The First Appeal challenges an impugned award. The court reviewed medical documents including an unsigned X-ray report and a discharge ticket, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the report lacked signatures. Finding the award not perverse, the appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2567 of 2007
Appellant :- Dhani Ram Madhuriya Respondent :- Divisional Manager U.P.Parivahan Nigam And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar,Mangla Prasad Rai,R.P.Ram,Sudhir Dixit
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(1) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I have also gone through the lower court record which was summoned on an earlier point of time.
(2) The papers that have been referred to in the Award impugned i.e. Paper No.27Ga-2, Paper No.28Ga-2 and Paper No.29Ga-2, Paper No.30Ga-2 have been carefully perused by me. The Tribunal has given a correct finding in so far as its observations regarding there being no signatures on the X-ray report of 14.01.2005 is concerned. The X-ray report says that no bone injury seen. Only Osteo-Arthritis changes seen and no abnormality detected. The patient was at the time of such X-ray 65 years of age and its normal for such an old person for Osteo-Arthritis changes in his spine and hip joint. The X-ray report mentioned in Paper No.30Ga-2 is unsigned. There is no report of any doctor of examination of the patient on 14.01.2005. There is a discharge ticket also from Anandi Nursing Home dated 25.01.2005 which shows that Traction was given and the treatment was conservative. The prescription also gives pain killers and antacids for Gastro intestinal irritation. There is another prescription from Anandi Nursing Home dated 03.02.2005 where the patient himself did not appear before the doctor and the doctor has noted 'proxy by son' and central spinal dislocation with development of bed sores. On the same prescription, the doctor has written that Traction shall continue on 22.02.2005.
(3) Finding recorded by the Tribunal does not seem to be perverse from the papers on record. This Court, therefore, cannot show any interference. The appeal is dismissed .
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 PAL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned award of the Tribunal should be interfered with despite unsigned medical reports?
If the Tribunal's finding regarding the unsigned X-ray report is correct, can this Court disturb it?
Dhani Ram Madhuriya
Divisional Manager U.P.Parivahan Nigam
Another
Sangeeta Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
