ORDER PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This First Appeal has been filed by Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute & another(hereinafter referred to as the ppellants being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the tate Commission accepting the complaint of Naresh Kumar Sharma, complainant before the State Commission and Respondent herein, of limited medical negligence in the treatment of his minor son. The facts of the case are that the Respondent got his son, late Kitesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the atient admitted at Appellant/Hospital on 09.01.1996 with complaints of fever and vomiting for about one month. On admission, the pediatrician there ordered whole abdominal ultrasound scan which was conducted in Appellant No.2 laboratory. Based on this report, an opinion was given that the patient was a case of doubtful lesion in upper pole of right kidney/right adrenal and an abdominal CT-scan was advised for further evaluation. However, instead of performing the abdominal CT-scan a contrast CT-scan of the head was done which was unnecessary. Thereafter treatment for enteric fever as per the diagnosis recorded by MCKR Imaging Centre was started. The patient was finally discharged on 19.09.1996 by describing his condition as satisfactory. However, his condition actually continued to worsen and he was taken for treatment to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) where on the basis of a bone marrow test and CT-Scan of abdomen and pelvis, he was diagnosed with Neuroblastoma Stage-IV. It was contended that had the patient been properly treated in Appellant/Hospital and the CT-scan of the abdomen done, he could have been treated immediately for Neuroblastoma and because of this delay, the patient lost his life. Being aggrieved by the avoidable loss of his son, Respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and sought Rs.10,13,400/- as compensation and for mental torture and agony along with interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of compensation. Appellants on being served filed a written reply refuting the allegations of medical negligence. While admitting that Respondent had brought his son to Appellant/Hospital after having earlier taken him to Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS etc., it was stated that he was subjected to several diagnostic tests which included blood tests, Widal test, urine examination etc. and the Widal test indicated that the patient was suffering from Typhoid and therefore, the necessary medication to treat the patient for this disease was started. It was also decided to consult a Neurologist to rule out the possibility of Meningitis or any neurological problem and therefore, a CT-scan of the head as prescribed was conducted. The patient was also referred to a pediatrician who advised conservative treatment and an abdominal ultrasound which confirmed that there was a doubtful lesion in upper pole of right kidney/right adrenal and a CT-scan of the abdomen was advised. However, a conscious decision was taken to avoid doing the abdominal CT-scan immediately because ingestion of dye gastrograffin which is required to be administered orally could result in the patient developing gastrointestinal and respiratory complications which was contra-indicated keeping in view the patient condition. Further, anesthesia was also required to be given to carry out the abdomen CT-scan. Therefore, in the best interests of the patient, it was decided to defer the CT-scan of the abdomen and the patient was discharged only after his condition improved on 19.09.1996 and Respondent was told to bring the patient back for further examination/follow-up. The patient was brought to the Appellant/Hospital on 21.09.1996 and was advised to report back on 23.09.1996 to carry out further investigations including an abdominal CT-scan. However, the patient did not return. It was further stated that there were no symptoms or signs to suspect that the patient was suffering from Neuroblastoma. The State Commission after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it concluded that the Respondents were guilty of limited medical negligence and directed that a lump-sum compensation of Rs.2 lakhs be paid to the Respondent to meet the ends of justice. The observations of the State Commission are as follows: n our view, the OPs were negligent in not conducting the CT scan of abdomen and pelvis to rule out existence of NB. It does not mean that CT scan head was also not required in view of the problem the child was suffering from when it was brought to the O.P doctors and when the child was not improving inspite of treatment being given by the OPs on the basis of CT scan head, the immediate expectation from a medical professional who is expert in the field was to rule out existence of Neuroblastoma. However, the contention of the counsel for the O.Ps is that there was no symptom of any kind of Neuroblastoma and therefore CT scan of abdomen and pelvis was not necessary and that the CT scan abdomen and pelvis could not have been done, as the child was vomiting and having typhoid, without entailing serious consequences. Had it been so, there was no need for even conducting CT scan of head. However, since the child, after a few days, was found to be suffering from Neuroblastoma Stage-IV, we cannot jump to the conclusion that the child would have survived if CT scan of abdomen and pelvis had been done because the child could not have developed NB Stage-IV within a few days. At the same time the O.Ps also cannot escape from the consequences of medical negligence limited to the extent of not subjecting the child to CT scan abdomen and pelvis as the report given by them does not inspire confidence nor the reasons set out in the reply that the child was cranky and not cooperating and therefore CT scan of abdomen and pelvis could not be done. For the limited medical negligence of not subjecting the child to CT Scan A & P, may be for any reason whatsoever, and without being oblivious to the fact whether the child would have survived or not which is not a factor to be taken into consideration while holding a medical professional guilty of medical negligence, we deem that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 Lacs would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the present First Appeal. Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Appellants stated that the State Commission erred in concluding that the Appellants were guilty of medical negligence because they did not conduct a CT-scan of the abdomen as advised in that hospital itself. It was reiterated that a conscious decision was taken not to subject the young patient who was about 2 years old to a CT-scan which required ingestion of a dye as also use of anesthesia since he was under treatment for Typhoid and ingesting a dye could have aggravated his condition causing serious gastro-intestinal as well as respiratory problems. It was under these circumstances that the Respondent was asked to bring the patient back on 23.09.1996 once his condition had stablised for conducting the CT-scan of his abdomen. Evidence in this respect was also filed before the State Commission which unfortunately did not take note of the same and concluded that Appellants were guilty of medical negligence. Counsel for Respondent on the other hand stated that medical negligence in treating the patient was evident right from the time of patient admission because although a CT-scan of the abdomen and pelvis was advised, this was not done and instead a CT-scan of the head was done which was not required. Further, the child was discharged on 19.09.1996 when he was still unwell. It was denied that he was asked to come back for further check-ups and follow-up treatment as contended. If a CT-scan of the abdomen and the pelvis had been done early then the Neuroblastoma because of which the patient died could have been diagnosed earlier thus vastly improving his chances of survival. Under the circumstances, the present Appeal merits no consideration and needs to be dismissed. We have considered the submissions of both learned Counsel and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The fact that Respondent had brought his minor son for treatment at Appellant/Hospital following complaints of fever and vomiting are not in dispute and as indicated in the documents filed by the Appellant/Hospital, we further note from the records that a number of diagnostic investigations and procedures were undertaken following his admission in that hospital and he was diagnosed as having Enteric Fever (Typhoid) following the Widal test which was positive. Patient was prescribed necessary medication for the same. We note from the evidence on record that a conscious decision was taken not to do the CT-scan of the abdomen when the patient was still suffering from Typhoid because this could have led to complications like respiratory problems and gastroenteritis which could have aggravated his condition. This is a plausible and reasonable explanation for not conducting the abdominal CT-scan and this decision was taken by qualified professional doctors in the best interest of the patient health. We further note that as per the affidavit filed by Dr.Subhash Dawar, who treated the patient, Respondent was advised to bring the patient back on 23.09.1996 so that the CT-scan of the abdomen could be conducted and Dr.Sudhir Krishna, a pediatric consultant was also asked to be present at the time of scanning. Other documents pertaining to the case history of the patient which was filed in evidence clearly indicate that he was regularly monitored on a daily basis, necessary tests conducted whenever required and medicines prescribed. What constitutes medical negligence is well-settled by a number of judgments of the Honle Supreme Court and essentially the three issues pertinent to medical negligence are: (i) Whether the doctor in question possessed the medical skills expected of an ordinary skilled practitioner in the field at that point of time; (ii) Whether the doctor adopted the practice (of clinical observation diagnosis including diagnostic tests and treatment) in the case that would be adopted by such a doctor of ordinary skill in accord with (at least) one of the responsible bodies of opinion of professional practitioners in the field and (iii) whether the standards of skills/knowledge expected of the doctor, according to the said body of medical opinion, were of the time when the events leading to the allegation of medical negligence occurred and not of the time when the dispute was being adjudicated. Applying these principles, we are unable to conclude that there was any medical negligence in the instant case. As stated above immediately on admission the patient was examined by professionally qualified doctors which included specialists like a pediatrician and neurologist and a battery of clinical and diagnostic tests was conducted on the basis of which treatment was started. Cogent and plausible reasons were given for not having conducted the abdominal CT-scan since it could have led to further complications. This decision was taken by qualified doctors using their best professional judgment and has not been countered or contradicted by the Respondent through any expert or other credible evidence. The patient was discharged in a satisfactory condition and was asked to come back for follow-up treatment including an abdominal CT-scan only a few days after his discharge which he failed to do and for which Appellants cannot be held responsible. In view of these facts, we are unable to conclude that there was any medical negligence on the part of the Appellants and set aside the order of the State Commission. The First Appeal is, therefore, allowed. No costs.