1. Madras Medical Mission, Appellant herein and Opposite Party before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) has filed this first appeal being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had accepted the complaint of medical negligence and deficiency in service filed against it by S. Jayakumari & others, Respondent No.1 & others herein and original Complainant No.1 & others before the State Commission. 2. Saravana Prabhu (hereinafter referred to as the Patient), aged about 30 years, husband of Respondent No.1 and father of the 2 other Respondents, was admitted in Appellant Hospital for treatment of heart ailment on 05.09.2006. Respondents were assured that on the performance of his open heart surgery, the Patient would regain his normal health. The surgery was performed on 07.09.2006 and the Respondents as also their relatives were informed by the concerned doctors that the surgery was successful and that the Patient would be discharged after a week. However, on 08.09.2006 the condition of the Patient became critical and he was taken to the operation theater where another surgery was performed on him without informing the Respondents and taking their consent. He died at 7.00 p.m. on the same day. Respondents learnt that death occurred due to overdose of anaesthesia and became suspicious when no plausible explanation was forthcoming from the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the death of the Patient following a relatively minor surgery Respondents filed a complaint with the police and a post mortem was conducted, in which it was stated that death was caused due to ntractable Cardiac Failure in post OP case of Atrial Septal Defect Closure Respondents suspected that this document was manipulated to support the Appellant because the words ailure due to post operativeappears to have been scratched out and substituted with the words rtial Septal Defect closure Respondents contended that Appellant had also offered Rs.1,50,000/- to compromise with them but it was not accepted. A complaint was, therefore, filed before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Appellant and it was requested that Appellant be directed to pay the Respondents a total compensation of Rs.43,25,000/- towards mental agony, loss of consortium and loss of income of the family since the Patient was gainfully employed as a Junior Assistant in the office of Assistant Director, Audit Department at Sivagangai and costs. 3. Appellant on being served filed a written statement denying the allegations of medical negligence on its part. It was stated that the Patient was suffering from Congenital Heart Disease, for which he was referred to Appellant Hospital for the surgery which was performed for ASD closure and is an open heart surgery, after informing the relatives and taking their consent. The surgical procedure was uneventful. However, soon after Patient chest was closed, he developed sudden and profound low blood pressure and low heart rate, which was countered by external cardiac massage and supportive medication. However, since this conservative treatment was not adequate, the chest had to be reopened for internal cardiac massage and thereafter Patient was put back on a Cardio Pulmonary Bypass for the next two and a half hours to deal with this complication. Patient was then transferred to the ICU and kept on intensive medication, peritoneal dialysis and other supportive measures. However, in the morning of 08.09.2006 he again suffered an episode of hemodynamic deterioration which necessitated conversion into another complete cardio pulmonary bypass, which was done in the ICU. However, despite this, the Patient could not be saved and he passed away on 08.09.2006. It was contended that from the above facts, it was evident that the Patient expired due to the consequences of intractable cardiac failure following cardio pulmonary bypass for Atrial Septal Defect closure. It was explained that Atrial Septal Defect closure is a cardiac defect, which is easily correctable in children through a surgery at the age of 2 to 6 years but older Patients with Atrial Septal Defects face many more challenges to survival because of post-operative pulmonary hypertension, irregularities of heart rhythm and impaired function of the ventricles, which occurred in the instant case despite best possible treatment as per standard procedure given by Appellant. It was denied that the Respondents were not kept informed of the factual position. It was also denied that there was any excess administration of anaesthesia or any attempt to compromise the case. In fact, it was the relatives of the Patient who after his death had assembled at the hospital making unreasonable demands and they had to be dispersed with police intervention. 4. When the case came up before the State Commission, despite notice Appellant was not present nor did it file any document to prove its case. The State Commission after considering this fact and the other evidence filed before it, including the written statement of the Appellant in response to the Respondentscomplaint , partly allowed it by observing as follows: . The opposite party failed to prove that they have given best and effective treatment after the post operative to take care for the recovery of patient from the post operative care, since the complainants have alleged that there was suspected excess anesthesia. No medical records to prove the same was filed by the opposite party with supportive proof affidavit in this enquiry. Since the complainants also alleged after the occurrence when they questioned the death of the opposite party, the opposite party come forward for a compromise by offering the refund of the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- which was not denied by the opposite party in any way through materials. In those circumstances in the absence of effective proof affidavit to be filed by the opposite party to disprove the contention of the complainants case, but remained absent in the proceedings would only to go to show that there is no case to the opposite party against the complainant and that there was negligence and deficiency in service while performing the open heart surgery to the deceased Saravana Prabhu which caused ultimate death of the patient and thereby we are of the view that the complainants have established their case and thereby we hold that there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in giving treatment to the patient late Saravana Prabhu and answered this point accordingly. The State Commission directed the Appellant to pay the Respondents a total sum of Rs.3,55,000/-, which included Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.1,50,000/- for medical expenditure incurred and Rs.5000/- as costs. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in his oral submissions stated that the Appellant could not appear before the State Commission because it was not served and consequently he could not file any documents, including the medical history of the Patient, in support of its contention. It was also denied that Appellant had offered to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to compromise the case. Counsel for the Appellant reiterated that it is medically well established that cases of Atrial Septal Defect closure are best operated in very young children but carry enhanced risk of post-operative complications in older persons. This is what happened in the instant case with the Patient. However, all efforts were made as per standard procedures by well qualified doctors to save the Patient, which also necessitated a second coronary bypass and there was no professional medical negligence or deficiency in service. The State Commission erred in concluding that there was medical negligence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and have gone through the evidence on record. We are unable to accept the contention of Counsel for the Appellant that it could not appear before the State Commission to present and plead its case because notice was not served. On the other hand, notice was issued to both parties, including the Appellant, and as per Section 28A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Appellant would be deemed to be served if the notice had been sent to the Appellant at the place where it carried its business or profession unless there is a noting to the contrary by the authority who was entrusted with the service of notice. The State Commission rightly took adverse notice of the fact that despite service of notice neither the Appellant nor its counsel appeared and nor was any affidavit or documentary evidence filed alongwith the medical records by Appellant to prove its contentions. Further, the Respondentscontention that Appellant had offered to compromise the case by refunding the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was also not denied either through oral or written submissions. We, therefore, agree with the State Commission that in view of non-appearance of Appellant despite service of notice to it and by choosing not to file any evidence in support of their contentions, the complainants (Respondents herein) had been able to establish their case of medical negligence and deficiency in service against the Appellant. 7. We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the present first appeal. Appellant is directed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.3,55,000/- to the Respondents within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period of default. No costs.