These two appeals under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) have been filed by Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre (for short, ‘the Hospital’), against two identical orders dated 04.10.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
-3- Commission, Delhi (for short, ‘the State Commission’) awarding a lump sum amount of `50,000/- to each of the complainants in CC Nos.321 of 1998 and 207 of 1998. Both the complainants had alleged that they had contacted “Hepatitis-B” Virus during their stay in the Hospital for surgery. Alleging negligence on the part of the Hospital, they had claimed compensation of over `20 Lac each under different heads. On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective pleas, the Medical Literature on the point and the decision of the Supreme Court in “Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2005 6 SCC 1” the State Commission has observed as follows: “The long duration of three months between the admission of the complainant in the OP-Hospital and the detection of the Hepatitis B leads to the inference that Hepatitis B was contracted by the complainant while he was under the treatment in the OP- Hospital. However, during admission and treatment drugs and injections were being given and possibility of syringes and needles having caused Hepatitis B cannot be ruled out though there are varied other reasons.” -4- Finally the State Commission held that taking overall view of the matter, payment of the aforenoted lump sum amount, which shall include the cost of litigation, would meet the ends of justice. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is manifest from the afore extracted paragraph that although the State Commission has observed that on account of a long duration of three months between the admission of the complainants in the hospital and detection of Hepatitis-B leads to an “inference” that the complainants had contacted Hepatitis-B virus while they were under treatment in the hospital, as the possibility of syringes and needles having caused the said infection cannot be ruled out, though “there are varied other reasons”. Thus, we feel that there is no specific finding by the State Commission to the effect that the hospital was negligent or that there was any deficiency in service on their part. The stand of the complainants’ that Circular dated 06.04.1998, issued pursuant to some other complaint proves their allegation that the instruments used in the operation theatre were not properly sterilized, has also not found favour with the State Commission. -5- Having regard to all the factors, including the smallness of the ad-hoc amount awarded and the statement of learned counsel appearing for the complainant in FA No.769 of 2007 that the amount awarded may be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account, as the complainant and his wife have already expired and he is unable to get in touch with their any legal representative, we are not inclined to entertain these two appeals to re-evaluate the entire evidence on record. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. | 
