PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This Appeal has been filed by Rajat Jain and Sobhit Jain (hereinafter referred to as the ppellants sons of late Anita Jain (hereinafter referred to as the atient being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the tate Commission in CC No.C-167/96 wherein M/s D.R. Nursing Home & others (Respondents herein) who were the opposite parties. FACTS: The facts of the case are that one Anita Jain, mother of the Appellants had contacted Respondent No.2, Dr.P.N. Gupta at D.R. Nursing Home (Respondent No.1) for treatment of Hernia and after examining her, she was advised operation to be conducted on 08.06.1994 by a senior surgeon in the hospital, Dr.Rajindra Kumar Murtika, Respondent No.6 for which she was admitted on 07.06.1994. It was alleged on behalf of the Appellants who were then minors that the three doctors who were nominated by Respondent No.2 to conduct the surgery were not surgeons and Respondent No.6 (Dr.Murtika) was not even present during the surgery conducted on 08.06.1994. Further, during the course of the surgery, in the Operation Theatre itself, due to the negligence of the doctors present, the patient went into a coma which was not disclosed to the relatives. There was no oxygen cylinder at the time of operation and it was only when her condition rapidly deteriorated that an oxygen cylinder was brought from the second floor. Thereafter the patient was hurriedly shifted to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. The patient unfortunately expired in that hospital. A post-mortem conducted thereafter indicated that the patient died of Hypoxia consequent to administration of anesthesia. The Report also mentioned that only the outer skin of the patient abdomen had been stitched up following the surgery and peritoneum and muscles layer were left open. In view of these facts, a complaint was filed before the State Commission by one Shri Ravi Kumar Jain maternal uncle of the Appellants, on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the D.R.Nursing Home(Respondent No.1) and the concerned doctors because due care was not taken during the operation and while administering anesthesia which resulted in Hypoxia and subsequent death of the patient and also conducting the surgery in an ill-equipped operation theatre where even an oxygen cylinder was not readily available. An amount of Rs.15 lakhs was sought as compensation to be paid jointly and severally by the Respondents with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the operation till realization of the said amount. The above allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service were denied by all Respondents/doctors. It was stated that Respondent No.6 (Dr.Murtika), the surgeon conducted the operation and the other Respondents/doctors were a part of the operating team. It was denied that the condition of the deceased deteriorated in the operation theatre itself due to the negligence of the Respondents/doctors and lack of immediate oxygen facilities. While it is a fact that cardiac arrest occurred following the administration of the drug vercuronium, the patient was successfully revived. This drug is routinely used but unfortunately reaction and side-effects can occur in some cases as happened in the instant case. However, as stated the patient was revived and she was breathing without assistance thereafter. Even when she was admitted to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, she was not in a critical condition and was breathing on her own. She was also responding to painful stimulation. Respondents categorically denied that the oxygen cylinder was not available at the time of operation and also that only the outer skin of the body was stitched. A Medical Board constituted by the Director Health Services, Government of Delhi on investigation concluded that Respondent No.1 was a well-equipped hospital staffed by qualified doctors who conducted the surgery and no case of medical negligence was established in this inquiry. According to the Respondents, this complaint was falsely filed by a person who was neither the father of the Appellants nor the husband of late Anita Jain, with an ulterior motive for his own enrichment. The State Commission after hearing both parties and based on the evidence filed before it concluded in Para 18 of its order that only Respondent No.1 along with Respondent No.2 can be held guilty of medical negligence firstly, for not having arranged the oxygen cylinder immediately at the time of operation and secondly because of non-availability of doctors who were competent to handle the patient. State Commission also took note of the observations of the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Health Services, Government of Delhi which concluded that the patient developed progressive bradycardia leading to cardiac arrest as a result of the drugs used during anesthesia but no evidence of any negligence on the part of team of doctors managing the case could be detected. Keeping in view these facts as also the finding of administrative delay in not arranging oxygen cylinder as stated earlier, the State Commission directed that a lump sum compensation of Rs.1 lakh be paid jointly and severally by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 along with Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to meet the ends of justice. Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded by the State Commission, the present Appeal has been filed. Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Appellants at the outset stated that both Appellants were minors at the time of filing the original complaint before the State Commission and therefore, it was made on their behalf by their maternal uncle, Shri Ravi Kumar Jain and there was no irregularity or ulterior motive in filing the same. However, Rajat Jain (Appellant No.1) having attained the age of majority, has filed the present First Appeal on his behalf as also on behalf of his brother which may be taken note of. It was further contended by Counsel for Appellant that State Commission erred in concluding that only Respondents No.1 and 2 were guilty of medical negligence and administrative deficiencies and none of the other Respondents/doctors. Further, the State Commission failed to take note of the fact that the deceased monthly income was Rs.4,000/- to which if the monetary value of the services rendered by her to the family were included, it would average to about Rs.8,500/- throughout her expected years of earning of about 26 years. If the multiplier factor method have been applied keeping in view the above facts the compensation should have been well over Rs.12 lakhs whereas the State Commission awarded only Rs.1 lakh which is unjustified. Hence, the claim for a higher compensation. Counsel for Respondents on the other hand stated that the patient condition was rightly diagnosed and she was operated for Hernia by well-qualified doctors as confirmed by the Report of the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Health Services, Government of Delhi. Respondents further denied that there was any administrative deficiency. In fact, it needs to be noted that the patient survived for 7 days in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital which would not have been the case had there been gross medical negligence as alleged. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. The fact that the patient was admitted in the D.R. Nursing Home (Respondent No.1) where she underwent a surgery for Hernia is not disputed. It is also not denied that during the course of the surgery following reaction to one of the drugs, the patient suffered cardiac arrest because of which at the insistence of the relatives, she was transferred to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where admittedly she survived for 7 days. The State Commission as a first court of fact has noted that while there was no medical negligence per se on the part of Respondents, there were clear administrative deficiencies which had an adverse impact on the patient critical health condition. We see no reason to disagree with these findings of the State Commission based on evidence filed before it. We further note that the Respondentsdenial that the operated area was not properly stitched up is not borne out by facts on record and is confirmed in the post-mortem report. Thus, admittedly there was deficiency on the part of Respondent No.1 as also the Respondent No.2 for which the State Commission awarded Rs.1 lakh. However, we find force in the contentions of Counsel for Appellant that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is meagre. The State Commission in its order has not given any reasons for awarding this amount but it appears that it did not take into account the fact that the deceased was well-educated and gainfully employed and that her death had at a young age deprived the Appellants of a mother which is an irreparable loss but also there was monetary and financial loss which could be quantified, keeping in view, her monetary contribution to the family income. Broadly accepting the computation as projected by the Appellants, we are of the view that a higher compensation is, therefore, justified in the instant case. Therefore, while we agree with the order of the State Commission that medical negligence could not be established on the part of all the Respondents/doctors and that only Respondents No.1 and 2 can be held guilty for deficiency in service in the instant case, the compensation of Rs.1 lakh awarded by the State Commission is set aside and instead we direct that the compensation to be paid by Respondents No.1 and 2, jointly and severally be enhanced from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.7 lakhs along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. Respondents No.1 and 2 are accordingly directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.7 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum to the Appellants from the date of filing the complaint till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire awarded amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. It is further made clear that this compensation amount and litigation cost would be paid to the Appellants and not to any other person who may have represented them earlier in this case.