VARINDER SINGH Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is at the instance of the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation for injury sustained in a motor accident. The claimant was 21 years of age and was an agriculturist and claimed that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. After the accident on 23.01.2008, he was treated at CHC, Assandh as outdoor patient and he was referred to General Hospital, Karnal where he remained as indoor patient and took further treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak. The Medical Board constituted at the General Hospital, Karnal certified him to have suffered 90% loss in hearing- The Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs,9,65,000/- that included treatment cost of Rs. 8,28,000/- and the other heads of claim were disability Rs. 90,000/-, loss of income Rs. 18,000/-, pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- and transportation and special diet Rs. 9,000/-. The contention in appeal is that yet another surgery has to be performed for another ear also and the cost of equipment and the cost of treatment were also required to be provided for. The counsel would point out to the evidence of Dr. G.L. Dhal, Senior Medical Officer at General Hospital, Karnal, who had immediately after the accident examined him when he found that he was having a hearing loss of 99.66 dB in left ear and 84.33 dB in right ear and the total hearing handicap was 90%. A Senior Consultant, Department of ENT, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at New Delhi had given a certificate exhibited as P-18 where he had given evidence to the effect that a cochlear implant package at the hospital would cost Rs. 1,00,000/- towards treatment charges that included hospitalization charges for a single room, operation charges, theater charges etc. and this was exclusive of the cost of equipment itself. The appellant had provided documentary proof that a cochlear implant would cost Rs. 9,26,000/-. Cochlear implant, I gather helps a patient understand speech better. The quality of sound, it is believed, is different from natural hearing, with less sound information being received and processed by the brain. The counsel would also argue that the petitioner has not been provided for loss of future earning and recurrent cost of change of batteries.

(2.) The counsel appearing for the insurance company contends that the averment made in the claim petition itself showed that he had hearing impairment only in one ear and for that he had already been provided for. There could be no scope for further treatment of yet another ear. The counsel makes specific reference to Clause 13 of the petition, which states that "due to the accident, the left car of the appellant became permanently disabled as he is not in a position to hear anything." I have seen through the entire evidence and 1 find that the petition must be understood properly in the context of the facts and circumstances. While stating that the appellant is not able to hear anything from the left ear, he did not make surely any reference to the right ear but it is seen from the evidence of PW1 himself, who while referring him to PGIMS, Rohtak has carried out test of hearing capacity as Medical Officer, GH, Karnal and found that he was having hearing loss in both ears to the extent already mentioned above. The claimant himself has given evidence as PW4 to the effect that he had already undergone a surgery at Sir Ganga Rani Hospital, New Delhi and he remained in hospital from 24.05.2009 to 27.05.2009 and he had spent Rs. 1,01,897/- towards hospital charges and Rs. 5,35,000/- towards cost of equipment. He had also stated that Dr. A.K. Lahiri, Senior Consultant, Department of ENT Sir Ganga Ram Hospital has advised cochlear implant to the left ear. He had also stated that he was a "deaf patient having 90% hearing handicap". He had also stated that he is totally incapable of doing any cultivation and that he had to engage services of two servants for looking after and doing the said cultivation for which he has to spent Rs. 6,000/- per month.

(3.) In the manner in which the evidence has been brought, it is clear that the appellant requires further treatment and the cost of equipment and the medical expenses would be about Rs. 10,26,000/-. The entire amount would require to be provided and on the basis that there is adequate medical evidence to show that he requires further treatment and that the cost of equipment and hospital expenses including the surgeon's fee would cost him additional amounts. I will provide the same for him as admissible compensation.