JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Not fully contended with the order dated 29.09.08 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 121/2000, the original complainant has filed the present appeal seeking upgradation of the relief granted to him. 2. The complaint before the State Commission related to alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party hospital and the doctors in giving treatment to the ..2.. complainant for the injuries which he sustained in a road accident. The complainant alleged that though he was given prompt treatment for the multiple head injuries etc. but there was considerable delay in treating the cranio-faciomaxillary injuries which resulted into permanent disability of the face of the appellant/complainant despite he having been given subsequent treatment at R & R Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital. The complaint filed by the complainant was resisted by the opposite party hospital and the doctors denying any negligence or deficiency in service on their part and it was sought to be explained that whatever was required in the circumstances to treat the patient after he had suffered such grave injuries including life threatening injuries to his head, was done and that there was no delay in the treatment as such. The State Commission, going by the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material placed on record, partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.1, Apollo Hospital to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings by holding as under:- “ There is no medical expert opinion produced by the complainant that may deal with any of complication or the problem faced subsequently by the complainant. There is also no expert opinion in the field of plastic surgery or other surgeries that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the ..3.. first priority was to avail the service of maxillofacial surgeon and not plastic surgeon or other surgeon. Rather the medical literature on the subject as cited by the OP suggests Cranio-facio-maxmillary injuries particularly the ones complicated by the other life threatening injuries are treated by plastic and reconstruction surgeon and not by the dentist. The timing of treatment of facial fractures and mode of treatment is decided after taking into consideration the over all condition of the particularly when they are suffering from life threatening injuries to the other parts of body specially head injury. In our view subsequent complications could have been well avoided, had the OP taken the x-ray immediately and not waited for five days and again could have resorted to the surgery without waiting further period of four days but this is limited deficiency as the doctor attending to the complainant were highly qualified skilled persons and there is nothing on record suggesting that the line of treatment was wrong.” 4. In the reckoning of the complainant, the compensation so awarded by the State Commission is quite inadequate because he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% as certified by the competent authority. 5. We have heard Mr. Sunil Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Rita Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent no.3 and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. ..4.. 6. One of the grounds taken by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal to assail the impugned order is that during the pendecny of complaint, the complainant had moved an application u/s 13 (4) of C.P., Act, 1986 seeking direction to summon two witnesses, namely, Dr. Dhirendra Srivastava, Maxillofacial Surgeon, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and Dr. Lt. Col. Suresh Menon, Maxillofacial Surgeon, Army Hospital, Dentel Centre (R&R), Delhi Cantt. New Delhi as witnesses in support of his case but the said doctors were not willing to give their affidavits and come forward to depose, though they have given treatment and opinion subsequent to the treatment he has received from the hospital. According to the complainant, the said application was not disposed of either by accepting the same, by giving direction for summoning the said witnesses or declining the same. In this connection, he has invited our attention to two order sheets dated 20.01.05 and 16.05.05 which read as under:- “ ORDER 20.01.05 Application moved by complainant for summoning two expert witness who are doctors. This is a case of seeking compensation on account of Medical Negligence on part of respondent. The copy of opinion of the doctors whom the complaint seeks to examine be supplied to the O.P. By that ..5.. time, the respondents shall file the reply to the application, if already not filed. Re-list on 16.05.2005.” ORDER 16.05.05 In order to prove the opinion of the two doctors who have given their opinion without affidavit, let reply to the application of the complainant for summoning these doctors be filed. The copy of the opinion be first furnished to the respondent – OP and reply be filed by the respondent within two weeks. Then we will consider summoning the doctors. Re-list on 05.09.2005. “ 7. The above orders of the State Commission would show that the State Commission though initially was inclined to consider the application by asking the opposite parties to file their reply but did not take the said process to a logical conclusion either by accepting the application or declining the same. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that no specific order was made on the said application and the matter was listed by the State Commission for final hearing because the complainant did not press the said application. It is difficult to accept this bald contention because had it been so the State Commission would have certainly recorded that the ..6.. application is being disposed of as not pressed by making some observations of that kind before proceeding the matter further and disposing of the complaint. The fact remains that the complainant has been deprived of his valuable right and opportunity to substantiate his case which he wanted to do through the evidence of the above named doctors which were appeared to be reluctant to appear before the State Commission. In our view, it is a fit case which requires to be reconsidered by the State Commission after summoning the above named two witnesses as was sought for by the complainant. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for deciding the complaint afresh after affording due opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their contentions. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 4.03.10 for seeking directions in the matter.