Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  The first complainant of this case is the wife of deceased R. Sreeraj and the 2^nd and 3^rd complainants are children of the said Sreeraj.  The 4^th and 5^th complainants are the father and mother of the deceased Sreeraj, respectively.
3. On 01/05/2008 the deceased Sreeraj along with his friends were returning from Ernakulam to Pathanamthitta by car, at about 5.30 a.m the car met with an accident at Ponga in Alleppey Changanasserry Road.  The passengers of the vehicle sustained minor abrasions and the deceased sustained a minor injury on his knees.  A minor boy by name Ashik in that car also sustained an injury on his forehead.  The deceased Sreeraj along with his friend Abhijith Pillai took the minor Ashik in a taxi car to the 1^st opposite party’s hospital and they reached there at about 7.30 a.m.  In the said hospital the X-ray of Ashik was taken and given treatments.
4. The complainants further contended that since the deceased Sreeraj had suffered pain on account of the minor injuries he sustained, he was also treated at first opposite party’s hospital and the 2^nd opposite party treated him.  At the time of the examination the deceased Sreeraj revealed that he was an asthmatic patient and also allergic to medications.  As directed by the 2^nd opposite party the minor wound on the left leg of the Sreeraj was cleared as dressed.  It is contended that at this time as per the direction of 2^nd opposite party the staff of the hospital administered anti tetanus injection/tetanus toxoid intra mascular injection to him.  According to the complainants as directed by the 2^nd opposite party a nurse of that hospital administered test dose for injection ketanov on the left upper arm 8 cm. below the armpit of Sreeraj.  A swelling developed on the test dose area and the same was brought into the notice of the 2^nd opposite party by the deceased.   The 2^nd opposite party told to him that since there is no itching on the puncture portion, injection for the pain can be administered. Therefore at about 8.20 a.m the Ketanov injection was administered to Sreeraj and he proceeded with his journey to Nedumudi by a car.  It is further contended that after 10 minutes of journey he developed discomfort such as itching and swelling in the eyes and profuse tearing.  Very soon he was returned to the 1^st opposite party’s hospital and by around 9 a.m he was declared dead.
5. According to the complainant the death of Sreeraj was due to the rash and negligent Act of the 2^nd opposite party and he was a victim of medical negligence.  It is contended that as per direction of the then District Collector, Pathanamthitta, the then District Medical Officer conducted an inquiry and submitted a report with regard to the incident.  The inquiry conducted by a panel of doctors (1) Sasikala, Professor Forensic Medicines, Police Surgeon (2) Dr. Sunil Mathew, Physician, Govt. Hospital, Thiruvalla (3) Dr. A.R. Ishbai, District Medical Officer of Health, Pathanamthitta and (4) K. Jayakumar, District Govt. Pleader, Pathanamthitta.  According to the complainant the observation of the expert panel also established the fact that Sreeraj died due to the reaction of the drugs administered as injections.  It is further contended that the injury no.5 in the post mortem certificate, an intra dermal needle puncture mark on left forearm being the test dose site itself shows that the deceased had reaction to the injection administered there.  Injury No.4 in the post mortem certificate on inner aspect of the left upper arm shows that the selection for intramuscular injection was not correct and caused injury to blood vessel.  According to the complainants the 2^nd opposite party was not capable to understand Malayalam and he neither allowed the patient to communicate in English.  It is also seen that a tablet voveran was administered by the 2^nd opposite party and the said tablet was one which could not be prescribed to patient with history of drug reaction, asthma etc. 
6. The following are the observations of the expert panel as per report dated 23.01.2009.

1. Intra dermal puncture mark on the left forearm suggestive of injection test dose showed an indurations by palpation and paleness of a diameter of 2 cms.
2. Injury No.4 was on the inner aspect of the left upper arm 8 cm below the armpit with a surrounding pale area of diameter of 8.5 cms.  Underlying soft tissue showed a ecchymosis of diameter 6 cms bone deep.
3. Injury No.5 had given an impression that there was a reaction to the drug given for test dose.
4. Injury No.4 had given an impression that the sight selection for intra muscular injection was not correct and there was an injury to the bold vessel.
5. In the O.P ticket as per the advice given by the doctor 3 injections must be there is the advice was carried out correctly.  But in that place in the post mortem certificate we could see only two injections.
6. As per the record Tab.  Voveran (50 mg) was advised for 3 days as and when necessary.

7. The following are the opinion and cause of death of expert panel:

1. Observation No.1 showed that the patient had reaction to the drug administered.
2. Observation No.2 showed that the site selection for intra muscular injection was not correct.  And it injured blood vessel leading to extroversion of blood into the soft tissue.
3. Observation No.6 before prescribing Voveran any previous history of drug reaction, asthma, bleeding disorders were not recorded.

8. Based on the above observation the most probable cause of death was anaphylaxis.
9. On the basis of the letter dated 12/08/2009 by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla the expert panel committee convened on 08/09/2009 and submitted a report stating the following things.

(1) The drug action noted in the test dose could be immediate or delayed to the injection administered.  Full dose of injection had been found given as per the observation No.1.

(2) But the site selection was wrong.   Even though the site selection was wrong, and the needle had found entered a blood vessel, it had not caused immediate anaphylaxis and death, since the patient had gone to his house after taking the injection.  The person administered the injection may not be a competent person.

(3) But before giving any NSAID the routine history of wheezing and previous history of reactions to the prescribing drug has to be elicited.  This has not been found recorded in the case sheet.  So there is a lapse on the part of the doctor in recording the history of wheezing/allergy to the drug administered and prescribed. 

                  10.  It is further contended that finding of the above said expert panel that the patient was not willing for admission in opposite party’s hospital was not correct.  The 2^nd opposite party never advised Sreeraj to get admitted or to stay in the hospital for some more time.  According to the complainant the diseased Sreeraj was a promising lawyer and he was the additional pleader and public prosecutor of Pathanamthitta.  He was the legal advisor of Water Authority, Union Bank, State Bank of India, Housing Board etc.  His date of birth was 04/05/1970 and specialized in both criminal and civil law.  He was running an independent office as an advocate with many juniors.  He had a minimum monthly income of Rs. 50,000/- per month.  The complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Sreeraj.  Though the complainants send a legal notice to the opposite parties demanding compensation they did not turn up.  According to them the above said act of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainants.  Hence this complaint for granting a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-, cost etc from the opposite parties.

                  11. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  Opposite party 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed their version.  The additional opposite party 3 United Insurance Company Ltd, the Branch Office, Changanassery impleded as additional opposite party 3 as per the order in I.A 92/11 dated 28/06/2011.  The additional opposite party also entered appearance and filed a separate version. 

12. According to opposite parties 1 and 2, the real fact of the case is as follows:  On 01/05/2008 at 7.30 a.m, the deceased was brought to the opposite party’s hospital alleging a motor accident on the Alleppey Changanassery road at Ponga.  Patient was examined at casualty ward.  He was conscious and oriented.  Minor abrasions were noted and at the outset itself he refused admission for observation.  He was given injection Tetanus Toxoid and for general pain Ketanov 1 ampoule 1 M was given after test dose.  Wound was cleaned and dressed.  Tablet Voveran 50 M.G was prescribed (1-0-1) for 3 days.  There was due questioning to the deceased regarding any allergy to any medicine.  He replied in the negative.  He never expressed any history of asthma as claimed by the complainants.

13. For the motor accident, it is now known that there was a crime case and due investigation was done by the police.  There is no reference as to the time of the accident and the police station where information was given in the complaint.  The result of the investigation of the police, the inquest report the 1^st information report etc. are not submitted along with the complaint.  To be well aware of the accident and its subsequent action the above said records are highly necessary.  Now that some doubt is raised as to the place of injection in postmortem certificate and the report of the expert committee.  It is to be submitted that the inquest report being the 1^st report after the death, it is a vital record to fix the details of injection given.  The deceased was brought dead to the opposite party’s hospital at about 9.30 a.m.  In between the departure and return of the deceased, no informatory about when and where he died, was given in the complaint.  Three injections were duly given test dose T.T and (b) Ketanov injection No.1 test dose on left forearm.

14. As to injury No.4 alleged by on the left upper arm pit and its description is not the result of any injection given by the opposite parties as it is well known that no injection will be given on the inner aspect of upper arm 8 cms below the arm pit.  T.T was given only on the buttock of the patient.  So it can never be the one derived as injury No.4.

15. The reference of injury No.4 as item No.4 in the observation of the panel that “as for the intramuscular injection was not correct and hence there was an injury to the blood vessel”.  According to this opposite parties no objection was never given on the inner aspect of the left upper arm 8 cm below the arm pit by them.  The next reference is regarding the reference in item 4 of the observation of panel that there was injury to the blood vessel.  It is only common knowledge that blood vessel means artery or vein but when no special information is made whether it is to artery or vein it is only to be ignored.

16. Now the final opinion of the expert panel committee.

1. As to the reference of drug reaction only after due period of waiting after test dose reference medicine was given.
2. The place of injection is not one given by the opposite parties.  Then again injury to artery or vein is not referred.  Blood vessel is only a casual reference.
3. Prescribed voveran was only after confirmation from the patient regarding that there was no drug reaction, asthma or bleeding reaction.  Then again voveran was not seen taken by the deceased. 

                  17. According to the opposite parties, the expert panel report could not be considered as evidence without referring the post mortem or inquest report.  According to the opposite parties, the father of the diseased, who filed a complaint under section 156(3) CRPC against the driver of the vehicle who caused accident under section u/s 337,338 and 403(A) under IPC. The police investigated the case and at last referred the case as one which is false.  It is further contended that the report of the expert with regard to this incident cannot be considered as an expert report since the expert evidence was collected as a procedure in a criminal case.  It is contended that the complainants have no consistent case with regard to the incident and reason for the death. Thereby this Forum can dismiss the complaint with cost to them.

                  18. The additional 3^rd opposite party filed their version as follows.  According to the opposite party the complaint is not sustainable either in law or on facts.  It is contended that this opposite party is not aware of the fact of the case and the averment contained Para 2 of the complaint are to be proved by complaints with relevant records.  The complainants are put to strict proof of  the averment contained in Para 3 and 4 of the complaint. This opposite party came to know about this case only after the receipt of the notice issued from this Forum.  According to this opposite party, to his knowledge, there is no medical negligence on the part of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party by that there is no vicarious liability on the part of 1^st opposite party.  It is admitted that this additional opposite party issued a professional Indemnity (medical establishment) insurance in favour of 1^st opposite party for a period from 08/04/2008 to 07/04/2009 for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-.    According to this opposite party the indemnity amount for any one claim is limited to maximum 25% of the limit of indemnity.  Therefore, the insurance coverage in the above case would come to Rs. 6,25,000/- inclusive of the compulsory excess.  According to this opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part since opposite party 1 & 2 made any claim before this opposite party till the receipt of notice from this Forum.  Therefore this additional opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint cost.

                  19. This Forum (our predecessors) perused the complaint version and other records before this Forum and framed the following issues:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable?
3. Reliefs and costs?

20. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complaint No. 1 filed a proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and she is examined as PW1.  Through the PW1 Ext. A1 to A16 were marked.  Ext. A1 is the copy of Expert Panel Committee Report dated: 23/01/2009. Ext. A2 is the copy of Expert Panel Committee Report dated: 08/09/2009. Ext. A3 is the copy of FIR in Crime NO. 335/08 of Thiruvalla Police Station.  Ext. A4 is the certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No. 640/2010 of Thiruvalla Judicial 1^st Class Magistrate Court.  Ext. A5 is the post mortem certificate dated: 02/05/2008.  Ext.A6 is the post mortem certificate (final opinion as to the cause of death) dated: 10/09/2008.  Ext. A7 is the office copy of advocate notice dated: 26/10/2009 to 1^st opposite party.  Ext. A8 series are the postal receipt of Ext. A7.  Ext. A9 is the office copy of advocate notice dated: 16/01/2010 to 2^nd opposite party.  Ext. A10 is the postal receipt of Ext.A9.  Ext. A11 is the reply notice dated: 03/12/2009 of 1^st opposite party.  Ext. A12 is the reply notice dated: 26/01/2010 of 2^nd opposite party.  Ext. A13 is the pan card of Sreeraj.  Ext. A14 is the copy of the list of panel advocates of  State Bank of India showing the name of the deceased also.  Ext. A15 is the  Govt. Order appointing Sreeraj as the Govt. Pleader.  Ext. A16 is the certificate from the Union Bank.

21. Apart from this the complainant examined PW2 to PW4 in favour of their case.  On the other side DW1 and DW2 are also examined and marked Ext. B1 to B6.  Ext. B1 is the final report in Crime NO.117/08 of Nedumudi Police Station.  Ext. B2 is the FIR & FIS in Crime No. 117/08.  Ext. B3 is the patient treatment record of 1^st opposite party.  Ext.B4 is the reply notice dated: 03/12/2009.  Ext. B5 is the postal receipt of Ext.B5 and Ext.B6 is the acknowledgement card of Ext.B5.   The additional 3^rd opposite party is also examined its Assistant Manager as DW2 and the document produced were marked as Ext.B7.  Ext. B7 is the copy of the insurance policy issued to 1^st opposite party by additional 3^rd opposite party.   After the closure of evidence this Forum (our predecessors) heard the case and passed an order on 20/11/2012 allowing the complainant as follows: 

In the result, the compliant is allowed thereby, opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs only) along with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Out of the total amount ordered herein above additional 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 6,25,000/- (Rupees Six lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) less statutory deductions and the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the balance amount.  In the event of non-compliance of this order by the opposite parties, complainants are allowed to realize the whole amount along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount from the defaulters respectively.

22. Aggrieved by the above order, the 1^st opposite party hospital filed an appeal before the Hon’ble SCDRC as appeal No 54/2013 against the complainants as respondents.  The order of the said appeal is as follows:

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and set aside the result portion of the order passed by the Forum below.  It confirmed the other findings.  The case remanded to the Forum below for fresh disposal.  The Forum is direct to pass an order in accordance with the provisions of law and evidence especially accordance with Law of Torts both and parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 26/03/2013.  The Forum below is also given ample opportunity to both sides to argue their own cases before the Forum below and direct to fix the liability on the principle of the vicarious liability (Master & Servant Relationship) according to the Law of Torts.  This appeal is disposed accordingly. 

  23. Apart from it aggrieved by the order of this Forum complainants are also filed an appeal before the Hon’ble SCDRC as appeal No. 71/13 against the opposite parties in this case as respondents and the said appeal is also allowed in favour of the appellants/complaints as follows:

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and set aside the result portion of the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The other finding of the order of the Forum below is confirmed.  The case remanded back to the Forum below for fresh disposal, after considering the strict principles of law of torts and the forum below also direct to consider the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest as prayed by the complainant in the complaint on the basis of the fact, circumstances and evidence adduced by the complainant before the Forum below.  The Forum below is also direct to pass an order to consider with the grievances of the appellants/complainant on merit.  All the parties are directed to appeal before the Forum below on 26/03/2013.  This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

24. This Forum issued notice to both parties for appearance in pursuance of order of the above appeal No. 71/13.  The Hon’ble CDRC remanded the case for a fresh disposal after considering strict principles of Law of Tort and also directed to consider the claim of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest as prayed by the complainant.  In appeal No. 54/13 their also this Forum is directed to pass an order in accordance with Law of Torts and also directed to give ample opportunity to both sides and directed to argue their case to fix the liability on the principle of vicarious liability according to the law of Torts.  When the matter is taken for hearing this Forum found certain pencil overwritings in the copy of the Appeal Order (A.S.No.71/13) pronounced by the Hon’ble CDRC.  Therefore, this Forum posted the case for clarification.  In the mean time, the complainants filed a writ petition as WP(C) No. 5502/2016(K) against the opposite parties as respondent before the Hon’ble High Court and in that writ petition  the Hon’ble High Court ordered as follows:                 

Therefore, I think the District Forum thought it appropriate to seek clarification on the same.  I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the District Forum, thus enabling the District Forum to proceed in the matter, without any confusion with respect to the inscriptions made in the judgment.  In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order.  Necessarily, the writ petition fails.  Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 

                   25. In the light of the above 2 Appeals referred above, it is to be understood that in the both Appeals the Hon’ble C.D.R.C set aside the result portion of the Order of this Forum dated 20.11.2012.  It is also clear that the finding of the Forum except the result portion is confirmed by Hon’ble C.D.R.C.  Therefore, there is no need to discuss the finding of the Forum again.  The appreciation of evidence and finding of the Forum on 20.11.2012 can be seen from Para 25 to 47 of Judgment/Order dated 20.11.2012.  It is as follows:-

                 26. In order to prove the complainant’s case, 1^st complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  She was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A16.  Ext.A1 is the copy of Expert Panel Committee Report dated 23.01.2009.  Ext.A2 is the Expert Panel Committee Report dated 08.09.2009.  Ext.A3 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.335/08 of Thiruvalla Police Station.  Ext.A4 is the certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.640/2010 of Thiruvalla Judicial 1^st Class Magistrate Court.  Ext.A5 is the post mortem certificate dated 02.05.2008.  Ext.A6 is the post mortem certificate (final opinion as to the cause of death) dated 10.09.2008.  Ext.A7 is the office copy of advocate notice dated 26.10.2009 to 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A8 series are the postal receipts of Ext.A7.  Ext.A9 is the office copy of advocate notice dated 16.01.2010 to 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A10 is the postal receipt of Ext.A9.  Ext.A11 is the reply notice dated 03.12.2009 of 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A12 is the reply notice dated 26.01.2010 of 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A13 is the pan card of Sreeraj.  Ext.A14 is the copy of the list of panel advocates of State Bank of India showing the name of the deceased also.  Ext.A15 is the Govt. order appointing Sreeraj as the Govt. Pleader.  Ext.A16 is the certificate from the Union Bank.

                   27. Apart from PW1, 2 doctors and one independent witness were examined as PW’s 2, 3 and 4 from the side of complainants.

                   28. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties 1 and 2, Medical Superintendent of 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B6.  Ext.B1 is the final report in Crime No.117/08 of Nedumudi Police Station.  Ext.B2 is the FIR & FIS in Crime No.117/08.  Ext.B3 is the patient treatment record of 1^st opposite party.  Ext.B4 is the reply notice dated 03.12.2009.  Ext.B5 is the postal receipt of Ext.B5 and Ext.B6 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.B5.

                   29. In order to prove the contentions of Addl. Opposite party 3, the Asst. Manager of Addl. Opposite party 3 filed a proof affidavit along with one document.  On the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as DW2 and the document produced is marked as Ext.B7.  Ext.B7 is the copy of the insurance policy issued to 1^st opposite party by the addl. 3^rd opposite party.

                   30. On the basis of the contention and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire material on record.  Complainants’ case is that the deceased Sreeraj met with an accident and immediately taken to 1^st opposite party’s hospital for treatment.  Though the deceased was an asthmatic and the same was informed to the concerned doctor, the nurse administered test dose for injection Ketanov prescribed by 2^nd opposite party and later developed swelling on the test dose puncture region.  After some time, injection was given to the deceased and he was discharged.  After some time itching and swelling caused on the eyes etc.  He was rushed back to 1^st opposite party’s hospital and the doctor confirmed the death.  They alleged that the untimely death of Sreeraj is due to the negligence of opposite parties.

                   31. Opposite parties contention is that Sreeraj met with an accident and came for treatment and he was given injection Tetanus Toxoid and for general pain Ketanov test dose was also done.  Tabulet Voveran 50 mg was prescribed.  He never expressed any history of asthma.  For observation he was advised for admission, but he refused admission and went back.  After some time Sreeraj was brought dead to the opposite party’s hospital at about 9.30 a.m.  Opposite parties are unaware when and where he died.  Opposite parties denied the expert commissioner’s opinion and post mortem report and are relying on the final report of Crime No.117/08.  According to them, no injection was ever given on the inner aspect of the left upper arm 8 cm below the armpit by them and also disputed the injury to the blood vessel which is not specific whether artillery or vein.  Moreover, the report of experts are based on the orders of the police and not the Forum.

                   32. It is not disputed that the deceased Sreeraj was treated in 1^st opposite party’s hospital.  The only dispute of opposite parties is that the death occurred not due to opposite parties treatment.  On a perusal of Ext.B3 it is evident that on 01.05.2008 Sreeraj was treated in 1^st opposite party’s hospital and administered T.T injection, Ketanov 1 M injection and given voveran 50 mg tablet. 

                   33. It is seen that as per Ext.A1, injuries No.4 was a contusion in the inner aspect of left upper arm suggestive of an injection and injury No.5 was an intra dermal puncture mark on the front of left fore arm suggestive of an injection test dose.  Observation of the panel is that injury No.5 had given an impression that there was a reaction to the drug given for test dose and injury No.5 had given an impression that the site selection for intra muscular injection was not correct and there was an injury to the blood vessel.  As per Ext.A1 expert panel’s opinion the patient Sreeraj had reaction to the drug administered and the site selection for intra muscular injection was not correct and it injured blood vessel leading to extraversion of blood into the soft tissue.

                   34. As per Ext.A2, the expert panel further clarified that full dose of injection had been given as per the observation No.2.  But the site selection was wrong.  Even though the site selection was wrong, and the needle had found entered into blood vessel, it had not caused immediate anaphylaxis and death.  The person administered the injection may not be a competent person.  According to them “before giving any NSAID the routine history of wheezing and previous history of reactions to the prescribing drug to be elicited.  This has not been found recorded in the case sheet.  So there is a lapse on the part of the doctor in recording the history of wheezing/allergy to the drug administered and prescribed.

                   35. Ext.A6 opinion is that death is due to Anaphylactic shock/drug reactions cannot be ruled out.  Nothing has been brought out from opposite party’s side to discredit Ext.A6.  Ext.A1, A2, A5 and A6 reports were confirmed by PW2, the Prof. of Forensic Medicine, Govt. Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram.  The relevant portion in the deposition of PW2 is as follows:-  “Based on the observation the most probable cause of death is Anaphylaxis എന്നാണ്.  Anaphylaxis എന്നാൽ hypersensitivity reaction B Wv.  ഈ കേസിൽ തയ്യാറാക്കിയ post mortem reportൽ പറയുന്ന injury No.5 ഏതോ injection test dose നൽകിയത് പോലെയാണ് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയത്. അതിൽ പറയുന്ന 2 സെ.മീ diameter ഉള്ള Induration (കട്ടിയായി ഇരിക്കുന്ന) and paleness, test doseന് നൽകിയ മരുന്നിൻറെ  reaction ആയിട്ടാണ് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയത്. ഇടതു കക്ഷത്തിന് 8 സെ.മീ. താഴെയായി കൈക്കകവശത്ത്  injection നൽകിയതായി  post mortemൽ കണ്ടിരുന്നു. ഈ ഭാഗത്ത്  injection നൽകാറില്ല. ഈ കാരണത്താൽ site selection പിശകാണ്.  Injection pointന് ചുറ്റുമായി 6 സെ.മീ.  diameter-þൽ എല്ലുവരെ എത്തുന്ന വിധത്തിൽ രക്തം പൊട്ടി ഒഴുകി കാണപ്പെട്ടു.  Injection നൽകിയ മരുന്ന് blood vesselൽ കയറുന്നത് മൂലമാണ് ഇപ്രകാരം സംഭവിക്കുന്നത്. Muscle-ന്  നൽകുന്ന injection blood vesselൽ കയറാൻ പാടില്ല.  ഇപ്പോൾ എന്നെ കാണിച്ച  Ext.A2 report dated 08.09.2009, Expert Panel Committee-യുടേ 2-മതു meeting-ൻറെ report ആണ്. അതുപ്രകാരം മരിച്ച ആളിന്  injection നൽകിയ വ്യക്തി competent person  ആയിരുന്നില്ലായിരിക്കാം എന്ന് രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടുണ്ട് (may not be a competent person) Deceasedന് നൽകിയത്  non-steroidal anti inflationary drug ആണ്  ഈ മരുന്ന് നൽകുന്നതിന് എടുക്കേണ്ട precautions എന്തൊക്കെയാണെന്ന്. Ext.A2-þൽ രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. ചികിത്സിച്ച  doctor wheezing/allergyയുടെ വിവരങ്ങൾ case sheetൽ record ചെയ്തതായി കാണുന്നില്ലെന്ന് Ext.A2ൽ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്.  പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്. അത്  doctorടെ വീഴ്ചയാണ്.

                   36. It is also noted that DW1 also more or less admitted that selection of injection site as per injury No.4 is wrong selection.  It is evident in DW1’s deposition which is as follows:- “Ext.A6 post mortem certificateലെ injury No.4 റെതാണെങ്കിൽ അത് ഒരു wrong selection of site ആണ്.  Nobody in the medical field will give an injection on that spot.   

                   37. Moreover, complainant’s specific contention is that the deceased Sreeraj was an asthmatic/allergic patient and before administering the ketanov injection he had informed his asthma history.  But in Ext.B3 it had not been recorded.  In this regard the deposition of DW1 is very crucial which is as follows:-  “Allergic medicine നൽകുന്നതിന് മുൻപ് patient allergic history ഉണ്ടോ എന്ന് ചോദിച്ചു മനസ്സിലാക്കിയിരിക്കുകയും test dose നൽകുകയും വേണം. Ext.B3 പ്രകാരം allergic history ചോദിച്ചതായി കാണുന്നില്ല?  Negative ആയിട്ടുള്ള കാര്യങ്ങൾ എഴുതാറില്ല. Allergy സംബന്ധിച്ച വിവരങ്ങൾ NSAID വിഭാഗം medicines നൽകുന്നതിന് മുൻപ് record ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ലെങ്കിൽ അതൊരു വീഴ്ചയല്ലേ? ചോദിച്ചിട്ട് allergy history ഉണ്ടെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ അത് record ചെയ്യണം. 

                   38. In allergic/asthmatic patients, it is not advisable to administer non-steroidal anti inflammatory drugs like ketanov injection.  This fact is admitted by DW3 in his deposition, which is as follows: “Do you agree with the proposition that non steroidal anti-inflationary drugs are not advisable to allergic/asthmatic patients? (Q). It is better to avoid allergic drug to such persons” (A). 

                   39. PW3 further explained the use of steroidal anti-inflamatory drugs and its reactions which is as follows:-  “Pain killer ആയി non steroid medicine അല്ലാത്ത medicine നൽകാറുണ്ടോ ഞാൻ ഊ ചോദ്യത്തിന് ഉത്തരം പറയാൻ  expert അല്ലെങ്കിൽ കൂടി drug reactions തുലോം കുറവായ steroids anti-inflamatory drugs pain killer ആയി നൽകാം (A).  Even by oral route.  Oral route of administration മൂലം ഉണ്ടായേക്കാവുന്ന  reaction-ൻറെ നമ്പർ കുറവാണ്. When compared to parateral route (A)”.

                   40. DW1 also establishes that ketanov injection was not advisable in this case.  It is evident in the deposition of DW1 which is as follows:-  “Ketanov is a powerful painkiller, അത് കൊടുക്കേണ്ട സാഹചര്യം ഉണ്ടെങ്കിൽ proper testing and caseþന് വിധേയമായി നല്കും. Ketnov അല്ല NSAID വിഭാഗത്തിൽപെടാത്ത pain killer ഉണ്ട്.  അതിൽപ്പെട്ട   opid amagosic groupþൽപ്പെട്ട pain killers നൽകാറുണ്ട്  Ketnov സാധാരണഗതിയിൽ post operative വേളയിൽ pain killer  ആയി നൽകാറുണ്ട്. ഞാനായിരുന്നെങ്കിലും painþൻറെ gravity അനുസരിച്ച് ketnov provide ചെയ്യും. കൂടുതൽ  pain ഉണ്ടെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ അത് നല്കും.  Ext.B3ൽ കൂടുതൽ pain ഉണ്ടായി എന്നു പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടോ?  എന്നു പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടോ? പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല.             

41. From the overall facts and circumstances and the available evidence on record, it is revealed that the deceased Sreeraj was an asthmatic/allergic patient and the same was informed to 2^nd opposite party.  But  2^nd opposite party either ignored or without understanding the information given, wrongly prescribed ketanov injection.  Site selection for intramuscular injection was not correct and the needle had found entered in to blood vessel.  The person administered the injection may not be a competent person.  The injection ketanov caused anaphylaxis and death.  Before giving any NSAD the routings history of wheezing and previous history of reactions to the prescribing drug has to be elicited.  This has not been found recorded in Ext.B3.  Therefore there is serious lapse on the part of 2^nd opposite party.  There is also lack of care and caution on the part of 2^nd opposite party in the prescription of ketanov and administering the ketanov injection.

                   42. Though opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint version, 2^nd opposite party has not turned up to adduce oral evidence to counter the allegations raised against him.  He seems to hide behind the curtain and not dare to face the trial.  There were contradictions in 2^nd opposite party’s version and Ext.A12 reply notice.  All the said fact are also revealed from DW1’s deposition which is as follows:- “2nd opposite partyയുടെ present whereabouts അറിയില്ല  2^nd opposite partyയുടെ prescription പ്രകാരമാണ് deceasedന് കുത്തിവയ്പ് എടുത്തത്. 2^nd opposite partyയുടെ മറുപടി notice (Ext.A12)þൽ ketnov injectionഉം tetanus etc. രണ്ടാം എതൃകക്ഷിയുടെ നിർദ്ദേശപ്രകാരമല്ല നൽകിയത് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത് ശരിയല്ല.  2^nd opposite partyയുടെ കേസ് നടത്താൻ ടിയാൻറെ power of attorneyയോ അധികാര പത്രമോ എനിക്കോ, ഒന്നാം എതൃകക്ഷി ആശുപത്രിക്കോ ഇല്ല.

                   43. It is not a case of complicated surgery or a case of transplant of limbs and organs in human body.  It is a case of wrong prescription and administration of ketanov injection and its reactions.  The site selection for intra muscular injection was not correct.  Before administration of injection ketanov, wheezing and previous history of reactions were not considered.  All this happened within the four walls of the opposite party’s hospital.  In these circumstances, the principles laid down in the case of V Krishna Rao V Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital (2015 SCC 513) would be applicable in this case.  In that case where negligence is evident, the principle of ‘res ipso loquoto’ operates and the complainant does not have to prove anything as the things (res) proves itself.  Therefore in this case as per the principle of ‘res ipso loquoto’ the burden is on the doctor concerned who treated the patient in defence to substantiate their claim that there was no negligence.

                   44. Opposite parties produced B1 to B6 to prove their contention.  As per Ext.B1 and B2,  opposite parties contention is that 4^th complainant filed a private complaint before Ramankari Judicial First Class Magistrate Court and the case was sent to Nedumudi Police Station u/s 156(3) and a crime as 117/08, u/s 337, 338 and 403(A) IPC was registered.  After investigation the case was referred stating that the complaint is without bonafides and it is with the ultimate motive to grab money from the insurance company.  But in Ext.B1, final report the real fact is disclosed by stating that Sreeraj died due to the injection administered by the 1^st opposite party’s hospital.  The relevant portion of Ext.B1 final report is as follows:- എന്നാൽ യാത്രക്കാർക്ക് സാരമായ പരിക്കുകൾ ഒന്നും സംഭവിക്കാത്തതിനാൽ മറ്റൊരു കാർ വിളിച്ച് ചങ്ങനാശ്ശേരിക്ക് പോകുകയും അവിടെ ചികിത്സയിലായിരിക്കെ ഡോക്ടർ എടുത്ത ഏതോ ഇൻജക്ഷനെത്തുടർന്ന് ശ്രീരാജ് മരണപ്പെടുകയും ആയതിലേക്ക് തിരുവല്ല പോലീസ് സ്റ്റേഷനിൽ Crime 335/08 u/s 174 Cr.P.C പ്രകാരം FIR രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്തു അന്വേഷണം തുടരവെ

                   45. From the above facts and circumstances, Ext.B1 and B2 pointing that most corroborative evidence is Ext.A4 and A5.  Therefore, Ext.B1 and B2 has no effect to opposite party’s contention. 

                   46. From the above discussion based on the available evidence and on the observations and findings, we are of the view that the death of Sreeraj is due to anaphylaxis caused due to lack of care and caution and reasonable skill and knowledge on the part of concerned doctor in discharging his duty of treatment, which is a clear deficiency in service.  Therefore the 2^nd opposite party is liable for his negligence.  Since 1^st opposite party is the hospital, they are vicariously liable to compensate the complainants for the negligence of 2^nd opposite party.

                   47. Since the 3^rd opposite party is the insurer of 1^st opposite party, they are liable to indemnify the first opposite party, but only to the extent of the coverage of Rs.6,25,000 given by them as per Ext.B7.

                   48. The deceased Sreeraj was an young lawyer of 38 years.  His death was tragic and untimely.  Ext.A13 to A16 shows that he was a practicing lawyer and earning income.  Moreover, the complainants are the legal heirs of late Sreeraj.  They are the dependants of the deceased.  Taking into consideration of his valuable services to them and loss of income adequate compensation is to be allowed”.  (The discussion contained in Paragraph 27 to 48 are part of the appreciation and finding of this Forum by our predecessors). 

                    49. In the light of the Appeal Orders in 54/13 and 71/13 of our Hon’ble CDRC the Forum would like to frame the following issues for consideration at this juncture.

1. Whether the liability of the opposite party 1 and 2 can be fixed on  

the principle of vicarious liability (Master and servant relationship) according to Law of Torts (Appeal No.54/13).

2. Whether the complainants are eligible for the claim of Rs.20  

Lakhs with interest on the basis of the fact, circumstances and evidence before the Forum.

                   50. It is to be noted that at the time of Remand trial either the complainants’ or the opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence or adduced any evidence on documents.

                   51.  In pursuance of the 2 appeal orders discussed above, this Forum has to pass an order in accordance with provisions of law and evidence especially in accordance with law of Torts.  As per Appeal No.71/13 this Forum has to consider this case on the strict principles of Law of Torts and also directed to consider the claim of Rs.20 lakhs with interest on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced by the complainants before the Forum below and also directed to pass an order to consider with the grievances of the complainants on merit.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainants filed an argument note before the Forum and argued that the compensation calculated by this Forum was so less and when calculating the compensation payable on account of the death of a person, it has to be calculated on the basis of Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2010(2) KLT 802(SC) only 50% of the income alone could be taken in addition to the actual income.  According to him there are 5 legal heirs for the deceased Sreeraj.  The learned counsel calculated a monthly income of Rs.50,000/- to the deceased Sreeraj and added a 50% of monthly income in the light of Saralavarma case as 75%.  Then deducted ¹/4^th of the income of the deceased Sreeraj to Rs.56,250/-.  Then calculated the said Rs.56,250/- x 12 months comes Rs.1,01,25,000/-.  The learned counsel also cited another decision reported in Vimalkanwar & Others Vs. Kishore Dan & Others (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 476 it is submitted that 100% enhancement of income can be given for the salary.  On the basis of the above decision the counsel calculated another calculation to the effect that a compensation of Rs.1,35,00,000/- can be awarded in this case.  Though the complainants learned counsel argued a huge compensation as discussed above, this Forum has only got jurisdiction to consider an award up to Rs.20 lakhs as per C.P. Act, 1986.  In the light of this limit, the learned counsel argued an interest of 18% per annum from the date of the death of the deceased.  It is admitted that the 3^rd opposite party insurance coverage is limited to Rs. 6.25 lakhs. 

                   52.  The learned counsel appearing for opposite party 1 submitted argument note and argued that the finding of this Forum regarding the payment of Rs.12 lakhs as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost is confirmed by the C.D.R.C.  When we refer the Order of Hon’ble CDRC in Appeal No.54/13 and 71/13 we can see that the appellate court set aside the result portion of the Order of this Forum and confirmed other findings.  In the light of this specific order, there is no substance for the submission of learned counsel for opposite party 1.  It is further argued that the question of tortuous liability between opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 is to be decided along with the claim of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation.  When we refer the result portion of the 2 Appeal Orders, without any shadow of doubt, the Hon’ble CDRC directed to find the tortuous liability of opposite parties in this case.  The case of the complainant is that the opposite party 1 is the hospital which provided medical treatment or facilities to the complainant and opposite party 2 treated the deceased Sreeraj and prescribed medicine to him.  The 1^st opposite party’s hospital staff administered all the injections and medicines to the deceased.  The complainants adduced cogent and conclusive evidence with regard to this issue.  Moreover, opposite party 1 or opposite party 2 has no other case to the effect that opposite party 2 is not working as a doctor in opposite party 1’s hospital.  As per the principles of Law of Torts we can easily come to a conclusion that opposite party 1 is the employer and opposite party 2 is an employee of opposite party 1.  As per the Law of Torts the employer is liable for all kinds of acts of his employee.  As we discussed earlier, this case is remanded before the Forum by the Hon’ble CDRC for a fresh disposal in accordance with strict principles of Law of Torts and also directed to look into the principles of the vicarious liability when fixing the liability against the opposite parties.  The Law of Torts written by Salmond & Heuston it is described, “A master is jointly and severally liable for any tort committed by his servant while acting in the course of his employment. This is by far the most important of the various cases in which vicarious responsibility or vicarious liability is recognized by the law.  Vicarious liability means that one person takes or supplies the place of another so far as liability is concerned.  Although the doctrine has its roots in the earliest years of the common law, it was Sir John Holt (1642-1710) who began the task of adapting medieval rules to the needs of a modern society, and his work was continued by the great Victorian judges.  By the beginning of the twentieth century it was firmly established that the master’s liability was based, not on the fiction that he had impliedly commanded his servant to do what he did, but on the safer and simpler ground that it was done in the scope or course of his employment or authority.  Today it has been developed so far “that it would be a good deal safer to keep lions or other wild animals in a park than to engage in a business involving the employment of labour”.  When we look into the evidence of this case, it is so clear that the opposite party 2, who treated the deceased Sreeraj, was a doctor who is working in opposite party 1’s hospital.  It is pertinent to see that opposite party 1 has also admitted this fact.  Hence we can come to a conclusion that opposite party 1 and 2 are Master and Servant as per the definition in Law of Torts.  It is already found that due to the negligence act of opposite party 2, this incident took place for that apart from opposite party 2, opposite party 1 is also liable for the negligent act of opposite party 2.  Hence we can find that opposite party 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to the complainant.  The Appellate Forum also directed to look into the vicarious liability in this case.  The above referred Salmond’s Law of Torts says,   “There has been some discussion about the nature of the doctrine of vicarious liability, as well as of the reason for it.  The orthodox view assumes that the master is vicariously liable for the servant only when the servant himself would be liable.  In every case… the first question is to see whether the servant was liable.  If the answer is yes, the second question is to see whether the employer must shoulder the servant’s liability.  This is the view which was adopted in the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, S.2(1), and which has been approved judicially.  So in the normal case there has been only one tort, but as it has been committed in the course of employment the master is jointly responsible for it.  But four exceptional cases have caused difficulties, and given rise to an unorthodox theory”.  Anyway, as per discussions with regard to the vicarious liability we find that the liability of opposite party 2 and opposite party 1 is one and the same because opposite party 1 is the master and opposite party 2 is the servant of that hospital.  If a servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment the master is liable for it.  The servant, of course, is also liable.  We can also say that the wrongful act of the servant is deemed to be a wrongful act of the master.  In Law of Tort the doctrine of liability of the master for act of his servant is based on the maxim, ‘respondent superior’ which means let the principal be liable and it put the master in the same position as if he had done the act himself.  The Book, The Law of Torts again says that this position derives validity from the maxim, “qui facat per alium facit perse”, which means ‘he who does an act’ through another is deemed in Law to do it himself.

            53. The learned counsel for opposite party 1also submitted another aspect to the effect that the Order in Appeal No.71/13 dated 14.02.2013 is hit by the principle of res-judicata because for the same matter the Hon’ble CDRC pronounced Order on 01.01.2013 in Appeal No.54/13.  In order to substantiate his contention he cited another decision reported in Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair reported in 1993(2)KLT 938 (SC), the dictum of the decision is, “An order of an issue which has arises directly or substantially between the parties or their previous parties and decided finally by a competent court or tribunal, though of limited or special jurisdiction, which includes pecuniary jurisdiction will operate as res-judicata in a subsequent suit or proceedings notwithstanding the fact that such court of limited or special jurisdiction was not a competent court to try the subsequent suit”. In the light of the decision, when we refer the result portion of the 2 Appeal Orders referred above, it can be understood that there is no material contradiction between the order portions of above 2 Appeals.  Even though, for argument’s sake if we admit this argument even according to the learned counsel of opposite party 1, the Order in Appeal No.54/13 dated 01.01.2013 can be sustained.  The learned counsel of opposite party 1 are again cited another decision reported in Alapuzha Muhayiddin Masjid Association Vs. Abdul Khadar our Hon’ble High Court 2011(1) KLT Page 772 which find that the principle of res-judicata will apply not only to separate subsequent proceedings, that will come attracted in subsequent stage of same proceedings.  According to him, Appeal No.54/13 is the subsequent proceedings of C.C.No.117/10 and it has become final in Appeal No.54/13.  Though the learned counsel has submitted the above cited decision to substantiate his plea of the rule of res-judicata we would like to find that if the opposite party 1 has any genuine contention with regard to this aspect opposite party 1 would have approach a higher Forum to redress their grievances.  We are bound to follow the direction given by our Appellate Forum on this regards.  That is why we ought to follow and consider the direction of the Appellate Forum with regard to the Order in Appeal No.54/13 and 71/13 connected to the instant case.

                   54.  The 2^nd Opposite party’s learned counsel also appeared before the Forum and argued their case.  According to him, opposite party 2 is an employee who is working under opposite party 1’s hospital and existing a master and servant relationship between opposite party 1 and 2.  In the light of the decision in Appeal No.54/13 and 71/13 it is so clear that the Forum ought to look into the tortious liability or master and servant relationship of opposite party 1 and opposite party 2.  He also argued that opposite party 2 has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  As discussed earlier, at this stage we are not bound to look into the deficiency in service of opposite parties as argued by opposite party 2’s learned counsel.  We do admit that it is the time to consider the relationship of opposite party 1 and 2 under strict principles of Law of Torts and on the basis of master and servant relationship.  As we discussed above, we would like to find that the principles of Law of ‘vicarious liability’ in Law of Torts is applicable where the master is liable to answer the mistakes committed by the servants in the due course of his employment.  In the instant case, this Forum already found that opposite party 1 and 2 has committed deficiency in service against the deceased and both are liable to the complainant.  Therefore, we find that opposite party 1 hospital and opposite party 2 is jointly and severally liable to the complainant.

                   55. The addl. opposite party 3 in this case is the United India Insurance Company.  The learned counsel appearing for the addl. 3^rd opposite party filed an argument note before us.  The main argument of the addl. opposite party 3 is that as per the terms of the insurance policy they are not liable to compensate the complainant if medical negligence is not proved.  Though addl. opposite party 3 argued this Point there is no substance for this submission because the appellate court of this Forum confirmed the finding of this Forum with regard to the medical negligence against the opposite party 1 and 2.  The next argument of the learned counsel to the effect that even if this Forum found medical negligence of 2^nd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party is only liable to pay a compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- to the complainants as insurance coverage of opposite party 1.  No doubt with regard to the limit of insurance coverage of Rs.6,25,000/- we are agreeing with the learned counsel of addl. opposite party 3.  The next issue to be considered is whether the quantum of the award of this Forum on 20.11.2012 has to be increased or not.  It is true that as per Order in Appeal No.71/13, which was passed by the Hon’ble President and another Hon’ble Member of Hon’ble CDRC it is directed to consider the claim of Rs.20 lakhs with interest as prayed by the complainant, on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidences and also directed to consider the grievances of the complainant on merit.  It is to be understood that the deceased Sreeraj was an efficient lawyer and he worked as Addl. Govt. Pleader and Public Prosecutor.  It was also brought to our notice that he was the legal advisor of Union Bank of India, Central Bank of India and State Bank of India at the time of the incident.  He was also specialized in both Civil and Criminal Laws and had a monthly income of Rs.50,000/-.  It was also brought in our notice that on the date of the death he was only 38 years.  At the time of death he left his wife, 2 children and aged father and mother.  Considering all these facts stated above and as a promising lawyer his death was a permanent loss to his family and this loss cannot be compensated with money.  Anyway, this Forum is enjoying a jurisdiction of Rs.20 lakhs as it limit to entertain cases.  Therefore, in the light of the above discussions and relying the decisions cited by the complainant we decided to enhance the amount of compensation to Rs.20 lakhs.

                   56. It is found that opposite party 2 has committed deficiency in service against the deceased Sreeraj when opposite party 2 is working as a doctor in opposite party 1’s hospital.  The opposite party 2 doctor as the employee of the opposite party 1’s hospital enjoying a master and servant relationship and therefore a vicarious liability is to be found against opposite party 1 as the employer of opposite party 2.  Anyway, on the basis of the above discussion, it is find that both opposite party 1 and 2 are liable to the complainant.  When we find vicarious liability against opposite party 1 in this case, it is also to be noted that the complainant herein has a choice to bring an action either or both of them because their liability is joined and several.  As per Law of Torts, in order to establish tortious liability two ingredients must have been proved (1) The Tort was committed by the servant (2) The servant committed the Tort in the course of his employment.  The answer for the above questions are positive and in favour of the complainants herein.  In the light of the above discussion, we find that the complainant has succeed in proving their case beyond any doubt with cogent and conclusive evidence.  We also find that the complainants are eligible to get a maximum compensation up to Rs. 20 Lakhs in this case.  Hence the Points arised on the basis of the Appeal Orders 54/13 & 71/13 of our Hon’ble CDRC are found accordingly.

                   57.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite party 1 and 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the complainants with 10% interest from the date of this complaint, i.e. 24.03.2010 onwards subject to a deduction of addl. 3^rd opposite party’s payment described in Para 4 of this order portion.

2. The opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 are directed to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainants with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

3. The complainants are at liberty to proceed against any of the opposite parties (opposite party 1 & 2 only) for the realization of the award as per their discretion (complainants).

4. The addl. opposite party 3 is directed to deposit the insurance amount Rs.6,25,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) with 10% interest from the date of the complaint, i.e. 24.03.2010 before this Forum within one month of the receipt of this order and intimate the payment details to the complainants and opposite parties (one and two).

5. The disbursement of the above payment shall be effected as per the Hindu Law of inheritance (described in class 1 share).

                      Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of April, 2017.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1   :         Girija.K.S

PW2   :         Dr. R. Sasikala

PW3   :         Dr. Tomy Muppalakayil

PW4   :         Abhijith

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Copy of Expert Panel Committee Report dated 23.01.2009. 

A2     :  Copy of Expert Panel Committee Report dated 08.09.2009. 

A3     :  Copy of FIR dated 01.05.2008 in Crime No.335/08 of 

             Thiruvalla Police Station. 

A4     :  Photocopy of certified copy of final report in Crime No.640/10 of

            Judl. 1^st Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla.

A5     :  Photocopy of post mortem certificate dated 02.05.2008 issued by

            Dy. Police Surgen, Medical College, Kottayam.

A6     :  Copy of post mortem certificate (final opinion as to the cause of death)   

             dated 10.09.2008. 

A7     :  Copy of advocate notice dated 26.10.2009 sent by the complainant

             to the 1^st opposite party. 

A8 & A8(a) :  Postal receipts. 

A9     :   Copy of advocate notice dated 16.01.2010 sent by the complainant

             to 2^nd opposite party. 

A10   :  Postal receipt of Ext.A9. 

A11   :  Reply notice dated 3.12.2009 sent by the 1^st opposite party

            to the complainant’s council. 

A12   :  Reply notice dated 26.01.2010 sent by the 2^nd opposite party

            to the complainant’s council. 

A13   :  Pan card of Sreeraj. R.

A14   :  Photocopy of advocate panel issued from State Bank of India,

            Zonal Office, Thiruvananthapuram. 

A15   :  Photocopy of Govt. order dated 12.07.2005 issued by Law 

             (Inspection Wing) Dept. Govt. of Kerala. 

A16   :  Certificate dated 22.02.2011 issued from the Union Bank of India,        

             Pathanamthitta Branch.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :         Dr. P.C. Cherian

DW2  :         Joy Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :  Copy of the final report in Crime No.117/08 of Nedumudi 

             Police Station. 

B2     :   FIR & FIS in Crime No.117/08 of Nedumudi Police Station. 

B3     :   Outpatient case record of deceased Sreeraj. 

B4     :   Reply notice dated 03.12.2009 issued by the 1^st opposite party

             to the complainant’s council. 

B5     :   Postal receipt of Ext.B5.

B6     :   Acknowledgment card of Ext.B5.

B7     :   Copy of Policy.                                                            (By Order)

 Copy to:- (1) Girija. K.S, Sravana, Iymali, Omalloor.

3. R. Ramakrishnan, Kallummoottil House,

                    Klappana.P.O, Kulasekharapuram.

               (3) Managing Trustee,  Thiruvalla Medical Mission 

                    Hospital, (Dewan Bahadur Dr. V. Varghese Hospital-

                    Trust Association), Thiruvalla.

               (4) Dr. Mahanthesh Kumbhar, Sector No.5,

                     Plot No.8, Near Kalidasa School, Navanagar,      

                     Bagalkot, Karnataka.

               (5)  United Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office,  

                     Thottuparmpil Building, Post Office Junction,

                     Changanassery – 686 101.

               (6)  The Stock File.