PARSANNI Vs. SUBE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of compensation where the claimant was 60 years of age, suffered fracture of the shaft of femur that resulted in shortening of her limb and she carried a limp in her gait. In her hospital record, her age was shown to be 70 yeas. She had been hospitalised soon after the accident on 30.4.1991 and she had been discharged from the hospital on 14.6.1991. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal took note of the fact that she had been assessed as having 30 per cent disability and compensation of Rs.10,000 had been awarded as a lump sum payment. The Tribunal discarded the medical bills which had been in court and assigned mark-1 to mark-9 on the ground that they had not been proved.

(2.) A lump sum ascertainment without addressing each of the heads of claim is a very unsatisfactory mode of disposal. The patient had a fracture of the neck of femur resulting in hospitalisation and it must have caused her enormous pain and difficulty in walking. She was an old person and the problem of immobility must have meant a greater amount of discomfort. I have looked into the records and find the expenses for medical treatment had been sought to be substantiated by production of medical bills secured through drug stores. The practice of merely marking them but not exhibiting them in evidence and looking for proof by examination of a chemist is quite a needless exercise. The Tribunals must be more pragmatic in their approach while dealing with the cases for motor accident victims and invoke the power which is ested in them under sections 168 and 169 in such a fashion that they do not shackle themselves by unrealistic procedures to meet the ends of justice. Unless the bills seem fabricated or there is something very peculiar elicited at the trial to doubt genuineness of the bills, the Tribunal dealing with the motor accident cases ought not to be looking for evidence through a chemist who had issued the bills. The production of the bills relating to the purchase of medicines during the period of hospitalisation and oral evidence given by the party about purchasing of medicines ought to be taken as sufficient proof of authentication and admissibility of these documents.

(3.) EVEN as regards the examination of doctors, it should be confined only to securing appropriate proof of disability and in special circumstances where there is a prolonged treatment or a requirement for a continuous treatment even beyond the period of trial, the attempt of the Tribunal must be to elicit from the doctors the prognosis for cure and the likely expenses that may have to be incurred in future. With a view to devise a procedure adopted in the manner of assigning dates for doctors and the need to save time for professionals like doctors, they must stay confined to what are most essential features to assist the court to understand the nature of injuries and assess disability, if any, to the claimant. They shall not be merely called to the courts for exhibiting some documents like MLR, period of treatment, etc. A hospital document produced by a party which is duly authenticated must be taken as sufficient proof of the documents themselves and the requirement to produce the doctor for mere production of hospital documents must be immediately given up.