HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This instant complaint case was filed under section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with other relevant provisions and sections of the said Act by the complainants Rubynessa Khatoon and Mustak Khan alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties who had caused tremendous medical negligence to the complainant No. 1 and ultimate loss of life to the newly born child.
- The complainants have filed the instant complaint case praying for the following reliefs : -
“a) To refund the entire money of Rs.1,00,000/- along with 18% interest in favour of the complainant;
b) To pay compensation and mental agony of Rs.45,00,000/- and interest from the date of agreement;
c) To pay litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- and / or to pass any other order or orders which the Learned Forum may deem fit and proper.”
- The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 1 is the Doctor attached to the opposite party No. 2 Nursing Home. The opposite party No. 2 is carrying with business in the name and style of ‘Seba Nursing Home’. The complainant No. 1 Rubynessa Khatoon was admitted under the supervision of the opposite party No. 1 on 20.07.2015 as the complainant No. 1 conceived and had experienced labour pain. The opposite party No. 1 Doctor asked the complainant No. 2 to get his daughter-in-law admitted under the opposite party No. 2 Nursing Home. Accordingly, the complainant No. 2 in due course got his daughter-in-law admitted as per the instruction of the opposite party No. 1 doctor. The opposite party No. 1 had informed the opposite party No. 2 that the child in the womb was fully grown and arrangements of delivery will be done after removing of Copper – T. The symptoms of the complainant No. 1 gradually became serious and the attending nurse was repeatedly told to take care of the patient being the daughter-in-law of the complainant No. 2. The complainant No. 2 saw the daughter-in-law / complainant No. 1 who was suffering unbearable pain. The complainant No. 2 informed the same to the opposite party No. 1 doctor and the management of the opposite party No. 2 Nursing Home. But nobody took any initiative to decrease the pain of the complainant No. 1. After tremendous tussle by and between the complainants and the opposite party No. 2 Nursing Home, the opposite party No. 1 doctor came to the Nursing Home in a drunken state and on 20.07.2015 at 11.00 a.m. asked the attending nurse to take the patient in the operation theatre. On the following day at 5.00 a.m. the sister informed the complainants that a male child was born and thereafter an injection was infused in the body of the child and after infusion crying of the baby was stopped. Thereafter, the doctor informed the complainants that the child had died. On hearing the same, complainant No. 1 could not restrain her cry and all the female members were mourned in grief after hearing the death of the newly born baby.
- Further case of the complainants is that on 22nd July, 2015 the complainant No. 1 was discharged from the opposite party No. 2 Nursing Home without recording any reason.
- Further case of the complainants is that the complainants informed the opposite party No. 5 about the illegality which was carrying practice by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 respectively till date but unfortunately, the District Magistrate has not taken any step for the redressal of the same. On 19.10.2015 the complainant No. 2 once again addressed to the opposite party No. 6 but no steps have been taken by the opposite party No. 6 against the opposite party No. 1 & 2. On the basis of the representation by the complainants made to the opposite parties No. 3 & 4, the opposite party No. 4 vide their letter dated 09.12.2015 has requested the complainant No. 2 to submit self attested copy of treatment documents.
- Further case of the complainants is that the opposite party No. 1 in connivance with the opposite party No. 2 are performing illegal activities, such as, abortions of unmarried girls and the same was also informed to the opposite party No. 3 about the medical negligence caused to them by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The complainants also lodged a complaint to the opposite party No. 3. After receiving the same had responded vide letter dated 09.12.2015 and requested the complainants to submit requisite documents to the respondent No. 3.
- Further case of the complainants is that the negligence on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 was caused with the intention to mount the pressure upon the claim of the complainants. The complainant No. 1 was suffering a lot of mental agony, anxiety and harassment due to the unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. Hence, this case.
- The opposite party No. 1 Dr. Tarun Kumar Chatterjee and opposite party No. 2, the Chief Medical Hospital and Seba Nursing Home entered appearance in this case and were contesting the case by filing a joint written version denying the material allegations as made in the petition of complaint. Their specific case is that the complainant No. 1 Rubynessa Khatoon, 24 years old muslim female, had consulted with the opposite party No. 1 doctor with pregnancy of seven weeks and four days having Cu-T (Copper – T an intrauterine contraceptive device). During consultation, the complainant No. 1 had expressed her willingness to remove the said Cu-T. The opposite party No. 1 doctor had categorically explained to the complainant No. 1 as well as her husband that removal of such Cu – T would disturb her pregnancy and, as such, it was advisable to terminate her pregnancy upon removal of Cu – T but husband of the complainant No. 1 objected and refused to such termination and further expressed their willingness to continue with the pregnancy.
- Further case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that the opposite party No. 1 doctor explained to the complainant No. 1 and her husband about the possible risk and effects on continuation of the pregnancy with such Cu – T although it per se will not cause harm except for occasional bleeding per vagina or premature labour. After such detailed counselling the complainant No. 1 decided to continue with the pregnancy on 21.06.2015 and, as such, the continuing the pregnancy without any complaint. On 18.07.2015 when the complainant No. 1 was twenty weeks’ pregnant as part of routine checkup, the complainant No. 1 had visited the clinic of the opposite party No. 1 Doctor and did not have any complaint as such. However, on 20.07.2015 the complainant No. 1 suddenly complained of premature labour pain and accordingly was advised to get admitted to the opposite party No. 2 nursing home.
- Further case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that on 20.07.2015 at about 09.45 a.m. the complainant No. 1 was admitted to the opposite party No. 2 nursing home under the opposite party No. 1 Doctor with complaints of such premature labour pain. After admission, Tocoytic ( Duvadilan Drip) was started along with analgesic. The complainant No. 1 responded to the treatment for a day. The relatives of the complainant No. 1 had been repeatedly insisting the opposite party No. 1 Doctor to perform a L. U. C. S. which in the opinion of the opposite party No. 1 Doctor was neither necessary nor indicated. As such, the opposite party No. 1 Doctor continued conservative management.
11. Further case of the opposite party No. 1 & 2 is that on 21.07.2015 pain started to increase and the complainant No. 1 was given analgesic injection. But unfortunately, on 22.07.2015 at around 5.00 a.m. the said twenty week foetus had spontaneously expelled out and as a result thereof, the opposite party No. 1 Doctor had to perform D & E to extract the remaining material, if any. The patient was discharged in a stable condition on 22.07.2015.
12. Further case of the opposite party No. 1 & 2 is that despite every sincere effort, the foetus which was too premature to exist in individual capacity could not be saved. The patient was under the care and treatment of the opposite parties and the patient was treated with due diligence and care. The opposite party No. 1 Doctor had done which any reasonable and prudent man would have done and there cannot exist any reason to him to think otherwise.
13. Further case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that at no point of time the opposite party No. 1 Doctor said that the child in the womb was fully grown and that arrangement for delivery would be done after removing the Cu – T.
14. Further case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that medical reality that the child had died because it was highly premature and incapable of individual existence.
15. Further case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that the treating Doctor extended his best endeavour to cure the patient.
16. Further case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that the complainants have initiated the instant case with ulterior intent to harass the opposite parties and make illegal financial gains out of the same. As such, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.
17. The opposite party No. 3 entered appearance in this case and is also contesting the case by filing separate written version wherein he has denied the material allegation as mentioned in the petition of complaint. The specific case of the opposite party No. 3 is that the opposite party No. 1 Dr. Tarun Kumar Chatterjee is not under the control of the Director of Health Services and works in private capacity. The opposite party No. 3 is not at all connected with any allegation as alleged by the complainants. In the entire application filed by the complainants there is no allegation against the opposite party No. 3. So, the opposite party No. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the consumer case.
18. Notices were duly served upon the opposite parties No. 4,5 & 6. In spite of serving notice upon them they did not turn up and did not contest the case by filing written version. As such, the case was proceeded ex parte against them.
19. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
20. Issues :-
- Is the complaint case maintainable ?
- Are the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants ?
- Are the complainants entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
21. Decisions with reasons :-
Issue No. 1. :
This issue is taken up first for consideration.
This issue has not been pressed by the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants and by the Learned Lawyer appearing for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 at the time of hearing arguments. So, this issue is decided in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties.
Issues No. 2 & 3 :-
These two issues are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and their interrelatedness.
22. Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainants has urged that on 20.07.2015 the complainant No. 1 upon the advice of the opposite party No.1 Doctor got admitted in the opposite party No. 2 nursing home wherein the opposite party No. 1 Doctor stated that the child in the womb was fully grown and arrangement will be done after removing the Cu – T. He has further argued that the complainant No. 1 was in severe pain and remain unattended for a long time. Thereafter, on raising agitation by the patient’s relatives the opposite party No. 1 Doctor came in a drunken state at 11.00 a.m. on 20.07.2015.
23. He has further urged that on 21.07.2015 at around 05.00 a.m. a nurse informed that the complainant No. 1 gave birth to a male baby and thereafter an injection was infused into the body of the new born baby and after the said infusion the baby stopped crying and the opposite party No. 1 Doctor informed the patient party that the baby had died. Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainants has further urged that the opposite parties practiced unfair trade practice. So, the complaint case should be allowed and the complainants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.46,50,000/- (Rupees forty six lakh and fifty thousand only ) from the opposite parties.
24. On the other hand, Learned Lawyer appearing for the opposite parties 1 & 2 has urged that at no point of time the opposite party No. 1 Doctor said that the baby in the womb was fully grown and the arrangement for delivery will be done after removing the Cu – T. The complainant No. 1 came with seven weeks’ pregnancy before the opposite party No. 1 Doctor and expressed her willingness to remove the Cu – T. The opposite party No. 1 Doctor explained in detail that removal of such Cu – T would disturb her pregnancy. The opposite party No. 1 had explained to the complainant No. 1 and her husband about the possible risks and effects on continuation of the pregnancy with such Cu – T although it per se will not cause harm except for occasional bleeding per vagina or premature labour pain. Being aware of the possible consequences they chose to continue with the pregnancy due to their religious beliefs. Learned Lawyer appearing for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 has further urged that the opposite party No. 1 Doctor was not in a drunken condition in the said nursing home. He is a senior Gynecologist with a very good reputation. Such statements without any cogent evidence should not be entertained at all. He has further urged that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 treated the patient with due care and caution. He has further urged that the complainants have failed to prove their case. As such, they are not entitled to get any compensation as claimed.
25. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to us that it is an admitted position that the complainant No. 1 along with her husband consulted the opposite party No. 1 Doctor that there was pregnancy of seven weeks and four days of the complainant No. 1 having Cu – T.
26. It is also an admitted position that the complainants expressed their willingness before the opposite party No. 1 Doctor to remove Cu – T.
27. It is also an admitted position that the complainant No. 1 got admitted in the opposite party No. 2 nursing home and the complainant No. 1 was in severe pain.
28. It is also an admitted position that on 21.07.2015 at 05.00 p.m. the complainant No. 1 gave birth to a male baby and the said baby subsequently passed away. Now, we shall have to consider as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and whether due to latches and negligence by the opposite parties the new born baby of the complainant No. 1 died resulting untimely death.
29. In case of medical negligence, the specific allegations regarding negligence on the part of the Doctor have to be proved and onus of which lies on the complainant. A professional charged with the negligence is to show that he acted in accordance with general and approved practice. Negligence cannot be attributed to a Doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. The Doctor has discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient, but such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 considered as to what constitutes medical negligence and laid down as under :-
“Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by Commission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
“2 . Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptance to the medical profession of that day, he can be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use specia or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and at the date of trial.
3. A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings; either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
4. The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam’s case (1957) 1 W.L.R. 582, 586 holds good in its applicability in India”.
5. The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot from the basis for prosecution.
6. The word ‘gross’ has not been used in Section 304A of IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be ‘gross’. The expression ‘rash or negligent act’ as occurring in Section 304A of the IPC has to be read as qualified by the word ‘grossly’.
7. To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do. The hazard taken by the accused doctor should be of such a nature that the injury which resulted was most likely imminent.
8. Res ipsa loquitur is only a rule of evidence and operates in the domain of civil law specially in cases of torts and helps in determining the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. It cannot be pressed in service or determining per sufficiently explained the liability for negligence within the domain of criminal law. Res ipsaloquitur has, if at all, a limited application in trial on a charge of criminal negligence”.
30. In Jacob Mathew (supra) the three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborating on the degree of skill and care required of a medical practitioner quoted Halsbury’s laws of England (4th Edition Vol.30 para 35) as follows :-
“35. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operation in a different way.”
31. In Martin F. D’Souza Versus Mohd. Ishfaq 1(2009) CPJ 32 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
“From the principles mentioned herein and decisions relating to medical negligence it is evident that doctors and nursing homes/hospitals need not be unduly worried about the performance of their functions. The law is a watchdog, and not a bloodhound, and as long as doctors do their duty with reasonable care they will not be held liable even if their treatment was unsuccessful.”
“When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submission”.
“Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightway liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to the patient since the professional reputation of the professional would be at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his lapse.”
32. It is well settled principle of law that a physician cannot assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be successful, much less to the extent of100% for the person operated upon. The only assurance, which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in the branch of profession which he is practicing and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is all what the person approaching the professional can expect.A medical practitioner cannot be held liable, simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment, in choosing one reasonable course of treatment, in preference to another. A medical practitioner would be liable, only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner of such field.
33. The facts of the present case are to be analysed in the light of the proposition of law laid down in the afore discussed authorities.
34. It is the evidence of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that the complainant No. 1 had consulted the opposite party No. 1, with pregnancy of seven weeks and four days having Cu – T and during such consultation the complainant No. 1 had expressed her willingness to remove the said Cu – T.
35. It is also an evidence on record that the opposite party No. 1 had categorically explained to the complainant No. 1 as well as her husband that removal of such Cu – T would disturb her pregnancy and, as such, it was advisable to terminate her pregnancy upon removal of Cu- T but the husband of the Complainant No. 1 had objected to and refused to terminate such pregnancy and further expressed his willingness to continue with the pregnancy of complainant No. 1.
36. It is also the evidence of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that the opposite party No. 1 had explained to the complainant No. 1 and her husband about the possible risks and effects on continuation of the pregnancy with such Cu – T. Although it per se will not cause harm except for occasional bleeding per vagina or premature labour.
37. It is also the evidence of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that after detailed counselling the complainant No. 1 and her husband decided to continue with the pregnancy on 21.06.2015 and as such continued with the pregnancy without any complaint.
38. It is also an evidence on record that on 18.07.2015 the complainant No. 1 visited the clinic of the opposite party No. 1 and she did not make any complaint to him. On 20.07.2015 she suddenly complained about the premature labour pain and accordingly she was advised to get admitted in the nursing home. On 20.07.2015 at about 09.45 p.m., the complainant No. 1 was admitted to the opposite party No. 2 nursing home under the opposite party No. 1 with complaints of such premature labour pain and after admission Tocoytic started along with analgesic. She responded to the treatment for a day. The relatives of the complainant No. 1 repeatedly insisted the opposite party No. 1 to perform L. U. C. S. which was in the opinion of the opposite party No. 1 Doctor was neither necessary nor indicated. As such, the patient continued to receive conservative management. On 21.07.2015 the pain started to increase and the patient was given analgesic injection. On 22.07.2015 at around 05.00 a.m. the said twenty-week foetus had spontaneously expelled out and as a result he had to perform a D & E to extract the remaining material, if any. The patient was discharged in a stable condition on 22.07.2015.
39. It is also an evidence on record that despite every sincere efforts the foetus which was too premature to exist in individual capacity could not be saved.
40. It is also the evidence of the opposite party No. 1 that the patient was under their care and treatment and she was treated with due diligence and care and the opposite party No. 1 had done which any reasonable and prudent man would have done and there cannot exist any reason to think otherwise.
41. On consideration of the above evidence on record it may be concluded that the opposite party No. 1 Doctor and the opposite party No. 2 nursing home took proper care for the treatment of the complainant No. 1 and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were not careless or negligent in giving advice to the complainant No. 1 which was required to be necessary for the treatment of the foetus of the complainant No. 1. This conduct of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 proves that they applied their mind in taking care of the patient. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 too took proper care and they were not negligent at all. The opposite party No. 1 took their task to a reasonable degree of their skill and knowledge and exercised a reasonable degree of care.
42. Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainants had argued that the opposite party No. 1 Doctor came to the nursing home in a drunken state at 11.00 a.m. on 20.07.2015. In their evidence the complainants have said so but the said evidence of the complainants is not corroborated by any other witness. The complainants have not produced any document to prove that the opposite party No. 1 Doctor came to the nursing home in a drunken condition on 20.07.2015. So, the case of the complainants on this count can be disbelieved.
43. It is the case of the complainants that on 20.07.2015 the complainant No. 1 upon advice of the opposite party No. 1 got admitted in the opposite party No. 2 nursing home wherein the opposite party No. 1 stated that the child in the womb was fully grown and arrangement will be done after removing of Cu – T. Prescription dated 20.07.2015 issued by Dr. T.K. Chatterjee, opposite party No. 1 Doctor ( page 17) goes to show that there is no whisper in the said prescription about the statement of the complainants that the child in the womb was fully grown up and arrangement will be done after removing Cu – T. Rather, it is an evidence on record that the complainant No. 1 expressed her willingness to remove Cu – T and the opposite party No. 1 Doctor explained in detail that removal of such Cu- T would disturb her pregnancy.
44. It is also in evidence on record that being aware of the possible consequences the complainants chose to continue with the pregnancy due to their religious beliefs. So, the statement that the said opposite party Doctor said to them that the baby in the womb was fully grown and arrangement will be done after removing Cu – T is not acceptable.
45. It is the case of the complainants that on 21.07.2015 at around 05.00 a.m. the complainant No. 1 gave birth to a male baby. Thereafter, an injection was infused in the body of the new born baby and after said infusion the baby stopped crying and the opposite party No. 1 had stated that the baby had died.
46. The above statement of the complainants is not believable and acceptable as because Annexure ‘C’ ( page No. 22) is the letter dated 03.08.2015 issued by the father –in – law of the complainant No. 1. Annexure ‘D’ is the letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan dated 19.10.2015 issued by Mustak Khan. From the said two letters ( Annexure ‘C’ and ‘D’) it appears to us that the complainants had admitted that the child was immature. So, the statement to the effect that the baby was crying and after infusion of the injection upon the baby, the baby stopped crying and died is not believable and acceptable.
47. The Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants has urged that prior to admission no ‘informed consent’ was obtained from the patient or from her relatives.
48. He has further urged that no Doctor has right to perform any treatment without any valid ‘informed consent’. Thus, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 may be held guilty for negligence. We fail to accept such contention of the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants as because the complainants have nowhere stated in the complaint case that the opposite parties did not obtain ‘Consent Form’ prior to any treatment or prior to admission.
49. In Des Raj Singla and Ors. V. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital & Ors. reported in 2022 (1) CPR 45 (NC) the Hon’ble National Commission observed that :-
“ Onus to prove medical negligence lies largely on the complainant and that this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence.
A mere averment in a complaint by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of complaint can be said to be proved. It is the obligation of the complainant to provide hard evidence to prove the case of medical negligence against the Doctors / Hospitals.”
50. The Hon’ble Apex Court has pronounced in a case reported in 2022(1) CPR 443(SC) (Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana V Jaginder Singh and ors.) that :-
“In every case where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent”.
51. We appreciate the pain of the complainant, but then that by itself cannot be a cause for awarding compensation for passing away of his baby. We have sympathy for the complainant, but sympathy cannot translate into legal remedy.
52. Having regard to the discussion made above and legal position explained, we are of the considered view that negligence as alleged against the treating doctors or the opposite party Hospital cannot be substantiated and thus the complaint cannot be allowed.
53. In the result, the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest.
54. There will be no order as to costs.
55. The complaint case is thus disposed of accordingly.
