1.      Heard learned counsel for the appellant – opposite  party no. 1 (the hospital) and the authorized representative on behalf of  the respondent no. 1 - complainant.  Perused the material on record.  

2.      This is a case of alleged medical negligence, which resulted in the death of the patient. 

3.      The complaint in c.c. no. 223 of 2015 has been filed before the State Commission by the mother of the deceased patient.

4.      The present first appeal has been professed against the Order dated 24.08.2017 of the State Commission passed in c.c. no. 223 of 2015.

5.      The State Commission vide its said Order dated 24.08.2017 has allowed the complaint.  The opposite parties had not appeared before the State Commission even after the due service of notice. The State Commission had applied the ‘principle of acquiescence on behalf of the doctors’.                                     

   6.      Without in any manner attempting to examine or adjudicate on the case on merit, we observe that the opposite party no. 1 is the concerned hospital. The opposite parties no. 2 to 4 are the treating doctors (refer para 2 of the complaint), and specific allegations have inter alia been made against them (refer paras 2, 7, 9 and 15 of the complaint).  The opposite party no. 5 is the medical officer. 

7.      We note that the opposite parties no. 1 to 5 did not appear before the State Commission even after service of notice.  They did not avail of the opportunity to rebut  the allegation made against them. 

8.      We are but of the opinion that this being a case of alleged medical negligence, resulting in the death of the patient, it should, as far as (lawfully) feasible, be comprehensively and holistically examined on merit in the forum of original jurisdiction (State Commission), with the affording of the due opportunity to all the parties involved to adduce their evidence / defence.

9.      We note that when the opposite party no. 1, the hospital, and the opposite parties no. 2 to 4, the treating doctors, and the opposite party no. 5, the medical officer, did not appear before the State Commission, it has compromised their defence, thereby affecting the comprehensive and holistic examination of the case on merit. We, however, simultaneously also note that they did not appear before the State Commission despite notice, and that the State Commission held that “- - - it is clearly established that there was ex facie deficiency in service and resultant medical negligence on the part of the OPs - - -”.

10.    In the interest of justice, and for holistic and comprehensive examination of the case on merit in the forum of original jurisdiction, it is just and appropriate to provide one opportunity to the opposite parties no. 1 to 5 to appear and present their case before the State Commission, but subject to just and reasonable cost. 

11.    In the facts and specificities of the case, we deem a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the opposite party no. 1 – hospital and Rs. 25,000/- each on the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 – treating doctors and medical officer (total Rs. 2,00,000/-) to be just and reasonable. 

12.    The impugned Order dated 24.08.2017 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the State Commission for adjudication afresh.  The opposite parties no. 1 to 5 are allowed one opportunity to appear before the State Commission and present their case professionally before it, subject to payment of the above – mentioned cost to the complainant – mother of the deceased patient directly in her name by way of ‘payee’s a/c only’ demand draft/s within four weeks from today. It shall be the responsibility of the opposite party no. 1 - hospital to send a responsible functionary to courteously and politely hand over the ‘payee’s a/c only’ demand draft/s totaling Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant at reasonable time with her prior permission at her residence or place of work (if any) within the said period of four weeks from today.

13.    All parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 24.06.2019. The principal onus of informing the opposite parties no. 1 to 5 – treating doctors and medical officer of this Order of this Commission shall be on the opposite party no. 1 – hospital.

14.      Let a copy each of this Order be sent to the State Commission and to all opposite parties (including the complainant) within ten days by the Registry.