Both the above appeals are being decided together in asmuch as they arise out of same judgement and order rendered by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes redressal Commission (for short, he State Commission in complaint case no. 136/1999. By the impugned judgement, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs.2,33,940/- as compensation to the original complainants, alongwith cost of Rs.2,000/. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the original complainants have preferred FA No. 93 / 2005 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount whereas cross appeal, FA No. 94 / 2005, is preferred by the treating Doctor, Dr. V.V. Haridas, who was the original opposite party no. 2 before the State Commission. 2. Original complainants B. Beena & others are the widow, children & parents of deceased Chandrakumar. For sake of convenience, they will be referred hereinafter as the complainants. Admittedly, in the evening of 25.5.1998, Chandrakumar was rushed to KVM Super-speciality Hospital, Cherathalai. It is also an admitted fact that Dr. V.V. Haridas, who is the appellant of the cross-appeal, is the Director and Consultant physician of the KVM Super-speciality Hospital, Cherathalai and was the treating Doctor at the relevant time. Chandrakumar was a document writer. He was aged about 40 years at the relevant time. He was allegedly bitten by a cobra at his residence at about 8:0 PM. Soon thereafter, his relatives and some of the friends shifted him to the casualty ward of the KVM Super-speciality Hospital. It is an admitted fact that Dr. V.V. Haridas gave treatment to Chandrakumar in the relevant evening. On the next date at about 3:00 PM, Chandrakumar was discharged from the KVM Super-speciality Hospital and was shifted to Carithas Hospital, Kottayam for treatment. It is an admitted fact that ambulance of the KVM Super-speciality Hospital alongwith two nurses was provided for transportation of Chandrakumar to Carithas Hospital, Kottayam alongwith facility of artificial respiration. He died on 29.05.1998 at about 5:30 PM in the latter hospital. There is no dispute about the fact that Chandrakumar died as a result of spreading of the venom in his body due to the fatal bite of a cobra. 3. The case of the complainants was that Chandrakumar reached to the KVM Super-speciality Hospital, Cherathalai at about 8:10 PM but the nurses and duty Doctor present at the hospital had absolutely no knowledge of treatment to be given for snake biting. Therefore, Chandrakumar was kept unattended for a considerable period. The relatives and friends of Chandrakumar started shouting at the nurses and ultimately one oxygen cylinder was brought in order to provide oxygen intake to gasping Chandrakumar. The oxygen cylinder was defective and, therefore, it took sometime to make it functional. By that time Chandrakumar became unconscious. It was thereafter that Dr. Haridas came to the Hospital at about 9:30 PM. He managed to provide artificial respiration to Chandrakumar and also prescribed certain medicines. After giving some treatment Dr. Haridas left Chandrakumar and did not return during the right. In the next morning Dr. Haridas visited the bed of Chandrakumar and examined him. Still, however, he could not give any definite answer regarding the condition of Chandrakumar. The complainants gathered that management of the medical problem was beyond control of treating Doctor, i.e., Dr. Haridas. So, they requested him to discharge Chandrakumar from the KVM Super-speciality Hospital. He readily agreed to do so. In spite of best efforts made by the Doctors at Carithas Hospital, Kottayam, Chandrakumar was no more in the evening of 29.05.1998. 4. The complainants alleged that death of Chandrakumar was result of negligence committed by the staff members and treating Doctors of the KVM Super-speciality Hospital, Cherathalai. They alleged that Chandrakumar ought to have been treated immediately by Dr. V.V. Haridas because it was a case of cobra bite yet, Dr. Haridas unduly delayed commencement of the treatment. They further alleged that life of Chandrakumar was lost only because of medical negligence of Dr. Haridas and staff members of the KVM Super-speciality Hospital. They claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakh due to loss of love and affection and the life of the only breadwinner of the family. 5. Both the original opposite parties including Dr. V.V. Haridas resisted the complaint on common premises. They denied that Chandrakumar was brought to the Hospital at about 8:10 PM. According to them, he was brought to the Hospital at about 8:25 PM. They submitted that while Chandrakumar was being clinically examined, he developed ptosis, dysarthrie and dysphagie and slight respiratory difficulty. Immediately he was given medical treatment including injection of IV dextrose, IV neostigmine, IV stropine and injection tetanus toxoid. He was put on oxygen through tube. They further alleged that Dr. V.V. Haridas frequently attended Chandrakumar during the night and all necessary treatments were given to him. According to them, Chandrakumar was discharged against the medical advise. They further submitted that due care was taken for safe transportation of Chandrakumar in the ambulance equipped with adequate supply of oxygen during the period of transportation and attendance of two staff nurses. They flatly denied the allegations of medical negligence on their part. Consequently, they sought dismissal of the complaint. 6. The parties adduced evidence in support of the rival contentions. The State Commission heard counsel for the parties. The State Commission held that death of Chandrakumar was due to negligence committed by the treating Doctor (Dr. V.V. Haridas) and the staff members of the Hospital. The State Commission held that prompt and immediate treatment ought to have been provided to Chandrakumar when it was reported to the staff members of the hospital that he was bitten by a cobra. The State Commission further held that when all necessary infrastructure was not available in the KVM Super-speciality Hospital, Cherathalai, to treat the snake bite cases, Chandrakumar should have been referred to some other appropriate hospital where all the infrastructure was available. The State Commission further held that inadequate dose of Anti Snake Venom (ASV) was administered to Chandrakumar by Dr. Haridas and as such it was a case of sheer medical negligence. In keeping with such findings, the complaint was partly allowed and the impugned order came to be passed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals. We have also perused the relevant record. 8. The core and material questions involved in the appeals are:- ) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is duly proved that Chandrakumar died as a result of medical negligence committed by Dr. Haridas in attending him or by providing wrong treatment for the bite of a cobra? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainants is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced? 9. The controversial questions formulated as above will have to be determined on basis of the material placed before the State Commission. At the same time, it is necessary to locate whether there is any standard practice provided for the treatment of the snakebites. For, it is well-settled that a Medical Practitioner is expected to exercise due care as per the standard practice followed by the professionals. One of the allegations made by the complainants was that Chandrakumar was reached to the KVM Super-speciality Hospital at 8:10 PM. This allegation of the complainants has been repelled by the State Commission. The relevant material on record shows that he was rushed to the said Hospital at about 8:25 PM. The residential house of the complainant is situated in locality called S.L. Puram, Alappuzha. The KVM Super-speciality Hospital is situated in another locality called Cherthalai. The complainants have not made it clear as to how much time was consumed while transporting Chandrakumar from the residential premises to the KVM Super-speciality Hospital. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the relatives of Chandrakumar were panicked due to the alleged Cobra bite. They had gathered around Chandrakumar after he had made hue and cry. It has come on record that the relatives and the neighbours had tightly wrapped a piece of cloth on the leg of Chandrakumar near the site of the snake bite. The discharge summary issued by the KVM Super-speciality Hospital shows that history of the snake bite was given. It was informed that the instance of snake had taken place at about 8:10 PM in the relevant evening. As stated before, the relatives and friends of Chandrakumar were panicked due to sudden incident of snake bite. It is but natural that exact time of the snake bite could not be noticed by them. It is also natural that they initially took time to wrap the cloth piece near the site of the snake bite and shift Chandrakumar to the Hospital at Cherathalai. The State Commission also was convinced that he reached the Hospital at 8:25 PM as mentioned in the discharge summary (Ex-A-1). It is more probable, therefore, that he was brought to the hospital after about 15-20 minutes of the incident of Cobra bite. It does not stand to reason, therefore, that at about 8:25PM he was reached to the Hospital. 10. Careful examination of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, go to show that Chandrakumar was immediately attended by the nurses of the KVM Super-speciality Hospital. The versions of Dr. Subhadra and Ms. Geetha considered together, reveal that Anti Snake Venom (ASV), ventilator and other facilities were available in the KVM Super-speciality Hospital at the relevant time. It also appears that RW-2 Dr. Subhadra was having due experience to deal with cases of snake bites. Her version shows that she immediately commenced the medical treatment after Chandrakumar was admitted in the Hospital. She narrated that immediately oxygen was supplied and alongwith IV fluid Atropine and Neostigemine injections were given to Chandrakumar. Her version purports to show that two viols of ASV were added in the IV fluid administered to Chandrakumar. She informed Dr. Haridas after the treatment was already started. According to her version, Dr. Haridas and an Anaesthetist reached the hospital within about 10 minutes. There appears no substantial reason to dislodge the versions of RW-2 Dr. Subhadra and RW-5 Ms. Geetha. Once it is found that immediate treatment was given to Chandrakumar, it follows that there was no negligence due to delay in the process of commencement of the treatment. The versions of Dr. Subhadra and Ms. Geetha purport to show that vision of Chandrakumar had diminished due to nurotoxin poisoning. Obviously, the symptoms of systematic envenomation were apparent. 11. So far as the nature of required treatment is concerned, it is worthy to be noted that the guidelines are available though there is no standard medical practice to deal with such a problem. The dose of ASV varies from case to case, so also, it varies as per the kind of snake which had bitten the victim. It appears that Guidelines for members of API- Kerala Chapter have been issued. The guidelines are for private circulation. We have gone through the guidelines. 12. Perusal of the said guidelines shows that the management of snake bite is rather dependent on time factor, examination of the wound swabs and the prompt treatment. So far as the first aid is concerned, the guidelines provide:- irst Aid The patient should be reassured and moved to the nearest hospital as quickly, comfortably and passively as possible. The site of bite should be cleaned, bitten limb should be immobilized with a splint or sling. Local incisions and suction should not be done as they are more harmful leading to local bleed, nerve injury and delay in hospitalisation. Potassium permanganate and ice should not be applied which may potentiate local necrosis. Tight tourniquet and compressive bandage are potentially harmful, as they may cause more local swelling, pressure nerve palsies, increase bleeding at the site, increase development of compartmental syndrome, occlude veins or arteries and increase the change of development of gangrene and necrosis, which may lead to renal failure. (Emphasis supplied) 13. We have no material to show that the relatives and friends of Chandrakumar had cleaned and immobilised the bitten limb before he was rushed to the KVM Super-speciality Hospital. We do not know whether the bandage of the cotton strip was too tight and was potentially harmful and could have caused development of compartmental syndrome. The guidelines shows that in case of cobra bite the interval between life and death could be between 30 minutes to 60 hours. The dose of ASV is not of any fixed standard as such. The available information shows that in case of young cobra, the venom may be of less quantity but in case of matured cobra the quantity of venom injected through the fang is generally excessive and fatal. 14. On behalf of the complainants, PW-3 Dr. T.D. Gopalakrishnan Nair was put in the witness box. He appears to be expert in the treatment of snake bite cases. He states that first thing in such cases is to identify the snake and give ASV as early as possible. He admits that he is not familiar with the book titled iagnosis and Management of Snake Venom Poisoning(by J. Jacob). It appears that one of the schools of the Management advocates giving of anti snake venom with 5% dextrose over a period of 2 hours with repetitions. Though, Dr. T.D. Gopalakrishnan Nair, states that such treatment carries more risk in the progress of the patient concerned, yet the fact remains that such a treatment is advocated by one of the school of Medical Practitioners. 15. The testimony of Dr. Haridas reveals that he started immediate treatment by giving ASV. His version shows that the ASV medicines are stored in freeze and are taken out by the duty nurses immediately in an emergency. The drugs are subsequently restored after the purchased-stock is replaced by the relatives of the patient. He stated that proper treatment was given to Chandrakumar soon after the symptoms of snake bite were noticed. The discharge card issued on 26.05.1998 corroborates the nature of treatment given to Chandrakumar during the relevant night. The treatment given to him is found to be in proper order as per the report of experts committee. The experts committee of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) was requested to give opinion about the nature of treatment given to deceased Chandrakumar. The relevant answers may be reproduced as follows:- ues:- Is it correct to say that the only method of giving anti snake venom injection is by a single dose given as a bolus is the only correct method? Ans. The explanation is correct as there were no standard guidelines for management of snake bite at the time of occurrence of the event. The Indian Snake Bite Protocol for the management of patients with snake bite has only been formulated recently, later that the date of occurrence of the event and the examination of the witness. ASV is not given as a bolus dose. Ques:- Ex.P1 shown to the witness, Doctor do you find from Ex.P1 that the patient who was treated for cobra bite had been given standard treatment given in accordance with standards generally accepted? Ans. The board agrees with the explanation because of great variability in modality of treatment including dose of ASV administered. Therefore it is difficult to comment on the correctness of the dosage. 16. Upon consideration of the report of the experts committee of AIIMS, it is amply clear that the treatment given to Chandrakumar by Dr. V.V. Haridas at the KVM Super-speciality Hospital was proper. There may be divergence of opinion as regards the quantity of ASV to be administered. There may be another way of thinking. Surely, there is no standard prescribed for the treatment for a cobra bite. We are of the opinion that the State Commission committed error in coming to the conclusion that there was delay in administering ASV and Chandrakumar was not provided proper medical treatment by Dr. V.V. Haridas. We are also of the opinion that the State Commission committed error while reaching to the conclusion that proper infrastructure was not available with the KVM Super-speciality Hospital for treatment of snake bites. In fact, the evidence on record shows that such infrastructure was available with the KVM Super-speciality Hospital and, therefore, the complainants chose to reach Chandrakumar to that hospital without much delay. There cannot be any two opinion about further care taken by the KVM Super-speciality Hospital to arrange for transportation of Chandrakumar by providing an ambulance equipped with Oxygen supply made available to the patient alongwith two attending nurses before he was admitted to the Carithas Hospital at Kottayam. 17. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that there was error committed by Dr. Haridas while giving lower dose of the ASV to Chandrakumar, then also it cannot be branded as ross negligenceon his part. At the most, it could be treated as error in the judgement by the medical professional. He is well experienced Medical Practitioner aged about 75 years and was having vast experience to treat the patients of snake bites. Thus, on basis of his experience, he provided the necessary treatment. It is well-settled that mere error in judgement will not amount to medical negligence. It need not be reiterated that the members of the experts Committee of AIIMS have given unanimous opinion that the treatment given by Dr. Haridas was proper. Under the circumstances, the findings of the State Commission are unsustainable. It is not necessary, therefore, to examine whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainants was proper. Even though, such issue is required to be examined yet we are of the opinion that the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainants is reasonable. There is nothing on record to show that deceased Chandrakumar was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. as alleged by the complainants. No data was made available to show as to how many documents were being ascribed by him per day and what was the daily income earned by him as a scribe. He was not income tax payee. He had no other source of income. Hence, the finding of the State Commission, in respect of the quantum of compensation need not be interfered with. 18. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are inclined to allow the appeal preferred by Dr. V.V. Haridas and dismiss the appeal preferred by B. Beena & Ors. Hence, FA No. 93 / 2005 is dismissed and the FA No. 94 / 2005 is allowed. The impugned judgement of the State Commission is set aside. However, in the interest of justice, we direct that if payment of any amount has already been made to the complainants, the same be not recovered from them. The statutory deposits made by the appellants in the appeals concerned be returned to them with accruals. No costs.