These appeals arise from an order dated 13.05.2005 passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short ‘the State Commission’) in OP No. 248 / 1998. The complaint before the State Commission was filed by Smt. R. Indira seeking a total compensation of Rs.20 lakh from St. Isabel Hospital, Chennai alleging negligence and deficiency in service in her treatment by the said hospital and the Doctors who were engaged in her treatment. The precise allegation of negligence and deficiency in service being that shortly before she underwent a surgical procedure for umbilical hernia at about 5:00 a.m. on 30.11.1996, she was given enema by the duty nurse as a preparatory measure to clean the bowls for the surgery. The concerned nurse had inserted the nozzle of the tube in her rectum without breaking the plastic tip of the nozzle, as a result of which, she suffered immense pain and started bleeding per rectum. She complained to Doctor Ravi, the surgeon, about her condition but he overlooked the same and proceeded with the surgery. Though, the surgery went well, but she continued to suffer pain and bleeding per rectum for several days, which according to the complainant was due to the faulty or careless process adopted for enema by the concerned nurse. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 13.12.1996, but within a few days she was taken to Dr. Chandra Mohan, the gastroenterologist, who found that there was recto vaginal fistula, which he attributed due to the faulty administration of enema to the complainant before her surgery. Subsequently, the complainant had to undergo various corrective surgeries / procedures and continued to face the problems of passing faecal matter through her vagina for which she had to carry a bag alongwith her besides a nurse to handle and take her care. Allegations of negligence / deficiency in service were denied by the Hospital and it was maintained that the enema was administered in a proper way and there was no fault or lack of care in doing the same. 2. At the trial of the complaint, the complainant appeared herself as a witness besides seeking support from the testimony of one medical expert namely, Dr. Elengo. From the side of the Hospita, Dr. Ravi who performed surgery, was produced. The State Commission on a consideration of the respective pleadings, evidence and material brought on record, returned the finding of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Hospital and consequently partly allowed the complaint with a direction to the Hospital to pay compensation of Rs.7 lakh besides a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, both sides, i.e., the opposite party Hospital has filed First Appeal No. 261 of 2005 challenging the very finding and order of the State Commission while it appears that subsequently complainant has also filed First Appeal No. 161 of 2006 for upgradation of the relief granted to her by enhancement of the compensation. 3. We have heard Mr. S. Satish Chandrasekaran, learned counsel representing the St. Isabel Hospital and Ms. Malvika G., learned counsel for the respondent / complainant at length and have perused the entire material brought on record. The Hospital under directions of this Commission has also produced the original case-sheet starting from 29.11.1996 to 13.12.1996. Copy of which were filed before the State Commission. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Hospital assailed the impugned order on a variety of grounds. His first ground being that the finding and conclusion drawn by the State Commission were not based on the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record. In any case, his submission is that the version of the complainant about she having sustained injury at the time of administration of enema procedure is highly improbable going by the attaining circumstances and developments which have taken place during her stay in the Hospital. In this connection he has invited our attention to the medical record of the treatment of the complainant as also the statements of the above-named witnesses. On the basis of the said record, he pointed out that the opposite party has discharged its onus by producing ample evidence to show that there was no fault in giving enema to the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant on the strength of the same evidence supports the finding and the impugned order and submits that the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Hospital in regard to faulty administration of enema tube is writ large. According to her the resultant situation has lead to severe complications for the complainant and the complainant had not only suffered physical and mental pain and agony for a long period but she had incurred heavy expenditure on her subsequent treatment which she undertook on several occasions. 5. Having considered the matter, it would appear to us that in the present case two important witnesses which could have either proved or disproved, the allegation in regard to the faulty insertion of enema tube to the complainant were the concerned nurse, namely, Ms. Stela and the other Dr. Chandra Mohan, who not only gave the subsequent treatment to the complainant from 19.12.1996 onwards but had also examined the complainant when she was still admitted in the Hospital on 7.12.1996. On examination, he found the complainant bleeding per rectum. It would appear from the case-sheet of the said date that a proctoscopy was attempted to find out the cause of the per rectum bleeding but it was perhaps not possible due to presence of the mucous, in this view of the matter, the complainant ought to have adduced the evidence of Dr. Chandra Mohan or the State Commission should have summoned him in order to decide the controversy. 6. Learned Counsel for the Hospital made a vain attempt to explain the said bleedings on the strength of the opinion recorded in the medical literature “Amebiasis and Infection with Free-living Amebas” which is to the following effect:- “Clinical Syndromes : Intestinal amebiasis The most common type of amebic infection is that of asymptomatic cyst passage. Even in highly endemic areas, most patients harbor non-pathogenic strains. Symptomatic amebic colitis develops 2 to 6 weeks after the ingestion of infectious cytus. Lower abdominal pain and mild diarrhea develop gradually and are followed by malaise, weight loss, and sick lower abdominal or back pain. Cecal involvement may mimic acute appendicitis. Patients with full-blown dysentery may have 10 to 12 stools per day. The stools contain little fecal material and consist mainly of blood and mucus. In contrast to those with bacterial diarrhea, fewer than 40 per cent of patients with amebic dystentery are febrile. Virtually all patients have heme-positive stools. ” 7. The basis of the submission is that subsequently the pathology tests of the stool showed the presence of some cyst and therefore, the bleeding could be on that account rather than due to improper administration of enema. We, at the moment, would not like to comment on this aspect. However, the fact remains that the complainant had bleeding per rectum on 1.12.1996, i.e., the date next to the date of the surgery as also on 7.12.1996, even going by the medical record produced before us. According to the complainant this bleeding was on account of improper insertion of enema tube which had damaged the wall of her rectum. It is not in dispute that within few days of her surgery at the opposite party Hospital, the complainant was diagnosed as a case of recto vaginal fistula, for which she had to undergo a rectification surgery through Dr. Chandra Mohan within few days of her discharge from the Hospital. What were the circumstances which led to the above complication, and reason which caused the said complication of recto vaginal fistula can better be explained by the said Dr. Chandra Mohan. Learned counsel for the complainant also prays that complainant would like to produce Dr. Chandra Mohan as a witness in support of her claim. In our opinion, it would be expedient in the interest of justice if both the parties are granted opportunity (the complainant to produce Dr. Chandra Mohan and the Hospital to produce the concerned nurse subject to her being available) to establish their respective versions. This will necessitate remand of the case to the State Commission to decide the complaint afresh on the basis of evidence of above referred witnesses or any further evidence which may be adduced by the parties. 8. In the result, the appeal (FA No. 261 of 2005) titled “St. Isabel Hospital Vs. Smt. R. Indira” is hereby partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside. Consequently, the cross appeal (FA No. 161 of 2006) titled “Smt. R. Indira Vs. St. Isabel Hospital” has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. We would request the State Commission to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as it may be practicable, preferably within six months from today. 9. It is stated by the counsel for the appellant that during the pendancy of the appeal and under the directions of this Commission, the hospital has deposited a sum of Rs.4 lakh with the State Commission. This Commission has already directed payment of Rs.2 lakh to the respondent / complainant out of the said deposited amount. The State Commission shall comply with the said direction. The balance amount of Rs.2 lakh shall remain in deposit with the State Commission till the final disposal of the complaint after remand of the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 18.10.2010 to receive further directions in the matter. No order as to costs in these proceedings.