FAO No.5265 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5265 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: March 29, 2011 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE ...APPELLANT COMPANY LTD. VERSUS SMT. KANWALJIT KAUR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MS. VANDANA MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. K.V.S. KANG, ADVOCATE AMICUS CURIAE. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the insurance company denying the claim of compensation for an abortion as resultant to the accident. The accident had taken place on 11.4.2008 and the claimant had an abortion on 22.5.2008. The hospital records showed that she had chickenpox on 3.5.2008, for about 10 days. The Ultrasonography (ESG) showed 'missed abortion' 4 weeks with absent foetal movement. Mr. K.V.S. Kang, Amicus Curiae points that missed abortion is a medical expression meaning an Intrauterine death of foetus that is not followed by its immediate expulsion. The expression is used for an abortion in which foetus dies, but it is retained within the uterus for 2 months or longer. The issue, whether the abortion had resulted only on account of accident or it was due to another intervening factor such as FAO No.5265 of 2010 -2- chickenpox, is essentially a matter of evidence and desirability to be supported by an expert trained in Medicine. If the foetus had died immediately after the accident, namely, on 11.4.2008, it could be stated that abortion was the result of the accident itself. In my view, it will not be appropriate to draw inferences from a discharge summary from the hospital without medical evidence to explain the actual cause for abortion. 2. I will give an opportunity to the claimant to establish the said fact through appropriate medical evidence. The award which is passed is set aside and the case is remitted to the Tribunal for disposal in the light of what is stated above. 3. I record my appreciation for the Amicus Curiae highlighting some of the aspects of the medical terms involved in the case. 4. The amount of `25,000/- deposited by the insurance company is ordered to be refunded to the insurance company. 5. The fee of the Amicus Curiae be paid from out of the High Court Amicus Curiae fund. 6. For appearance of parties before MACT, Karnal on 10.5.2011. March 29, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE