – Loss of eye sight – Surgery – Patient suffering injury in left eye but he approached OP for treatment after 4 months - Tranmatic cataract had developed during this period – Respondent carried operation but there was permanent disability which was due to delay on the part of petitioner/complainant - Even PGI doctor did not find any negligence in performance of surgery by the respondent as treatment was given as per standard medical practice – Respondent cannot be held liable for medical negligence - Relief declined.”
Honble National Commission in the case titled Vidhya Bhushan (Dr) Vs. Madan Awadhesh Institute and anr., 2007(1) CPJ 70 has held that :-
“In this case we find that Dr. Prasad possessed adequate skill and knowledge to handle this case and he has exercised the duty of care in undertaking the case, duty of care in deciding what treatment to give and duty of care in the administration of that treatment. He has brought to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and has excercised a reasonable degree of care.”
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 161 – held that :-
“......7. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.”
Therefore keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that in a case of alleged medical negligence what is required to be seen is whether the doctor concerned charged with negligence has acted in accordance with the general and approved practice and if it is proved that he has followed such practice then it is enough to clear him of any charge of negligence. In the case in hand, complainant failed to prove that procedure adopted and sugery performed by opposite party No. 1 is not as per approved medical practice/eithics.
Resultantly, complainant has failed to prove any medical negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1 by producing any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
