Most pathetic and sad story it is of deceased Mahua Shom who shortly after delivering a child following forcep delivery carried out by Dr. S.B. Mondal, the Resident Medical Officer of the petitioner – Maternity Clinic, while losing battle for her survival got defeated in her prime age of 26 years. The petitioner – Maternity Clinic belongs to wife of Dr. S.B. Mondal who was opp.party No. 1 before the District Forum. Dr. S.B. Mondal, Gynecologist and treating Physician/ respondent No. 2 herein was attached to the said Nursing Home as a Resident Medical Officer. As ill-luck would have it, deceased Mahua Shom who was pregnant came under treatment of respondent No. 1 in the said Maternity Clinic since 10.08.1996. She was admitted to the Nursing Home at about 8.30 AM on 25.08.1997 when she came for medical check-up, considering it a case of emergency, though expected date of delivery was 13.09.1997. Doping was applied to her to raise labour pain. As no one came to attend to her and she was left uncared for long hours since 8.30 AM, the Doctor and Nursing staff were duly informed. Be that as it may, the treating Doctor on his visit took Mahua to the labour room around 4.00PM and the baby was pulled out from the womb with the aid of forcep delivery. The baby borne several scar marks on the person which was very much visible. The mother complained severe pain in the abdomen after delivery and her belly puffed up. She was continuously sweating and blood pressure also came down considerably. Even though deceased faced crisis and her condition was deteriorating fast, neither attending Doctor nor Nursing staff took pains to attend to her even on getting informed, till 10.00PM. Even though patient felt uneasiness, treating Doctor neither took recourse to blood transfusion or supply of oxygen, and treating the patient casually, simply prescribed some medicines. Eventually, Mahua Shom died at 2.00 AM though a specialist was requisitioned who on his visit, declared her clinically dead. A consumer complaint came to be filed before the District Forum by minor Deba Shom. Both parties adduced evidence during the proceeding and the District Forum having ruled out medical negligence on part of the petitioner, dismissed complaint. State Commission on appeal being preferred by minor Deba Shom, however, reversed the finding of the District Forum holding both the petitioners deficient in service and guilty of medical negligence. The State Commission, accordingly, accepting appeal directed treating Doctor S.B. Mandal to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant. Respondent No. 2, Nursing Home, which was found answerable for negligence in providing medical services under the Clinical Establishment Act, was saddled to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner. Before counsel could address the core issue to us, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded by State Commission has to be struck down for the simple reason that they were not given due audience by State Commission and the finding recorded by State Commission as such, went ex-parte against them. He drew our attention to the Xerox copy of the orders of few dates of the State Commission to impress us that even though State Commission noticed that the petitioner was not represented, the proceeding commenced and was concluded in their absence. However, complete extract of order of State Commission has not been filed by the petitioner. Record, however, shows that when matter was taken up by State Commission for hearing on 08.04.2002, after admitting the appeal, the proceeding was adjourned to 02.07.2002 with a direction to issue notice against respondents who are petitioners herein. No copy of the order of 02.07.2002 has however, been placed on record. When the matter was listed on 22.07.2002, it was taken to 15.10.2003, when it was further adjourned to 05.01.2004. No copy of order sheet of 05.01.2004 too has been filed. Be that as it may, learned counsel for respondent herein places before us strong evidence suggesting knowledge of the petitioner about pendency of proceeding, as notices issued against respondent on 07.05.2002 indicating 02.07.2002 to be the date of hearing, was duly received for both respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by none else but Respondent No. 1, as copy of notice sent through courier service bears endorsement of Doctor Mandal on 19.06.2002 in token of receipt of notice. Regard being had to the tacit evidence about receipt of notice by petitioners as early as on 19.06.2002, grievance raised by them, for State Commission having not given due audience to them, was a merit-less presumption. If respondent despite receipt of notices sent, had not chosen to contest the proceeding, it was not open to them to raise a grievance for their non-participation in the proceeding when the proceeding was concluded. It seems that following death of Mahua Shom, on complaints, an enquiry team was constituted by Government and CMOH, Hoogly, on receipt of complaint of Mahua’s death due to utter negligence and lack of medical attention. During enquiry, it was noticed by agency of the enquiry that Dr. Mondal, respondent No. 1 was also attached to other Nursing Home at Kalna and association of respondent No. 1 with other Nursing Home does not leave the question unanswered for the reasons Mahua remained unattended for hours together both preceding delivery of the child and also during post-delivery period. Taking strong exception to the negligence of treating doctor, State Commission held that treating doctor was engaged more in money spinning business than providing medical services to ailing patients who were admitted in the Nursing Home. Even the enquiry team made adverse comment about the basic infrastructure of the Nursing Home and the negligence exhibited due to paucity of staff attached to the Maternity Centre, violating Clinical Establishment Act. The enquiry tem on conclusion of enquiry made following observations:- “it could not unfortunately prove the death of Smt. Mahua Shom nevertheless, some suspicions are there as there are many irregularities in the Nursing Home and also the B.H.T. was not available”. The Nursing Home, evidences show, was eventually closed down, under orders of the Government. True, it is that though the enquiry team did not record their views about medical negligence on part of Maternity Clinic or treating Doctor, raised needle of suspicion for negligence attributed to them. We are not oblivious that this may not be a primary evidence but this is of ancillary nature which reinforces the reasons for lack of proper and due attention for the patients admitted there. Since State Commission did not give much credence to the affidavit evidence of husband and in-laws of Smt. Mahua Shom, as there may not be impartial appraisal of the situation for emotional reasons, rightly applied the same ratio in case of evidence of Dr. S.B. Mondal, treating doctor also, as that too would be blurred by defensive statements. Even though Mahua Shom died in clinic of the doctor, no autopsy over the dead body is shown to have been conducted. In such a situation, in case of unnatural death, it was expected that the police be requisitioned and Post-Mortem of the dead body should have been carried out in all fairness. Now petitioners on this score wants to make a castle out of these loose ends in the sad chapter of Mahua Shom, but evidence of Dr. S.C. Roy was the last nail in the coffin. Dr. S.C. Roy was a Gynecologist who was examined during pendency of proceeding before District Forum and his evidence in our view, strengthens the cause of the respondents. Dr. Roy was attached to Hospital with working experience of 30 years. The Doctor has visualized the state of health of the patient after it is subjected to forcep delivery. He speaks a lot about likelihood of serious complications surfacing in the patient’s condition during post-delivery period. The Doctor states that in case of forcep delivery there might be a chance of rupture of female organ and for the said rupture, the patient might bleed internally and externally. While external bleeding is visible, internal bleeding would not be visible and in such cases, the patient’s pulse rate would increase, blood pressure would fall, patient would sweat and her hands and legs would get cold. The patient may even die within half-an-hour to 3 days depending upon the flow of blood from the injury and the bleeding caused by forcep delivery. In such a situation, normalcy of the patient would not come back even if injection like Decadron and others are administered. Transmission of blood was necessary when blood pressure drips and oxygen is to be supplied when there is bleeding trouble. Shortly, after forcep delivery, the patient complained severe pain in the abdomen, her belly had puffed up, she was continuously sweating and her blood pressure too had considerably fallen down. These symptoms which surfaced with patient, were quite identical with the symptoms identified by Dr. Roy, which usually happens during forcep delivery on account of internal injury caused in the wake of forced delivery when the infant is pulled out from the womb with the aid of instrument. Though we are not oblivious of the loose ends in case of respondent about autopsy of dead-body of Mahua Shom getting not carried out even though she died in the hospital of respondent and bed head ticket too not reflecting the status of crisis which the deceased faced in last hours of her life, yet we feel that the circumstances which have surfaced and are enforced by the finding of Dr. S.C. Roy, Gynecologist who was also put to cross-examination by respondent, speak a volume about the status of ailment of the deceased preceding her death and also negligence exhibited by treating Doctor in attending to her ailment when she was in crisis and in our view, the dictum res ipsa loquitor would apply leaving no room to negate negligence attributed to the treating Doctor for want of another Doctor who could have examined the deceased before her death. In case of Dr. T. Vani Devi & Ors. Vs. Tugutla Lakshmi Narasaiah, National Commission, in case of death of the mother shortly after delivering a child, affirmed the finding of State Commission holding treating Doctor to be negligent in service and awarded adequate compensation. In case of Savita Garg Vs. Director, National Heart Institute – (2008) 8 SCC 56, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that after the complainant has successfully discharged the initial burden that the hospital – Clinic Doctor was negligent and that as a result of such negligence the patient died, in that case, the burden lies on the hospital and the Doctor concerned who treated the patient to show that there was no negligence involved in the treatment. Having given our bestowed consideration to the contentions raised and finding of the State Commission holding the Doctor and the Nursing Home to be deficient in service, and, as compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- awarded by State Commission appears to be on higher side, particularly when no rationale for awarding this sum has been assigned, we accordingly, modify the award of State Commission, directing petitioner No. 2 – Dr. S.B. Mondal to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- along-with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent within two months. The award of State Commission against petitioner No. 1, is however, left unaltered. Resultantly, revision petition succeeds with aforesaid modification in the award, with no order as to cost.