Shriram General Insurance Company LTD. vs. Rakesh Valtiya

Held

The Court held that the disability certificate (Ex. P/130) issued by Dr. Sharad Dwivedi was forged, as the claimant stated he never visited Victoria Hospital, making it impossible for the doctor to have examined him. The certificate lacked the endorsement of the District Medical Board. Consequently, the Court referred the certificate and the award to the Principal Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare, for departmental enquiry against Dr. Sharad Dwivedi. Regarding Dr. Balkrishan Dang, the Court found his evidence false, noting the claimant never visited Suvidha Hospital, rendering bills from there forged. The Court also found the bills from Maa Pharmacy (Ex. P-11 to Ex. P-108) inadmissible due to the absence of GST/Sales Tax numbers and seals. The Court directed the deduction of Rs. 24,000/- for Suvidha Hospital bills and Rs. 99,053/- for Maa Pharmacy bills from the total compensation. The Court also referred the matter concerning Dr. Balkrishan Dang to the Medical Council of India for appropriate action due to his alleged history of producing false certificates. Furthermore, a direction was issued to the Director General of Police to constitute an SIT to investigate cases of false implication involving connivance between claimants, police, officials, and doctors, and to the State Bar Council for action against the claimant's counsel, Shri Manoj Shivhare, for obtaining a forged certificate. The total compensation was reduced from Rs. 2,74,096/- to Rs. 2,22,043/- after deductions.

Facts

This miscellaneous appeal was filed by Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. against an award dated 09.03.2021 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur. The claimant, Rakesh Valtiya, had also filed a cross-objection for enhancement of the award. The insurance company argued that the claimant admitted in his cross-examination that he had never visited Victoria Hospital and that his disability certificate (Ex. P/130) was obtained by his counsel. It was also contended that Dr. Balkrishan Dang's treatment papers were from Sudha Hospital, not Suvidha Hospital as stated by him, and that discharge card and bills from Suvidha Hospital appeared fabricated due to date discrepancies. The claimant also admitted to being treated at various government hospitals and Sudha Hospital, Jabalpur, but not Victoria Hospital. The court noted that numerous medicine bills from 'Maa Pharmacy' (Ex. P-11 to Ex. P-108) lacked GST numbers or seals, raising questions about their admissibility.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disability certificate (Ex. P/130) issued by Dr. Sharad Dwivedi is forged and inadmissible in evidence, and if so, what action should be taken against the doctor? 2. Whether the treatment papers and bills related to Dr. Balkrishan Dang and Suvidha Hospital are fabricated and inadmissible, and if so, what is the impact on the awarded compensation? 3. Whether the medicine bills from Maa Pharmacy (Ex. P-11 to Ex. P-108) are admissible in evidence without GST/Sales Tax numbers or seals, and if not, what deduction should be made from the compensation? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner (insurance company) argued that the claimant's admission regarding not visiting Victoria Hospital and obtaining the disability certificate through his counsel indicates fraud. They also pointed to discrepancies in hospital records and the lack of GST/Sales Tax details on pharmacy bills as evidence of fabrication and professional misconduct by doctors and connivance with the claimant and his counsel. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (claimant) filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of the award. Regarding the admissibility of bills and certificates, the respondent's counsel had no answer when questioned by the court about the absence of GST numbers on the Maa Pharmacy bills. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent defending the validity of the disputed medical documents.