1.       This appeal under section 19 of the Act 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 17.09.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 104 of 2017.        

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. No one appears for the respondents.

3.       This is a case of medical negligence. The State Commission has appraised the facts and evidence and concluded that though the blood group of the deceased patient, who was the husband of the respondent no. 1 and the father of the respondent no. 2, was Apositive but he was given transfusion of the wrong blood group i.e. ABpositive which resulted in his death. It has returned clear and categorical findings of medical negligence and deficiency and awarded Rs. 2 lakh as compensation to the complainants which shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum if the payment is not made within two months of its Order along with Rs. 10,000/- towards legal expenses. This appeal has been preferred by the hospital and the doctor concerned.

4. On 09.08.2019, at the stage of admission, the following Order was made by this Commission:

          09.08.2019

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the material on record. 

Issue notice to the respondents, subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent no. 1 directly in her name by way of demand draft to cover travel and allied expenses within a period of four weeks.

The Registry may ensure that the notice is issued and despatched within a period of ten days from today.

The operation of the impugned Order dated 17.09.2018 of the State Commission is stayed, subject to deposit of the entire principal amount before the State Commission within a period of six weeks, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR initially for a period of one year to be renewed regularly.

It is made clear that the stay on the operation of the State Commission’s Order shall automatically stand vacated if both conditions, the condition attached with the issuance of notice i.e. payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent no. 1 within four weeks and the condition attached with the grant of stay i.e. deposit of the entire principal amount with the State Commission within six weeks, are not complied with within the respective stipulated time. In such contingency, the State Commission shall proceed for execution as per the law.

            List on 03.12.2019 for further hearing.         

In this regard learned counsel for the appellants submits that payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent no. 1 to cover travel and allied expenses has not been made and also that the condition concomitant to the grant of stay i.e. deposit of the entire principal amount with the State Commission has not been complied with either.

On 17.02.2023, during the course of proceedings, the following Order was made:

          17.02.2023

This appeal was filed in 2018. The State Commission has returned findings of medical negligence. It is seen that the respondents (complainants) had initially filed a caveat, but no one has been appearing on their behalf after December 2019.

It appears appropriate, in the interest of justice, to issue notice again to the respondents (complainants).

As such, issue notice again subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent no.1 (complainant no. 1) by way of demand draft to defray travel and allied expenses.

The Registry to ensure that the notice is issued and despatched within seven days from today.

The notice to also be ‘dasti’ in addition.

The appellants to ensure that ‘dasti’ service of the notice is duly effected on the respondents (complainants) within four weeks from today without fail.

List on 12.04.2023.

In this regard too learned counsel for the appellants submits that payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent no.1 to defray travel and allied expenses has not been made and also that ‘dasti’ service of the notice on the respondents has not been effected.

5.       Disconcertingly enough, after filing their appeal the appellants are not taking even the basic first steps of making payment to the respondent no. 1 to defray travel and allied expenses or to effect ‘dasti’ service of the notice on the respondents to enable them to argue their case and defend the Order impugned. The ideal normative period to decide an appeal as laid down in section 19A of the Act 1986 (corresponding section 52 of the Act 2019) is 90 days from its admission. This appeal was admitted on 09.08.2019, but even after lapse of over 3 ½ years even the basic first steps have not been taken.

This is a clear case of non-prosecution.

6.       The appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution. The award made by the State Commission shall be forthwith made good by the appellants, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.  

7.   The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.