Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14^th March, 2022.

2.       The  complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that Sh. Rameshwer Dass Gupta Ex. Engineer MES (Military Engineering Services) designated as SDO r/o 5459/60, Grain market Ambala Cantt-133001 (father of the complainant), had developed urinary problem, some four months back at Ambala, following which he had under gone minor surgery at Ambala, conducted by on surgeon doctor Tarsem Monga of Monga of Hospital, Jagdhri road, Ambala Cantt doctor had inserted a pipe across stomach for urine discharge. That the patient was not feeling well since last three months approximately. For medical treatment complainant called him to Ludhiana in 2015 complainant accompanied him and as OPD patient visited doctor Narender Jain MD medicines of DMC & H Ludhiana on appointment for consultation. Doctor after examining him prescribed certain medical tests, x-ray, ultra sound etc which were conducted in DMC & H Ludhiana. After going through test reports x-ray, ultra sound etc doctor advised for admission saying patient had high infection and further said surgery, if required for curing urological problem will be conducted later on, once infection is completely cured. As a matter of abundant caution, to seek further medical opinion. complainant accompanied him up to RG Stone Hospital, Model Town, Ludhiana on 7th October 2015 for seeking further medical advice as RG Stone Hospital renowned for curing urological ailments. The Patient had suffered a heart attack in August 2013, following which he underwent treatment at PGIMER Hospital at Chandigarh, otherwise patient had no cardiac problem as such. Complainant and her family had revealed this fact to attending doctor RG Stone Hospital, doctor Anand Sehgal urologist, Dr. Sehgal thoroughly medically examined patient as OPD patient and also examined medical test and x-ray, ultra sound reports already conducted and prescribed certain other medical test such as blood tests, urine tests etc and also called for stress echo report to as certain sensitivity of heart in view of cardiac problem to undertake surgery, if need be for treatment of urological problem. Then the complainant and her family visited  Dr. Kulwant Singh at his clinic in Kichlu Nagar Ludhiana for echo test when asked about the finding of echo report Dr. Kulwant Singh told  that the patient had suffered severe heart attack in past and the patient is not fit for invasive surgery & advised to go to one doctor of his acquaintance Dr. Nitin Aggarwal Urologist saying that he will give best treatment. The complainant bonafidely belied in the advice of Dr. Kulwant Singh unaware of the fact that they have been trapped in nexus of Doctors, which come absolutely true later on. That the complainant and her family visited Hospital of Dr. Nitin Aggarwal same day under reference of Doctor Kulwant and consulted him as OPD patient. Doctor examined the patient and after going through the reports of the tests, opined that patient has infection and asked them as also advised by Dr. Anand Sehgal urologist of RG Stone Hospital for intake of antibiotics i.e. magnex injections of Pfizer Company, twice a day at some local clinic for treating infection. That after three days, complainant and her family visited Dr.Nitin Aggarwal again in his hospital on Saturday i.e. on 10th October 2015 and requested to take medical test to check the infection for onward treatment of urological problem but doctor got patient admitted and money deposited without ascertaining report of infection against medical ethics and sent them to one nearby Gama lab to undergo certain tests prescribed by him. The complainant and her family were not at all doubtful as what was going in mind of doctor, medical reports were not available till 3 PM, in the mean time complainant had to go out of hospital for some time when complainant came back after an hour, to her shock, complainant came to know that doctor took patient in operation theatre without conveying the attendant of patient the infection report. This is height of unethical practice of Doctor and the complainant was all in worry and enquired from the nursing staff of the hospital regarding test report of infection, but no one gave satisfactory reply. The horrible enough to complainant and her family shock complainant came to know in evening when doctor came out of operation theatre, the patient was still suffering from high infection to say 17 wbc, apparently the infection was much higher but doctor restoring unethical practice with sheer negligence conducted surgery, a step which was vehemently refused by himself earlier for the fear of complications and also by doctor at DMC & H and by doctor of RG Stone Hospital, as every doctor had medically opined, that until unless infection is cured. Dr. Nitin Aggarwal is conducted surgery on patient in high infection. Virtually now everything was upset at the hands of negligent doctor against medical ethics, condition of patient was not stable, rather worsening with every passing moment. Shockingly, condition of patient suddenly worsened in the night of 10th October 201, the fateful day on which an unethical doctor for his vested interest with sheer negligence conducted surgery in high disregards of medical ethic which are exigency and are expected of a doctor. Blood pressure of patient came down as low as 30-35 in the night if 10th October 2015 Dr. Natin Aggarwal took the patient in his operation theatre, when attendant of patient asked doctor that urine is showing blood, what doctor did in operation theatre on Saturday night i.e. on 10th October 2015is still unknown to the complainant and still a mystery. On being asked Dr. simply said that patient is suffering from dehydration & he has changed antibiotics & required the complainant  to bring on unit of blood, which we readily arranged. On the next day on Sunday night i.e. on 11th October 2015 in the night the blood pressure touched as high as 190,  the attendants who attended the patient in night, brought it to the knowledge of doctor. Doctor sent him to a lab forblood test in some Pancham hospital in night and after seeking test report said patient was suffering from deficiency of sodium. The complainant and her family was all worried since the patient was not showing any recovery, complainant consulted doctor Kulwant, on his mobile no 98140-30755 in the back drop of patient's worsening condition in the last two days, he gave me back call saying that he had detailed discussion with doctor Aggarwal and said your treatment is going well & you are in safe hands. The complainant and her family was in fear in view of grim condition of patient, instinctively, to her shock, doctor Aggarwal opposed, when complainant asked him to call doctor Kulwant to his hospital. Complainant asked Dr. Aggarwal why he opposed to doctor Kulwant?  Thereafter, the Dr. proposed another surgery for inserting central line for intake of medicines & blood sampling in consultation with on Dr. Raghuvir Sharma, a cardiologist and visiting consultant of Dr. Aggarwal's hospital. Complainant strongly opposed surgery and required Dr. Aggarwal for consultancy from some medicines expert as patient was not capable of another surgery. Patient was in high infection and strong antibiotics were given, as the complainant and her family were facing consequences of earlier surgery. The condition of patient was very serious and critical. Complainant and her family were deeply shaken & all depressed. The complainant and her family members present in hospital too were harassed at unethical and rude conduct of doctor. The complainant left his hospital in the evening due to some urgency for some time, but an ill mind doctor Aggarwal in complainant absence prevailed up on family members by misleading lady. Horrible, despite all that, an adamant, unethical doctor took the patient in his operation theatre and in gross negligence, conducted and other surgery for inserting central line despite my categorical refusal. Thus doctor with unethical practice succeeded and blackmailed the attendants of the patient. The complainant and her family came to know all this after an hour when she came back in hospital, by that time doctor Raghuvir Sharma had also come to his hospital,  the complainant enquired from him regarding condition and well being of patient he expressed regrets saying that your patient has developed serious respiratory problem and is in trouble which in not a good sign, as oxygen required. The complainant and her family witnessed that doctor Aggarwal was trembling for some unknown fear, apparently due to his unethical and negligent act. An oxygen cylinder and mask was applied to patient now perhaps everything was out his control, patient's condition was not stable and he was bitterly gasping with mask on his mouth, signal was desperate.  Then Doctor Raghuvir Sharma said immediately ventilator is required. Significantly this all happened after surgery was conducted for insertion of central line. The attendants of the patient  strongly objected to the insertion of central line but doctor beyond his area, as his services were required for curing urological ailment, went a head with vested interest and unethically in sheer negligence. The complainant and her family were panic stricken and in tension as  patient's condition was worsening consistently. The tension of nexus of three doctors was large writ on their faces. Trio created panic, saying that patient required immediate shifting in ICU and advised to shift to Pancham Hospital of doctor R P Singh a cardiologist. The complainant lost her grounds to hear all this thinking how suddenly patient's condition turned critical. Apparently this was consequence of negligent conduct of Dr. Aggarwal, who was conducting after surgery in high infection despite strong opposition. The complainant and her family were helpless and were left in lurch at the hands of nexus of unethical doctor; the trio exploited in tragic moments. Complainant and her family were all shocked how doctor Aggarwal was lobbying with doctor Kulwant to whom he previously opposed form visiting his hospital. We were left with no option except to follow advice of ill mind doctors. All the three doctors present there were in unison to suggest the name of Pancham Hospital, saying and asserting that they all are visiting consultants to Pancham hospital, patient was complication, this fatal condition of patient as attributed to unethical conduct and gross negligence of doctors. Complainant had no knowledge about PANCHAM HOSPITAL. That to the shock of the attendants within minutes,  patient was shifted to Pancham hospital as a part of high handed conspiracy, for some time panic and an unknown fear engulfed them doctor R P Singh put  in fear and shock saying their patient is very sick. In this way, the complainant and her family felt cheated at the hands of unethical doctors, what suddenly made their case complicated within minutes after doctor Aggarwal came out of his operation theatre after conducing forcible surgery for inserting central line. The complainant questioned from doctors regarding sudden critical condition of patient, but no reply. The apparently this condition was attributed to sheer negligence and unethical conduct of nexus of doctors who continued worsening the patient condition by misleading, black mailing innocent patient and caused him to die show death. Doctor R P Singh minted money profusely with every passing day; he and his medical staff under the guise of treatment of patient in ICU continued black mailing misleading the attendants. The complainant and her family were all unaware as what was going in mind of doctor suddenly in the night of Sunday i.e. on 18th October Doctor Aggarwal APPEARED as late as 10.30 pm in hospital and said desperately as if he is spokes person of PANCHAM HOSPITAL, we are unable to save the patient and patient will be alive hardly up to morning. We were pushed in turmoil. This was part of conspiracy of doctors, as still, Dr. RP Singh was saying that doctor Aggarwal is not medicine expert, we were all in trauma and panic and were left in lurch, we were helpless and all helpless by the unethical conduct of doctors we were in trap of doctors' high handed conspiracy. The patient was shifted to DMC & H in the night of Sunday i.e. on 18th October 2015 in emergency of DMC Hero Heart, but perhaps by that time it was too late, apparently doctors tried their best to save patient by putting patient on invasive ventilator, but patient was not showing any sign of recovery, patient was not responding to treatment. The condition of patient was aggravated day by day, while patient was in PANCHAM HOSPITAL under medical supervision of Doctor R P Singh.  By putting  together all the doctor in nexus by unethical practice, negligence played with the life of our patient, hence deserved harshest punishment for playing with the life of a person & are liable for prosecution for their unethical conduct, negligence act, resulting in untimely & miserable death of helpless & helpless patient. As such the doctors are not only liable for prosecution but their registration to run hospital as medical practitioner deserve immediate cancellation,  patient has expired. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has  filed the instant complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.15 lakhs spent on the treatment of patient including the expenses incurred on account of transportation special diet, constant attendants etc. alongwith interest @ 9% per annum till realization and also to pay Rs.1 lakh on account of mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.50,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  

3.       On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. It is submitted that  firstly the patient took the treatment from Dr.Tarsem Monga of Monga Hospital, Ambala Cantt and thereafter in continuation of that treatment, the patient was examined by  Dr.Nareinder Jain, MD Medicine of DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and thereafter frm Dr.Anand Sehgal of RG Stone, Ludhiana but the complainant has not impleaded them as necessary parties.  Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 never recommended the patient  from treatment from Opposite Party No.2 Dr.Nitin Aggarwal. Moreover, no recommendation letter/ medical prescription is attached by the complainant with the complaint ever issued by Opposite Party No.1 and no specific date is mentioned in the complaint. Further a medical board was constituted by Three Members Board of the Committee constituting of Dr.Simran Kaur, SMO Art Centre, CH, Ludhiana, Dr.Milan Verma, MO,Surgeon, CH Ludhiana  and Dr.Amanpreet Kaur, MO Medicine CH, Ludhiana and the Medical Board is of the opinion that there is no negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1. In view of these  clearly observations of Medical Board, no liability whatsoever of the Opposite Party No.1 is made out and hence, the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the Opposite Party No.1 took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections            and hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.       On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. Further submitted that before getting the treatment from the answering Opposite Party, the patient Rameshwar Dass got treatment from PGI, Chandigarh, then from Dr.Monga of Ambala and DMC, Hospital Ludhiana, RG Stone Clinic, Ludhiana and how it can be said by the complainant that there was any medical negligence or deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the answering Opposite Party.  In fact, the patient had already urinary infection. The answering Opposite Party  treated the patient for urinary infection for which he removed the surapubic catheter under cover of antibiotics and did optical internal urethrotomy and bladder wash following which I the post operative phase the patient had some bleeding and developed complications because of already existing urinary infection. Already the team of the Three Members Board of the Committee constituting of Dr.Simran Kaur, SMO Art Centre, CH, Ludhiana, Dr.Milan Verma, MO,Surgeon, CH Ludhiana  and Dr.Amanpreet Kaur, MO Medicine CH, Ludhiana concluded that “Rameshwar Dass Gupta 82 years old patient was suffering from heart disease, urinary infection, urinary stricture and at last died of sepsis leading to cardio respiratory failure inspite of the best efforts of many qualified doctors. It appears that now the patient’s relatives are baselessly levelling accusation against the doctors may be with some monitory benefit in consideration.” Further,  the complainant has lavelled the allegations that her consent was not obtained by answering Opposite Party for conducting operation, whereas the complainant was not accompanied by the patient, so the question to obtain her consent for operation does not arise at all. Further an amount of Rs.32,350/- was the total amount for the treatment, out of which an amount of Rs.5000/- was paid as advance and the remaining amount of Rs.27,350/- is still due with regard to treatment of patient which has still not been paid. All other allegations made by the complainant in the complaint are totally false, frivolous and incorrect and the complainant has filed the instant complaint only to extort the money from the Opposite Parties-doctors. On merits, the Opposite Party No.2 took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 

5.       Opposite Party No.3  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. It is submitted that  the present complaint  against answering Opposite Party is not maintainable as Opposite Party No.3  is not a cardiologist as mentioned in the head note of the complaint. In fact, Opposite Party No.3  is MD Medicine and had never  treated the father of the complainant, rather  he only explained everything to the patient’s attendants well in time and advised referral to a higher centre (Cardiac Centre) condition of the patient worsened. Not only this, the Medical Board also opined so and hence, there is no evidence of any negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.3. In view of the clear observations of Medical Board, no liability whatsoever of the Opposite Party No.3  is made out and hence, the complaint against Opposite Party No.3  is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.  

6.       Opposite Party No.4  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.4. Moreover, Opposite Party No.4   almost filed the same and similar reply as filed by Opposite Party No.2 doctor and submitted that  before getting the treatment from the answering Opposite Party, the patient Rameshwar Dass got treatment from PGI, Chandigarh, then from Dr.Monga of Ambala and DMC, Hospital Ludhiana, RG Stone Clinic, Ludhiana and how it can be said by the complainant that there was any medical negligence or deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the answering Opposite Party.  In fact, when the patient was taken to hospital of answering Opposite Party, his condition was already very deteriorated and he was given support of ICU Care and also ventilator support, but due to his serious condition, he was referred to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana.  Already the team of the Three Members Board of the Committee constituting of Dr.Simran Kaur, SMO Art Centre, CH, Ludhiana, Dr.Milan Verma, MO,Surgeon, CH Ludhiana  and Dr.Amanpreet Kaur, MO Medicine CH, Ludhiana which disentitles the complainant from getting any relief from the Opposite Parties and hence,  there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the answering Opposite Party.  All other allegations made by the complainant in the complaint are totally false, frivolous and incorrect and the complainant has filed the instant complaint only to extort the money from the Opposite Parties-doctors. On merits, the Opposite Party No.4 took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 

7.       In order to  prove  her  case, the complainant has tendered in the evidence affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.6 and closed her evidence. 

8.       On the other hand,  no evidence is present on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Since the matter is pending from the last  about 5 years and we have perused the documents already placed on record by the parties.

9.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also  gone through the documents placed  on record.

10.     Ld.counsel for  Opposite Parties mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the written statements. We have perused the documents placed on record. Perusal of the record shows that at the initiate stage vide order dated 30.10.2017, the matter was referred to Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana with request to constitute a board of expert doctors for examine the medical record of the above said case and to submit the opinion qua negligence and as per the order dated 02.02.2018, the Report has been received from the Office of Civil Surgeon Ludhiana, but perusal of the said report shows that not even a single word has been mention by the Medical Board regarding a) Whether Opposite Parties-doctor ever taken the consent of the patient before his treatment which was mandatory before the surgery upon the patient, b)Whether all the medical tests were OK before the surgery upon the patient because as per the averments of the complainant at the time of admission in the Opposite Party hospital, the  ppatient had high infection and the surgery, if required for curing urological problem was to be conducted later on, once infection is completely cured. In this regard, the  report of the Medical Board is silent. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various authorities have explained as to what actually constitute medical negligence i.e. “Negligence is the breach of duty caused by the omission 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. (See Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal Twenty-fourth Edition 2002 at P. 441-442) Negligence means “either subjectively a careless state of mind, or objectively careless conduct. It is not an absolute term but is a relative one; is rather a comparative term. In determining whether negligence exist in a particular case, all the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances have to be taken into account.”(Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer (2003) 8 SCC 731 para 6). Negligence is strictly non-feasance and not malfeasance. It is the omission to do what the law requires, or the failure to do anything in a manner prescribed by law. It is the act which can be treated as negligence without any proof as to the surrounding circumstances, because it is in violation of statute or ordinance or is contrary to the dictates of ordinary prudence.  Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in “Martin F.D.'Souza V. Mohd. Ishfaq 2009 CTJ 352 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 3 SCC 1”, has laid down certain precautions which are required to be taken by Hospitals/Doctors in the following terms :

 A doctor should not merely go by the version of the patient regarding his symptoms, but should also make his own analysis including tests and investigations where necessary.

(d) A doctor should not experiment unless necessary and even then he should ordinarily get a written consent from the patient.

(e) An expert should be consulted in case of any doubt.,

With regard to obtain the mandatory consent of the patient before surgery, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has contended that in fact, Shipra and Sandeep Gupta were accompanied by the patient and Shipra signed the consent form and completed all other formalities for conducting the operation. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the counsel because when Rameshwar Dass patient was brought to the hospital, he was  in his good sense and he could safely sign the consent form. Moreover, the complainant has strenuously denied this contention that any such Shipra ever gave her consent in this regard, whereas the doctor before performing any procedure must obtain patient's consent. No one can consent on behalf of a competent adult. In case titled as Dr. Ramcharan Thiagarajan Facs versus Medical Council of India, decided on 3^rd April, 2014, Hob’ble Karnataka High Court has awarded disciplinary action  to the surgeon for not taking a proper informed consent for the entire procedure of kidney and pancreas transplant surgery from the patient.   In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, the MCI has framed the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, inter alia, prescribing the inclusive definition of 'professional misconduct', the appropriate council for dealing with cases of professional misconduct, provisions of appeal etc. The relevant portion of the Ethics Regulations, 2002 relevant for the present controversy is quoted hereunder:

"7. MISCONDUCT:

The following acts of commission or omission on the part of a physician shall constitute professional misconduct rendering him/her liable for disciplinary action:

...

7.16 Before performing an operation the physician should obtain in writing the consent from the husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of minor, or the patient himself as the case may be.

11.     In the instant case, as mentioned above, at the time of arriving and admission of the patient in the hospital of the Opposite Parties,  there was nothing on record that the patient was not in a sense to do his signatures on the consent form, but the Opposite Parties did not bother to take the consent of complainant/ patient himself and hence committed the offence of 'professional misconduct' as mentioned supra under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. In order to enable the patients to play a significant role in decision-making, they must be provided with adequate information. In the Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Ors. I (2008) CPJ 56 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed:

12.     Taking into consideration the settled position of law, as referred to here in above, it is also required to take into consideration the standard of duty to care in medical services which is expected from the hospitals and doctors. The premium stature of services available to the patient certainly raises a legitimate expectation. The deficiency in service emanates from conduct in which the patients are dealt with in the hospital by the doctors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Savita Gar Vs. The Director National Heart Institute 2004 CTJ 1009 (SC)(CP)=(2004) 8 SCC 56”, has held that :-

“It is the common experience that when a patient goes to a private clinic, he goes by the reputation of the clinic and with the hope that proper care will be taken by the Hospital authorities. It is not possible for the patient to know that which doctor, will treat him. When a patient is admitted to a private clinic/hospital, it is hospital/clinic which engages the doctors for treatment., They charge fee for services rendered by them and they are supposed to bestow the best care.”

Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law on the subject in case titled “Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors 1009(2) CPC 402 (SC)” wherein it has been held that :-

“Once complainant had discharged initial burden, it was incumbent upon hospital authorities to prove that they had done their duty without any negligence on their part which they have failed to do.”

After going through the clear position of law, as has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as to what actually constitute medical negligence, in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, as has been referred to herein above, if we take the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Opposite Parties have operated upon the patient without taking any preventive precautions and due to carelessness or negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, patient Rameshwar Dass father of the  complainant died. This is nothing but the height of 'carelessness' or 'negligence' on the part of Opposite Parties, and therefore, the point raised by the learned counsel is devoid of factual as well as legal aspects of the case.

13.     Moreover, a patient approaches a doctor expecting medical treatment with all the knowledge and skill that the doctor possesses to bring relief to his medical problem. The relationship takes the shape of a contract retaining the essential elements of tort. A doctor owes certain duties to his patient and a breach of any of these duties gives a cause of action for negligence against the doctor. The services of the doctors are covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, and a patient can seek redressal of grievances from the Consumer.

14.     Further, as per the requirement of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, compensation can be granted to the complainant in the event, if injury/or death  is caused to the patient due to negligence of the Opposite Parties, this is a clear cut case of causing death to the patient  by medical negligence  without curing the high infection before the surgery upon the patient by Opposite Parties which caused death, hence the complainant is entitled to the suitable compensation.  

15.     In view of the facts, circumstances and legal position, as has been discussed herein above, we have no hesitation to conclude that the Opposite Parties are liable for rendering deficient professional service to the complainant  and causing death to the patient by negligent act and conduct of the opposite parties and accordingly we allow the complaint of the complainant.

16.     Now come to the quantum of compensation. The complainant has prayed before this District Consumer Commission to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.15 lakhs as compensation on account of medical negligence and deficient services on the part of the Opposite Parties or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.    

17.     Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,  the complaint is partly allowed and we direct all the Opposite Parties jointly or severally to pay  lump sum compensation of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only)  alongwith interest  @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.10.2017 till its actual realization. All applications pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.  Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to  get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.

18.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14^th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.

Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.

Dated:29.09.2022.