High Court Karnataka High Court

Kashinath S/O Nagappa … vs The Branch Manager Oriental … on 10 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Kashinath S/O Nagappa … vs The Branch Manager Oriental … on 10 December, 2008
Author: Manjula Chellur B.V.Nagarathna
., W- ..,... .... nu-nu':-u.I~'u\l'-1 mun \...U|JA'IA{,.l<$_:J2' KAKNATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR

:5: THE: §~}fI{}H COURT' OF KARNATAKA <::::R<;:urr Br::N{<';:§§{'j-«._ '-.A

AT' GU LBARGA _ 

DATED THIS 'E'H'E 10TH my 01:':3E<::EMB§:R;'_12.§0:§::~  T'

PRESENT » T T T A L
THE HON'BLEE MRS. JUSTIQE M};§£'.J1}L;;i <::'~£E'I,I;;me' n K
Am)  V. ' '  
THE :~1cm"B1,1s: MRs,:"3.:§ST:C'§: £:2;.§*§fi:'A;3AR}§:*HN;é;

M.F.A. N05953:?)-2:{305;_z§;g_?}'_»V.. ' 

BETWEEN: H   

Iiashinath   ;: '   ._
S] 0. Nagappa.,Sf:=e€:I::fi;3nz;.!1 
Age-td abztqut 59  _  . _
{);$E3 .§E%i%'3;dar, Adv.)

A " AND: 

.  4 ' *  'Fhr:_ Bfajfich Manager

" « . V' Qmemax Insurance Co.Ltd.

  3Rz9i1m_ing, all other medical records pertajirg 

311:? the subsequent peried. PW"? is   

treated and operated the Iefin""i';ume;%_:L1$V<" E3;

irzserting a rod in the left. am1 '"{}_f 

evidence of the doctor 1'ei'ie(:i:4e"'~t31at viI1itial1y'v_;aV"£r4é{Ct1ire ef"

left hand was suspee*:ed, hut;  £ie"h}vestigefioI1
whatsoever seems 1-.¢   Later an, an
9.10.1995

, the same
deeter wiiifi aim, may illvestigatfid
and eL’§r%;1et11re of left humerus.

‘£’hereVfc~.re,«’. he hhospitai upte 28,10. 2995
during pei-‘i(A>A(‘1.b’}V?1ie»LV was epemted as stated by the

H ef the entire evidence of the doctor,

eXee§f.”V.§a’}?’}iI}g that he treated and operated the patient,

” .. nI’ega1’d§:i1g the fracture ef the ieft hL1I1}|33Z’i_}S, he does not
“‘-gfiie any account of disability as each suffered. by the

V Huappeilarxt due to the fracture of the lei’: heed. (311 me

ether hence, the doctor says that the appeilagt. was
visit§.:1g him for Some ether preblem. ‘I’heugh ?W3 was

examined to Show that he was treating him for the

n w..uu:u Ur IKAKNAIAKA HIGH KARNATAKA I-!iGH COURT OF KARNAYAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H16}-‘1 COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR

hi5 leave. Though 13.0 mcord OI’ Whatsoevex” is

befora us for how long he was on leave and”-fix-*hz11:. WasT» H

his exact salary as on the dategcéf ‘”acci:.de:1t_j’vE:avir:;g L”

regard to totality of the t:ircL:n;stan;:e_s ‘3_f1d ”

far the wife to secure £*ec1:ds, :~*s§”are of {hat
a global enhancement 0§’RS.15;00{}’g’~V’§iTQLfid jiist and

proper under the circumstaficesgisxcséi’ v5}::fO1’e us.

5. Accordingly, ‘:_’t~_;’p1f)zea.1«– fis Eilibwed if}. part
Cdizgpéflfiafiéfl « _ V 15 ,0{}(}/ – payabie
t0get11er .3vith p.51. fmm the data of ciairn

petitioza. pfasséiztefii _ ” till the paymez1t.

_..,.’Fhre(%;43l;1ic>i?it.t.1s’ V’i:i1:3eV____i_$_g:*a11ted 1:0 deposit the amount

V ‘ ‘ . ;Cl1f’:IFE§Q}ii??3d « ai:\Qi;r’::_.

3’\ *3

361/1!
I udg3

3d/-J
Iudg3

Sit