Manipur

StateCommission

CC/1/2020

Shri Rajkumar Tombisana Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Maipakoi Maternity and child hospital and 5 others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Ibotombi Namoijam

02 Sep 2024

ORDER

Mr. Th. Saimon Singh, Hon’ble President (Acting):-          The present Complaint case has been filed by the complainant with a prayer for awarding compensation to the complainant against the O.Ps no. 1 to 5 jointly and severally for causing death of the complainants wife namely late Dr. Zenith Ngasepam (hereinafter referred to as the patient), due to gross negligence on the part of the O.Ps no. 1 to 5, having failed to perform their basic bounden professional duties to save the precious life of the deceased person, the patient.

 

2. .         Brief facts of the instant Complaint Case are that the complainant married Dr. Zenith Ngasepam (now deceased) in the year 2017, who was working as an Assistant Professor at Mayai Lambi College, Government of Manipur under Imphal West District. After their marriage, as the couple could not beget a child, they underwent fertility treatment at Sir Gangaram Hospital, New Delhi on 28/11/2018, the treatment of which continued till the last week of March, 2019 and the couple returned to Imphal in sound health on 25/03/2019. Later, after their return, the couple attended regular ante-natal checkups at the O.P. no.1 hospital, where the deceased patient was checked by the O.P. no.4. On the first visit of the couple to the O.P. no.1 hospital on 29/03/2019, all parameters were found to be normal.

 

3.           Later, on 12/04/2019, acting on the advice of the O.P. no.4, ultrasound test was conducted upon deceased patient and the results were satisfactory with no signs of foetal abnormality. Liver Function test was also performed on the same day and the report indicated normal liver functions. O.P. no.4 further prescribed standard second trimester medications and a quad test was also performed on the same day; and sample was sent to Fetomed Laboratories in Chennai, the report of which was received on 16/04/2019, suggesting a low risk of three types of foetal deformities. Another routine check-up was conducted at the O.P. no.1 hospital on 28/04/2019. Later, ultrasound test was also advised and the report was made available on 12/05/2019 which showed normal foetal progress.

 

4.          However, in the third week of May, 2019, during the 5^th month of pregnancy of the patient, the deceased experienced mild swelling in her face, hands and legs, following which she promptly visited the O.P. no. 1 hospital’s OPD on 22/05/2019, where the O.P. no. 4 (Dr. Sushitra) examined her and noted a blood pressure of 140/90 mmHg. The O.P. no. 4 prescribed medications, including medicines for controlling the high blood pressure and also advised several tests, which were conducted on the same day itself. The reports for the tests were obtained on the following day, i.e. on 23/05/2019; and after reviewing the reports, Dr. Sushitra, the O.P. no.4 diagnosed the deceased patient with pre-eclampsia due to body swelling, presence of protein in urine and high blood pressure. O.P. no. 4 decided to continue with the previous medical treatment. However, in the evening of the same day, i.e. on 23/05/2019, the deceased patient began experiencing severe abdominal pain in the epigastric region and Dr. Sushitra (the O.P. no.4) was immediately contacted who advised for  administering Pantoprazol and anti-vomiting injections. The couple, i.e. the complainant and his deceased wife Dr. Zenith Ngasepam(the patient) reached the O.P. no.1 hospital at around 6.10 pm, of 23-05-2019 and acting on the advice of Dr. Sushitra, the O.P. no. 4, the Medical officer of the O.P. no.1 hospital, started administering Pantoprazol injection and later admitted her in the hospital. Despite medications, the pain of the patient persisted and at around 7.20 p.m., the O.Ps 2, 3, and 5 visited the patient’s room and suggested additional injections. O.P. no.5, Dr. Siddhartha Khoirom informed the patient about the seriousness of her condition, causing her to become anxious and mentally distressed.

 

 

5.          Later, at around 8.00 p.m. of the said day, in presence of the O.Ps. No. 1 to 5, the complainant was informed that a surgical procedure to remove the foetus might be necessary to save the life of deceased patient. The complainant agreed to any measures to ensure the survival of his wife. At around 10.00 p.m., the complainant was asked to give his consent for the surgical procedure to remove the foetus. However, despite obtaining consent, no surgery was initiated and at about 2.00 a.m. of 24/05/2019, the patient younger sister noticed darkening of the patient urine and she accordingly informed the nurse. Despite observing such complications, no urgent action for performing surgical arrangements were made. The patient was given an injection at about 2.30 a.m, after which she complained of severe body pain, became disoriented and lost consciousness. At about 3.00 a.m., the doctors informed the complainant about the patient deteriorating kidney condition and suggested for transferring her to another hospital. The O.Ps concealed the fact that the patient was unconscious. By 4.00 a.m., the Medical Officer of O.P. no.1 hospital, started preparing discharge certificate, falsely stating that it was requested by the patient party and also recorded in the discharge certificate that the patient was conscious at the time of discharge. The discharge certificate was completed by 4.40 a.m., without mentioning the reasons for the referral or discharge. Later, when the patient was about to be transferred, she started convulsing and clenching of her teeth. Dr. Sushitra, the O.P. no.4 was informed of this, after which she came and she inserted a spoon in the patient mouth, and thereafter the patient was put in an ambulance and was referred to the O.P. no.6 hospital, reaching there at around 5.10 a.m. However, by the time the patient had reached O.P. no.6 hospital, it was too late and the patient had gone into a deep coma. After arrival at the O.P. no.6 hospital, the attending doctor diagnosed the patient with severe pre-eclampsia and loss of consciousness. Immediate ventilator support was provided to the patient and routine blood investigations were also advised,. Despite all these, the condition of the patient worsened. A CT scan revealed a stroke i.e. Right Basal Ganglia Inter-Cerebral Haemorrhage (ICH) and the Glasgow Coma Scale indicated a deep coma with no chance of recovery. After keeping the patient for 24 hours on life support, with no signs of improvement, the patient was declared brain dead at 10.30 a.m. of 25/05/2019. Upon withdrawal of life support, the patient was declared dead and later on the same day, her last rites were performed.

 

 

6.          It is the contention of the complainant that the O.Ps 1 to 5 should have promptly performed the foetal removal operation, rather than delaying and prolonging the conservative treatment, which led to complications from pre-eclampsia to deep coma and subsequent death. It has been further contended that the life of the patient could have been saved if O.Ps 1 to 5 had acted diligently, adhering to medical practice and ethics. Even when the complainant had given his consent of performing the C-Section surgery for removal of the foetus, which was necessary to save the life of the patient, the O.Ps failed to do so without any valid reason, and ultimately caused her death.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant has presented that medical practice fundamentals dictate immediate removal of foetus in cases of pre-eclampsia, with epigastric pain for saving the life of a pregnant woman. Inspite of knowing this fact, the O.Ps 1 to 5 did not perform the surgery, allowing the onset of severe complications and ultimately, the death of the patient. The O.Ps 1 to 5 further failed to conduct any emergency laboratory investigations such as LFT, KFT or preparatory tests, including pre-anaesthetics tests for performing the life saving surgery. This gross negligence and deficiency in providing proper medical facilities by O.Ps 1 to 5 is the primary cause of the patient’s unfortunate death. Hence, the O.Ps 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable for causing death of the patient, namely, Dr. Zenith Ngasepam, due to their negligent act, and therefore, the O.Ps 1 to 5 are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (Rupees one crore thirty thousand) only as compensation to the complainant.

 

7. On the other hand, O.Ps 1 to 5 have filed their joint written statement in response to the Complaint Case filed by the present complainant. In the written statement, the O.Ps 1 to 5 have not denied the fact that the deceased patient was treated in the O.P. no.1 hospital as an OPD Patient for her pre-natal checkup on payment of fees. It has been submitted by the O.Ps 1 to 5 that when the deceased patient came to their hospital on 22/05/2019 for antenatal checkup, she was found to have symptoms of Pre-Eclamptic Toxaemia (PET), swelling of face, hands and legs with Blood pressure of 140/90 mmHg. Accordingly, necessary tests were prescribed to the deceased patient, and upon receipt of medical reports and after clinical examination, earlier medical prescriptions and treatment was continued. It has also been admitted that on 23/05/2019, the deceased patient was admitted at the O.P. no.1 hospital at around 5.30 pm for treatment of epigastric pain, for which the deceased patient was administered Pantoprazole and Reglan injection to control pain and vomiting. After receiving the investigation reports, the patient’s party was informed of the sudden development of PET and its associated complications, and the nature of the seriousness of the health condition of the deceased patient. It was also informed to the patient party that the medical condition was Pregnancy Induced Hypertension (PIH) and it would subside after termination of pregnancy. Necessary formalities for performing surgery on the patient was also obtained by the O.Ps 1 to 5. O.Ps 1 to 5 further submitted that the deceased patient health and physical condition was not showing any signs of development for performing the surgery the patient had developed haematuria (i.e. blood in urine) and her vital functions were on gradual decline. The physical condition of the patient worsened with deterioration of her kidney functions as well and the O.Ps 1 to 5 had suggested the patient party to take opinion of some other hospital where better facility for kidney treatment was available. Later, at around 4.00 am of 24/05/2019, the patient showed signs of mild disorientation and while she was being shifted to ambulance, she developed mild convulsions as well (i.e. feature of severe PET leading to Impending Eclampsia). O.Ps 1 to 5 have stated in their written statement that if the health condition of the patient had been fit for operation, necessary procedures for conducting surgery for termination of pregnancy could have been undertaken and that they were prepared for the surgery. Thus, the O.Ps 1 to 5 have contended that the question of  immediate surgery to remove the foetus does not arise at all. Hence, they have contended that there is no question of negligence on their part. They have also contended that the investigation findings of Shija Hospital and Research Institute suggested that the patient had deteriorating complications of Severe Pre-Eclampsia and Eclamptic stage. O.P. no. 6 has also caused appearance. However, no written statement has been filed.

8.         The complainant has filed the following medical documents both of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, the O.P. no. 1 hospital and that of O.P. no.6 Shija Hospital and Research Institute, Langol. The details of the documents which have been filed and exhibited during the examination of the complainant are listed as follows:

1. First trimester scan report dated 11/12/2018 of Sir ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi.
2. Ultrasound report dated 11/02/2019 of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi.
3. Patient Report dated 09/03/2019 of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi.
4. OPD ticket dated 29/03/2019 of Maipakpi Maternity and Child Hospital.
5. Lower Abdomen Ultrasound Report dated 12/04/2019 of the patient taken by Maipakpi Maternity and Child Hospital.
6. Result of Liver function test conducted on 12/04/2019.
7. Prenatal Second trimester Quadruple Screening summary issued b yFetomed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, dated 16/04/2019.
8. OPD ticket dated 28/04/2019 of the O.P. no.1 hospital.
9. Ultrasonography report dated 12/05/2019 of the deceased wife of the complainant issued by O.P. no.1 hospital.
10. Medical report dated 22/05/2019 of the deceased wife of the complainant issued by the O.P. no.1 hospital.
11. Medical prescription of the deceased wife of the complainant dated 23/05/2019 issued by the O.P. no.1 hospital.
12. Discharge certificate dated 23/05/2019 issued in respect of the deceased wife of the complainant.
13. Death summary dated 25/05/2019 of the deceased wife of the complainant issued by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynae, Shija Hospital and Research Institute, Langol.
14. IP Bill break up details dated 25/05/2019 of the deceased wife of the complainant issued by Shija Hospital.
15. Money receipt dated 29/03/2019 for OPD fee.
16. Money receipt for Quad test dated 12/04/2019.
17. Money receipt dated 12/04/2019 for Lab test.
18. Money receipt dated 12/04/2019 for Ultrasound test.
19. Money receipt dated 28/04/2019 for Ultrasound test.
20. Money receipt dated 22/05/2019 for Lab test.
21. Money receipt dated 22/05/2019 for OPD fee.
22. Money receipt dated 23/05/2019 for hospital Admission.
23. Money receipt dated 23/05/2019 of Admission Advance.

9.         The O.P. no.2, in support of his contention, has filed the following documents during his examination.

1. Patient Admission Card dated 23/05/2019.
2. Admission receipt dated 23/05/2019.
3. Admission record dated 23/05/2019.
4. OPD ticket for third visit dated 22/05/2019.
5. History sheet of the deceased wife of the complainant.
6. Continuation sheet of the deceased wife of the complainant.
7. Nurses Record sheet in respect of the deceased wife of the complainant.
8. Continuation sheet in respect of the deceased wife of the complainant.
9. Continuation sheet in respect of the deceased wife of the complainant with the caption High Risk Consent given by the complainant.
10. Another three continuation sheets in respect of the deceased wife of the complainant.

 

10.        After hearing the submissions and perusal of the pleadings of the complainant and the O.Ps 1 to 5, this Commission has framed the following issues for better adjudication of the present Complaint Case in hand.

 

103606587.  

 

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether there is any consumer dispute between the complainant and the O.Ps or not?
3. Whether there was any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps 1 to 5 in the diagnosis and treatment of the deceased patient Dr. Zenith Ngasepam, wife of the complainant?
4. Whether the death of the wife of the complainant was caused due to non-performance of the surgical operation for removal of the foetus or not?
5. Whether there is cause of action or not?
6. Reliefs?

 

38710973085.  
11.        The testimonies of the P.Ws. are briefly discussed hereunder. The complainant has produced and examined three witnesses, including the complainant himself.

The complainant has filed his reply to the interrogatories in the form of Affidavit and in his statement, the complainant has stated that he is not a medical expert but he knows the negligence on the part of the O.Ps 1 to 5, which led to the death of his wife. He has stated that the present complaint case has been filed for non-performance of the bounden duties by the O.Ps 2 to 5 after they themselves informed the complainant that in view of the severe pre-eclampsia, the foetus was required to be removed by performing surgical operation, failing which, other serious complications such as brain, liver and kidney failure were imminent. In his response, the complainant further stated that he gave his consent for performing the surgical operation and also requested to do whatever was required to save his wife life. However, the O.Ps failed to perform their duties which further led to failure of vital organs of his wife and ultimately causing her death. In response to the interrogatories, the complainant, as PW No.1, further stated that he has not filed the present complaint relying upon the salary and service of his deceased wife and also stated that the salary of an Assistant Professor of a Government college can be easily ascertained. He further stated that there can always be complications in pregnancy whether it is normal conception or conception through IVF, however, it is the duty of the treating doctors to give their best effort to save the life of a patient; and he added that in his present complaint case, the treating doctors of the O.P. no.1 hospital acted in a negligent manner which led to the death of his wife. He further stated in his response to the interrogatories that he was never informed by the centre of IVF and Human Reproduction Centre of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi that his wife would die due to the complication of IVF pregnancy. He added that he and his deceased wife had proceeded with the treatment in the hope of getting their dream child, and not to risk the life of his wife who is now deceased. However, the negligent act and deficiency in providing medical service by the O.Ps 1 to 5 to his deceased wife had caused the untimely death. During his cross examination in the interrogatories, he denied that he did not file all relevant medical documents of his deceased wife treatment in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The complainant also stated that the O.P. no.3 informed him that if the foetus was not removed, serious complications such as brain, liver and kidney failure might take place. However, the O.Ps 1 to 5 never informed either the complainant or any of his family members present in the hospital that the hospital authorities had already arranged for emergency caesarean section operation and were waiting for the improvement of the patient to become fit for general anaesthesia. He further stated that he is not at all satisfied with the treatment given by the O.Ps 1 to 5 and added that he accepted the discharge certificate issued by the O.P. no.1 hospital because he wanted to shift his wife immediately from the O.P. no.1 hospital as the health condition of his wife had deteriorated and she had lost her consciousness due to the negligence of the O.Ps 1 to 5. He further denied that he has filed the present complaint case after thoughts based on concocted and false allegations against the O.Ps 1 to 5.

12.       The complainant has also produced and examined Mr. RK Singhajit Singh (P.W), who is his elder brother. He has also filed his statement in the form of reply to interrogatories. He has also supported the contention of the complainant by adducing responses in the same tune as that of the complainant. He has stated that his younger brother (complainant) wife who was a hard working woman, serving as Assistant Professor in Mayai Lambi college, had died untimely due to the negligence on the part of the O.Ps 1 to 5 and that she did not die a natural death. During cross examination, the PW had negated that he has filed his examination-in-chief based on concocted stories without any supporting documents.

13.       Further, the complainant has produced and examined P.W no.3, namely, Smt. RK Ranjita Devi, who is the complainant younger sister. She has substantiated the complainant case by adducing evidence in the same tune as that of the complainant and PW No. 2. During the cross examination in response to the interrogatories, she has denied that the statements made by her in the examination-in-chief are all false and based on concocted stories.

14.       The O.P nos. 2 to 5 examined themselves as defence witnesses. O.P. no. 2 and O.P. no.4 were examined and cross examined as Defence witnesses no. 1 and 3 respectively in person after obtaining permission of this Commission. However, O.P. Nos. 3 and 5 were cross examined by way of filing interrogatories.

            O.P. no. 2, namely. Dr. Khoirom Tomba Singh, serving as the Managing Director of Maipakpi Maternity and Child Hospital, in his examination-in-chief has stated that the hospital (O.P. no.1) and its concerned doctors gave the necessary and emergency treatment to the complainant wife, i.e. deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam, right from the day of admission as the patient (deceased wife of the complainant) was considered as a patient with high risk pregnancy case. He further stated that there was no question of negligence and deficiency in the clinical management of the complainant wife. He has further stated that the complainant, not belonging to a medical profession, has no basic idea or knowledge of professional duties of the concerned doctor while treating his now deceased wife. He also stated that the complainant and the patient party were informed by the attending doctors about the condition of the patient (i.e the deceased wife of the complainant) and the seriousness of the disease (severe pre-eclampsia). O.P. no.2 as DW No. 1 also stated that the case of the deceased wife of the complainant belonged to a case of Primary infertility, not responding to normal course of treatment and she underwent IVF treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in New Delhi. The IVF treatment, being an artificial one, suppressed all normal hormonal control system and there is more risk and complicacies compared to normal and natural pregnancy. The DW No.1 has also stated that the complainant and his deceased wife were both aware about the risk and complicacies of IVF pregnancy. He further stated that the complainant has failed to produce the relevant documents for undergoing the IVF treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in the present case and has thus alleged that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands.

            The O.P. no.2, as DW no.1 has further stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased wife of the complainant was given 10 hours and 30 minutes treatment regime while she was admitted at the O.P. no.1 hospital. He added that bedside ultrasound examination was conducted for the deceased wife of the complainant, and urine test for albumen was also conducted. He stated that, he, and the O.P. nos 3 and 5 did their best to treat the deceased wife of the complainant without any further delay and the deceased wife was kept under observation, under the supervision of the present DW No.1 (i.e. the O.P. no.2). However, due to the medical condition of the deceased wife of the complainant, caused by pre-eclampsia, her health condition further deteriorated and they were unable to administer anaesthesia for performing the surgery. He continued to state that in pre-eclampsia, the main factor for complicacies is hypertension.  Such medical condition may change to eclampsia, termination of pregnancy. He continued to state that everything was well arranged in the O.P. no.1 hospital, in case the necessity of emergency caesarean section operation arose. However, improvement in the patient’s condition (deceased wife of the complainant) was awaited to become fit for general anaesthesia on the patient. He added that in order to perform operation, all vital organs of the patient require to be in a stable condition and needs to be medically fit for administering anaesthesia. All concerned authorities, doctors and nurses were preparing for conducting operation on the wife of the complainant. However, her health condition, became further deteriorated, thereby affecting her vital organs like kidney, urinary system and the brain. The complainants wife started showing disorientation and haematuria (blood in urine). At this juncture, the complainant and his wife (now deceased) were informed that the O.P. no.1 hospital lacks facilities for dialysis and ICU, and accordingly, the complainant and his deceased wife had taken the decision to shift to another hospital which have better facilities for treatment and discharge certificate was prepared and issued thus. Following this, the complainant wife was admitted to Shija Hospital and Research Institute Langol (Proforma O.P. no.6).

15.       During his cross examination by way of interrogatories, the DW no.1 has denied that necessary treatment was not given to the deceased wife of the complainant, i.e. late Dr. Zenith Ngasepam while she was being treated at the O.P. no.1 hospital Maipakpi Maternity and Child Hospital. He further stated that in case of a pregnant woman developing pre-eclampsia, if the blood pressure cannot be controlled, then immediate operation for removal of the foetus should be performed after observing a minimum of 24 hours of conservative treatment. If further complicacies arise within the 24 hours of the observation period, where the condition of the patient changes from pre-eclampsia to eclampsia, then operative delivery is to be undertaken, provided the general condition of the patient is fit for general anaesthesia. He added that if the general condition of the patient is not fit for general anaesthesia, then there is no other option except for continuation of the conservative treatment. In his cross examination, the DW has agreed to the suggestion that there is no written Pre Anaesthetic Checkup (PAC) for performing operation of the removal of foetus. He volunteered that the available past investigation reports from the initial investigation of the patient till the time of admission is sufficient enough for doing the operation. However, he denied that the O.P. no.1 hospital did not perform pre-operation tests for performing the operation of removal of the foetus. He further denied the suggestion that the O.P. no.1 hospital never consulted an anaesthetist to come to the conclusion that the patient was not fit for anaesthesia. He denied that the patient had lost consciousness at the time of discharge from the O.P. no.1 hospital.

He has affirmed that no test was conducted for confirming if the blood in the urine of the patient was haematuria or not. He denied the suggestion that the decision for referring the patient to Shija Hospital was done in a very belated stage in order to escape from the professional liability of causing the death of the patient.

16.       The O.P. no.3 namely Dr. Sanjenbam Sangeeta Devi, serving as Senior Obstetrician and Gynaecologist in O.P. no.1 hospital has been examined as DW No.2 and in her examination-in-chief, she has supported the contention of the DW No.1 by adducing evidence in the same tune as that of the DW No.1.

During her cross-examination by the counsel for the complainant, the DW No. 2 has negated all the interrogatories put to her. The DW has even negated the interrogatory at Q no. 4 by stating that the case of the deceased wife of the complainant is severe pre-eclampsia requiring immediate operation for removal of the foetus in order to save the life of the patient. (This response is in stark contrast to the general opined medical condition of the deceased patient.)

17.       O.P. no.4, namely. Dr. Sushitra Devi, serving as Gynaecologist Grade III, Specialist in the Community Health Centre, Wangoi under the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Manipur, is examined as DW no.3. In her examination-in-chief, the DW has stated that she and the deceased wife of the complainant used to be schoolmate friends and after a long gap of time, the deceased wife of the complainant contacted her from her mobile phone number 7005712382 about her medical issues and she wished her desire of getting treatment at the O.P. no.1 hospital. She further stated that as she (the DW) is well acquainted with the Managing Director of O.P. no.1 hospital (the present O.P. no.2 and DW No.1) and hence she was requested by the deceased wife of the complainant to accompany her to the O.P. no.1 hospital for her medical checkup. The DW further stated that, being her old school mate, she escorted the deceased wife of the complainant whenever she needed for the medical treatment at the O.P. no.1 hospital.

The DW further stated in her examination-in-chief that on 23/05/2019, the deceased wife of the complainant called her up and told her that she had severe abdominal pain which was not relieved by taking any medicine. Later, she consulted the O.P. no.2 (the DW No.1) and told the deceased wife of the complainant to admit in the O.P. no.1 hospital immediately for treatment as her condition seemed to be critical. She further stated that case of the deceased wife of the complainant belonged to a case of primary infertility not responding to normal course of treatment and as such she underwent IVF treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi on 28/11/2018. However, with regard to the question of negligence in treatment and deficiency of service of the O.P. no.1, the DW stated that the question does not arise for her as she is not an employee of the O.P. no.1 hospital.

            However, during her cross-examination by the ld. Counsel for the complainant, the DW has given contradictory statements as regards to the statements made in her examination-in-chief. The DW has stated that she did her schooling from Nirmalabas High School and pursued her class 11^th and 12^th from TG Higher Secondary School. She stated that she does not remember in which school she read with the deceased wife of the complainant. She stated that she met the deceased Dr.Zenith Ngasepam for the first time, during one of her visits at the O.P. no.1 hospital. However, she does not remember the date on which she first met the deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam. On her first meeting, the deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam took her phone number so as to contact her regarding medical issues. On the said day, the deceased had come to the O.P. no.1 hospital with complaint of swelling on the leg. The DW further stated that she escorted the deceased wife of the complainant to the O.P. no.1 hospital shortly after her return from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. She further stated that she again escorted the deceased wife of the complainant to the O.P. no.1 hospital after 2-3weeks from the first visit. However, she further stated during her cross examination, that she does not remember the exact number of times she had escorted the deceased wife of the complainant in connection with her treatment to the O.P. no.1 hospital. She further commented that irrespective of age, if the blood pressure of a pregnant woman is more than or equal to 140/90 mmHg, it is termed as Pregnancy Induced Hypertension (PIH).

18.       D.W no. 3 further denied that she is working as Medical Officer Gynaecologist at the O.P. no.1 hospital and also denied that deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam (deceased wife of the complainant) died due to negligence and deficiency in service by the O.P. Nos.1 to 5. She stated that on 23/05/2019, she might have advised the deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam after examining her reports that her condition is that of Pre-eclampsia. However, she denied that the said advice was given by sitting in the OPD of the O.P. no.1 hospital. She also affirmed that in the evening of 23/05/2019, the deceased called her up and informed that she was feeling intense pain in the middle part of the upper abdomen. She further denied that she told the deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam to get Pantoprazol and Ani-vomitting injection. However, she admitted that she, along with O.P. nos 2 and 4 advised the deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam that her case was of a serious nature and in order to save her life, the foetus should be removed by performing surgical procedure. During the cross examination, she continued to state that during the observation, the condition of the patient, deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam, deteriorated and there was apprehension of multi organ failure if the patient was not referred to a multi speciality hospital, and accordingly, the patient was referred to Shija Hospital, Langol ( Proforma O.P. no 6).

19.       The O.P. no. 5 namely, Dr. Siddhartha Khoirom, has been examined and cross examined as DW No. 4. In his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit, the DW has stated that he is working as a Gynaecologist at the O.P. no.1 hospital. He further stated that the O.P. no.1 hospital and the doctors gave the necessary and emergency treatment to the deceased wife of the complainant, right from the day of admission in the O.P. no.1 hospital. He stated that there was no question of negligence and deficiency in the clinical management of deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam. He also stated that the case of deceased wife of the complainant belonged to a case of Primary infertility not responding to normal course of treatment and thereby underwent IVF treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. He further commented that the complainant and her deceased wife were all aware about the risk and complicacies of being an IVF pregnancy. Further, he deposed in the same tune as that of the other DWs in support of their contention.

During his cross-examination, he has negated all the interrogatories put to him by the counsel for the complainant. The DW has even negated the interrogatory that the case of the deceased wife of the complainant was that of severe pre-eclampsia requiring immediate operation for removal of foetus in order to save her life.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

20.       Before proceeding with the findings and observation of this commission, it is pertinent to mention here that the contention of the complainant is that her wife late Dr. Zenith Ngasepam, died as a result of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps 1 to 5. Hence, it is important to reproduce the definition of negligence as per Law:

Negligence per-se is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as under, Negligence per-se-, Conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances, either because it is in violation of a statute or valid municipal ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule, the violation of a public duty, enjoined by law for the protection of person or property, so constitutes.

 

21.       The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: duty, breach and resulting damage.  In the present case, the complications arising to the deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam was a medical condition of severe pre-eclampsia, associated with pregnancy. Late Dr. Zenith Ngasepam had undergone IVF treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital New Delhi on 28/11/2018, the treatment of which continued till the last week of March, 2019. Later, she attended the O.P. no.1 hospital on 29/03/2019 for regular ante natal checkups. After that, the deceased wife of the complainant developed complications on 23/05/2019 with complaints of swelling, presence of protein in urine and high blood pressure and symptoms of pre-eclampsia. Her health condition worsened and the deceased started showing signs of severe pre-eclampsia at around 8.00 pm of 23/05/2019, where the husband of deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam (the present complainant) was informed of the requirement of conducting surgery for removal of foetus to save her life. The consent of the complainant for performing the surgery was obtained at around 10.00 pm of the said day. However, the surgery was not performed and at around 3.00 am of the next day i.e. on 24/05/2019, the deceased patient started showing signs of deterioration of liver and kidney on account of severe pre-eclampsia. The deceased patiet was later discharged and referred to Shija Hospital and Research Institute, Langol (the present proforma O.P. no.6) and was admitted there on 24/05/2019 at about 6.00 am. After admission in the Shija Hospital, the deceased patient was diagnosed and medical tests were conducted where her reports showed an increased presence of Alkaline Phosphate (149, where the normal range is 38 to 126), Bilirubin direct of 3.60 (where the normal range is less than 0.30), Bilirubin Indirect of 5.50 (where the normal range is less than 1.10). Other parameters also showed increased presence of the following in her clinical test: Potassium – 5.30 (where the normal range is 3.50 to 5.10), SGOT (AST) – 890 (where the normal range is 15 to 46), SGPT (ALT) – 426 (where the normal range is 13 to 69), Total Bilirubin – 9.10 (where the normal range is 0.20 to 1.30) and Urea – 47 (where the normal range is 15 to 40.70).

The Death Summary report of Shija Hospital dated 25/05/2019, has reported that the deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam was admitted into the hospital with the case of Elderly Primi IVF Pregnancy with 23 weeks pregnancy with Severe Pre-eclampsia, Right Basal ganglia ICH with intra ventricular extension and obstructive hydrocephalus (EVD). The patient was declared Brain Dead at about 103.0 am of 25/05/2019.

 

22.       At this juncture, this Commission has taken note of the citations of the ld. Counsel for the complainant where he has relied upon various authoritative medical journals such as D.C. Dutta’ Textbook of Obstetrics 9^th Edition, TextBook of Obstetrics by Dr. JB Sharma, Williams’ Obstetrics Volume 2, 24^th Edition which are all internationally renowned authoritative text books. Ld. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Commission to D.C Dutta’s textbook of Obstetrics, 9^th Edition, page no. 207 wherein it is stated as – “Pre-eclampsia is a condition in a woman who is 20 or more weeks pregnant wherein (a) the blood pressure is 140/90 mmHg or more and (b) there is protein in the urine (proteinuria); and eclampsia is a condition where a pre-eclamptic woman suffers seizure/convulsion (page 217). As per the cited authoritative book, pre-eclampsia is classified into two types – (i) Non-severe and (ii) Severe. In non-severe type, the Blood pressure ranges from 140/90 mmHg to 160/110 mmHg; and in severe type, the woman suffering from pre-eclampsia will have one of the following symptoms or conditions – (a) BP more than 160/110 mmHg, (b0 Headache, (c) Epigastric (upper abdomen pain), (d) Visual disturbance, (e) Convulsion, (f)Elevation of liver enzymes, (g) Elevation of Serum Creatinine and (h) low platelet count (as per Page no. 423 of Textbook of Obstetrics by Dr. JB Sharma and Page no. 211 of D.C Dutta’s textbook of Obstetrics, 9^th Edition. Further, as per page no. 216 of D.C Dutta’s textbook of Obstetrics, 9^th Edition, for the purpose of treatment of patients suffering from pre-eclampsia, the patients are divided into three groups viz. Group A, Group B and group C, to which the deceased wife of the complainant belonged to Group C category, requiring immediate termination of pregnancy irrespective of gestation through induction or CS Delivery. Ld. Counsel also drew the attention of this Commission to page no. 750 of Williams Obstetrics, Volume 2, 24^th Edition wherein it is provided that “termination of pregnancy is the only cure for pre-eclampsia. In the event of failure of termination of pregnancy, complications occur causing damages to different body organs, mainly, liver, kidneys, liver, brain, lungs, etc. It has been highlighted that the same text is also provided in the Textbook of Obstetrics by Dr. JB Sharma in Page no. 431.

Further, this fact has been agreed by the O.Ps 1 to 5 that the only way to save the life of late Dr. Zenith Ngasepam who was a patient suffering from Pre-eclampsia was to remove the foetus by performing surgical operation. However, the procedure for removal of the foetus was not performed on the deceased patient Dr. Zenith Ngasepam, despite getting consent of the present complainant, who is the husband of deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam.

During cross examination of the O.Ps 3 and 5 as DW no. 2 and 4, they have negated the interrogatory that the case of the deceased wife of the complainant was that of severe pre-eclampsia requiring immediate operation for removal of foetus in order to save her life. This raises serious concern as to the fact that the O.Ps 3 and 5, despite knowing the case of the deceased wife of the complainant, had negated it. Also, the statement of the O.P. no. 4 as DW No. 3 does not inspire confidence of this Commission as there is contradiction in her statements recorded in her examination-in-chief and in her cross examination.

 

23.1     In the case of Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha and others (1995)  6 SCC 651,a three-Judge Bench of thi Apex Court held that service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would fall within the ambit of service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Deficiency in service has to be judged by applying the test of reasonable skill and care which is applicable in action for damages for negligence. In the said case, the Apex Court has thus observed - 22. In the matter of professional liability professions differ from occupations for the reason that professions operate in spheres where success cannot be achieved in every case and very often success or failure depends upon factors beyond the professional of man control. In devising a rational approach to professional liability which must provide proper protection to the consumer while allowing for the factors mentioned above, the approach of the Courts is to require that professional men should possess a certain minimum degree of competence and that they should exercise reasonable care in the discharge of their duties. In general, a professional man owes to his client a duty in tort as well as in contract to exercise reasonable care in giving advice or performing services.

23.2     In the present case, it is clear case of the complainant that there was no request from the side of the Complainant and the patient and patient party to discharge the patient i.e. the Complainants wife on request. Under the doctor-patient relationship and also other medical ethics it is the bounded duty of the doctors to give the best possible treatment which is unavoidable required as a last resort. Further, the O.Ps are required as a last resort. Further, the O.Ps are duty bound to furnish the adequate information to the patient and her party so as to enable the patient and her party to make a balanced judgment. Consent in the context of doctor-patient relationships means the grant of permission by the patient for an act to be carried out by the doctor, such as a diagnostic, surgical or therapeutic procedure. (Ref. Samira Kohli Vs Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr. (2008) 2 SCC1).

 

            In the given case, the consent was given by the patient party to the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 to give the best possible treatment which is unavoidably required as a last resort. However, the O.Ps did not resort to perform the necessary surgery for removal of the foetus to save the life of the patient as a last resort. On the other hand, the O.Ps had discharged the patient and referred her to O.P. No. 6 hospital when multi-organ failure commenced due to severe pre-ectarapsia purportedly on the request of patient party. It may be well imagined that how the patient party would request the O.Ps Nos. 1 to 5 to discharge the patient and refer her to other hospital at such critically deteriorate health condition of the deceased at the relevant time. According to discharge protocol (for discharging the critically ill patient on request, written consent of the family or relative of the patient is required and also the party shall sign on the certificate). The Scanned copy of the discharge certificate is reproduced herein below for reference:-

 

 

 

 

There is no reliable evidence that there was a written consent/written request of the patient party or relative of the Complainant – wife or the Complainant himself for discharging the critically ill complainants wife on request. None of the patient party or the complainant himself signed on the Discharge Certificate on request. Over and above, there would be no evidence that the critically ill complainants wife was discharged without providing any life supporting equipments for enabling the complainants wife to attend a well-equipped hospital as per the advice indicated in the Discharge Certificate. This may be called an unsafe or negligent or a failed discharge. Accordingly, we are constrained to hold that there was deficiency of service on the part of O.P Nos. 1 to 5.

 

 

24.1.    AS discussed above, it is indeed a fact that deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam, the wife of the present complainant had undergone IVF treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 28/11/20218 and had returned to Imphal on 25/03/2019 in sound health. Thereafter, Zenith Ngasepam, attended regular ante-natal checkups at the O.P. no.1 hospital under the care and supervision of the O.Ps 2 to 5. Tests and medical observations revealed that deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam had developed pre-eclampsia symptoms on 23/05/2019 and her medical condition worsened from pre-eclampsia to severe pre-eclampsia, which mandated removal of the foetus to save the life of the deceased. The fact that the only way or solution to save the life of the deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam has been supported by various authoritative medical journals such as D.C. Dutta Textbook of Obstetrics 9^th Edition, TextBook of Obstetrics by Dr. JB Sharma, Williams Obstetrics Volume 2, 24^th Edition. However, despite obtaining consent of the husband of deceased Dr. Zenith Ngasepam (the present complainant), the O.Ps failed to perform the much necessary surgery process for removal of the foetus, keeping her under conservative treatment only. The Commission is thus of the opinion that there is negligence on the part of the O.Ps 1 to 5 and there is deficiency in rendering the much required medical service which is the pre-requirement of doctors and health professionals. This negligence and deficiency in service resulted in avoidable death of late Dr. Zenith Ngasepam due to medical complications, resulting from multi organ failure arising out of the severe pre-eclampsia condition, with the immediate cause of death being recorded as - Brain dead. Elderly Primi IVF Pregnancy with 23 weeks pregnancy with Severe Pre-eclampsia, Right Basal ganglia ICH with intra ventricular extension and obstructive hydrocephalus (EVD).

24.2. The case of the deceased wife of the complainant pertains to Aggravation of the toxaemic and/or addition of grave features such as headache, epigastric pain and oliguria. The treatment regime provided for such patient is -Termination is to be done without delay irrespective of period of gestation (length of pregnancy) (Ref: - D.C. Duttas Textbook  of Obstetrics,3^rd edition page 239, 9^th  edition page 216)

            As regards implication for anaesthesia, a recent review recommends that if BP is elevated at pre-assessment but usually well controlled, there may be no benefit in delaying surgery to optimise control. Elective surgery should not be postponed in patients with BP less than180/110 mmHg. (Ref: - Lee Synopsis of Anaesthesia, 15th Edition (page 124).

 

 

 

COMPENSATION

25.       Now, we are on the point of compensation to be awarded. A sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One crore thirty lakhs) only has been claimed on different counts and they are:-

1. Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One crore) only for causing the death of (L) Zenith Ngasepam, the wife of the complainant.
2. Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty lakhs) only for  loss of consortium of the deceased wife.
3. Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only as cost of litigation.

It may be noted that the compensation amount as claimed by the complainant on different counts has never been denied by the O.Ps. in their pleadings or during evidence.

 

26.        The Complainant has pleaded that his deceased wife was serving as Assistant Professor and there were avenues for promotion to higher posts such as Associate Professor and Professor etc. had she been saved by performing surgical procedure in time by the O.P Nos. 1 to 5. The Complainant has further pleaded that as per the last pay slip, the deceased was entitled to Rs. 62,876 (Sixty two thousand eight hundred seventy six) only. She would also be entitled with yearly increments during her service tenure till her retirement on superannuation at the age of 65 years. The deceased would continue to serve for about 25 years of service if she had survived.

 

27.         The above claims of the Complainant could not be proved on record by the complainant by adducing reliable documentary evidence such as service records including appointment order indicating date of birth, pay slip etc. thereby showing that his deceased wife was serving as Assistant Professor of Government College. We have given our anxious view in this regard and we hold that the monthly salary of contractual teachers of private Colleges in Manipur may be judiciously estimated at Rs. 20,000/- ( twenty thousands) only. Thus, the total estimate of the loss incurred due to negligence and deficiency in services of O.Ps. 1 to 5 as claimed by the complainant would be estimated at Rs 20,000 X 12 months = 2,40,000 X 20 years = Rs 48,00,000 ( forty eight lakhs)only.

 

28.       The complainant has filed the following documents towards medical expenses which he incurred during the medical treatment of his deceased wife and they are

1.	IP Bill breakup details of the deceased wife of the complainant issued by Shija Hospitals and Research Institute dated 25.05.2019 for Rs. 74757.31 (Rupees Seventyfour thousand seven hundred and fifty seven and thirty-one paise).
2.	Money Receipt for OPD fee dated 29.03.2019 for Rs.400 (Rupees Four hundred) only
3.	Money Receipt for Quad. Test dated 12.04.2019 for Rs 4000 (Rupees four thousand) only
4.	Money Receipt for Lab. Test dated 12.04.2019 for Rs 500 (Rupees five hundred) only
5.	Money Receipt for Ultrasound bill dated 12.04.2019 for Rs 500 (Rupees five hundred) only
6.	Money Receipt for Ultrasound bill dated 28.04.2019 for Rs 2000 (Rupees two thousand) only
7.	Money Receipt for Lab. Test dated 22.05.2019 for Rs 1370 (Rupees one thousand three hundred and seventy) only
8.	Money Receipt for OPD Test dated 22.05.2019 for Rs 300 (Rupees three hundred) only
9.	Money Receipt for Admission dated 23.05.2019 for Rs 500 (Rupees five hundred) only
10.	Money Receipt for Admission Advance dated 23.05.2019 for Rs 3000 (Rupees Three thousand) only.
Total Rs. 87,327.31 (Eighty seven thousand three hundred and twenty seven and thirty one paise.

 

29.       The Apex Court in State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors. (2003)7 SCC 484 held that there can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression just  denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. These are two types of damages viz. Pecuniary Damages (Special damages) and Non-pecuniary Damages (General Damages) (ref.: Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011)1 SCC 343). In the present case, what would be the just compensation in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Anr vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors (2003)7 SCC 484, is the compensation which is equitable, fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary.

30.       The Apex Court in V. Krishnakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 388 held that

                         Quantification of compensation

19. The principle of awarding compensation that can be safely relied on is restitution in integrum. This principle has been recognized as relied on in Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee ((2009) 9 SCC 221: (2009) 3 SCC (Civ)663: (2010) 2 SCC (Cril) 299) and in Balram Prasad case  ((2014)1 SCC 384: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 327) in the following passage from the latter: (Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee ((2009) 9 SCC 221: (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 663: (2010) 2 SCC (Cril) 299), SCC p. 282, para 170)

 170. Indisputably, grant of compensation involving an accident is within the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitution in integrum. The said principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position, as he would have been if he had not sustained that wrong. (See Livingston v. Raywards Coal Co. ((1880) LR 5 AC 25 (HL))

An application of this principle is that the aggrieved person should get that sum of money, which would put him in the same position if he had not sustained the wrong. It must necessarily result in compensating the aggrieved person for the financial loss suffered due to the event, the pain and suffering undergone and the liability that he/she would have to incur due to the disability caused by the event.

31.       The Apex Court in Balram Prasad vs. Kunal Saha & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 384 held that

177. Under the heading loss due to pain and suffering and loss of amenities of the wife of the claimant, Kemp and Kemp write as under:

The award to the plaintiff of damages under the head pain and suffering depends as Lord Scarman said in Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and Islington Area Health Authority (1980 AC 174 : (1979) 3 WLR 44: (1979) 2 AII ER 910 (HL), upon the claimants personal awareness of pain, her capacity of suffering. Accordingly, no award is appropriate if an insofar as the claimant has not suffered and is not likely to suffer pain, and has not endured and is not likely to endure suffering, for example, because he was rendered immediately and permanently unconscious in the accident. By contrast, an award of damages in respect of loss of amenities is appropriate whenever there is in fact such a loss regardless of the claimants awareness of the loss.

Further, it is written that:

Even though the claimant may die for his injuries shortly after the accident, the evidence may justify an award under this head. Shock should also be taken account of as an ingredient of pain and suffering and the claimant particular circumstances may well be highly relevant to the extent of her suffering.

By considering the nature of amenities lost and injury and pain in the particular case, the court must assess the effect upon the particular claimant. In deciding the appropriate award of damages, an important consideration is how long he be deprived of those amenities and how long the pain and suffering has been and will be endured. If it is for the rest of the life the court will need to take into account in assessing damages the claimant age and his expectation in life. That applies as much in the case of an unconscious plaintiff as in the case of one sentient, at least as regards the loss of amenity.

178. The extract from Malay Kumar Ganguly case (2009) 9 SCC 221 reads as under : (SCC p.232, paras 3-4)

3.         Despite administration of the said injection twice daily. Anuradhas condition deteriorated rapidly from bad to worse over the next few days. Accordingly, she was admitted at Advanced Medicare Research Institute (AMRI) in the morning of 11-5-1998 under Dr. Mukherjee’s supervision. Anuradha was also examined by Dr. Baidyanath Haldar, Respondent 2 herein. Dr. Haldar found that she had been suffering from erythema plus blisters. Her condition, however, continued to deteriorate further. Dr. Abani Roy Choudhury, Consultant, Respondent 3 was also consulted on 12-5-1998.

4.         On or about 17-5-1998 Anuradha was shifted to Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai as her condition further deteriorated severely. She breathed her last on 28-5-1998.

The above extracted portion from the above judgment would show that the deceased had undergone the ordeal of pain for 18 long days before she breathed her last. In this course of the period, she had suffered with immense pain and suffering and undergone mental agony because of the negligence of the appellant doctors and the Hospital which has been proved by the claimant and needs no reiteration.

179. Further, in Nizams Institute (2009) 6 SCC 1: (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 688), the claimant who was also the surviving victim of a motor vehicle accident was awarded Rs.10 lakhs for pain and suffering. Further, it was held in R.D. Hattangadi case ((1995) 1 SCC 551: 1995 SCC (Cril) 250) as follows: (SCC p. 557, para 14)

            14.       In Halsburrys Laws of England, 4^th Edn., Vol. 12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at pp.446-47 it has been said:

            1147.   Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern. Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss for amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstance of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award.

32.       Keeping in view the above decisions of the Apex Court as to the amount of compensation, we are of the considered view that just compensation under different heads in the present complaint case are hereunder:

 

Loss of income of the deceased	Rs. 48,00,000/-
For medical treatment	Rs. 87,327.31/-
Pain and suffering(consortium)	Rs.5,00,000/-
Cost of litigation	Rs.30,000/-
Total Cost	Rs. 54,17,327/-

 

Therefore, a total sum of Rs. 54,17,000/- (fifty four lakhs seventeen thousands) only is the compensation awarded in favour of the complainant. It can be rounded off to Rs. 54,17,000/- ( fifty four lakhs seventeen thousands) only Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation within a period of 3(three) months from the date of passing this Judgment and Order. The said amount of  compensation shall be deposited in the Registry of this Commission and Registry shall release the said amount of compensation to the complainant on being identified by a counsel known to this Commission. In case of failure to deposit, the said amount within the period indicated above there shall be interest at the rate  of 9% per annum from the date of expiry of the period for depositing the amount mentioned above.

33.       The present Complaint case is allowed to the extent indicated above.

34.       The arguments in this case were heard on 16.02.2024 and the orders were reserved. Now, the order be communicated forthwith to the parties free of costs. Also the order be uploaded in the official website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

 

 

35.       The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period because of outbreak of Covid-19, Manipur Violence, non – availability of requisite benches and shortage of staff in the State Commission, for which the State Government has already been requested on several occasions but with no effect till date.

36.       File be consigned in the record room