Punjab

StateCommission

A/10/1681

Dr. Monica Single - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tej Bhan Taneja - Opp.Party(s)

Gopal Mittal

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                          FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

                                                          

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                           PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                                     

                             First Appeal No.1681 of 2010

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 23.09.2010                                                      Date of Decision : 18.02.2015

 

1.      Dr.Monica Singla, Mother & Child Care, Water Works Road,    Mansa, Punjab.

2.      Dr.Rajiv Singla, Mother & Child Care, Water Works Road,        Mansa, Punjab.

3.      United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Deputy   Manager, 54, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001.

 

                                                          …..Appellants/opposite parties

                             .…….Versus……..

 

1       Sh.Tej Bhan Taneja, S/o Sh.Devi Dass,

2.      Paras, aged 4 years, (Minor) s/o Sh.Tej Bhan

3.      Palak, aged 9 months, (Minor) d/o Sh.Tej Bhan, through          guardian and father Tej Bhan Taneja, all resident of Street No.3, New Court Road, Mansa, Punjab.

 

 

                                                          ….Respondents/Complainants.

                                               

First Appeal against order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri  J.S Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant         No.1&2      :   Sh.Mukand Gupta, Advocate

          For the appellant No.3                    :   Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate        For the respondents                 :   Sh.L.S Sidhu, Advocate  

 

                   ………………………………………………….

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

          The appellants of the appeal (being the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (being the complainants in the complaint), assailing the order dated 05.08.2010 of District Forum Mansa, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing the OPs now appellants to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from 15.5.2009 till final payment. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the appellants.

2.       The complainants have filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) against the opposite parties, in as much as complainant no.2 and 3 are minors and they have filed the complaint through their next fried and father Tej Bhan, who has no interest and adverse against them. That Parveen Taneja @ Pooja  was the wife of the complainant no.1 Tej Bhan and the mother of complainant no.2 and 3 and she was beautician by profession during her life time. That she conceived and went to Civil Hospital Mansa on 15.5.2009 in connection with her medical checkup. Dr.Asha Kiran of Civil Hospital Mansa attended on her and after taking her ultrasound examination, its was observed therein that cardiac activity of fetus could not be seen and advise for second opinion. That in view of this remarks/observation of the Dr.Asha Kiran  of Civil Hospital Mansa, Pooja since deceased went to the hospital of OP No.1 carried on by OP No.2 and 3. OP No.2 Dr.Monica Singla was contacted by her accompanied with her brother Kamal Kumar. OP No.2 Dr.Monika Singla stated to her that there was some internal complication with fetus and forced Pooja to go in for abortion, otherwise fetus could produce poison in her body. The above facts were narrated by Kamal Kumar and Pooja to the complainant and in the medical opinion of Dr.Monika Singla, Pooja was allowed to be aborted. That OP No.2 charged the fee of Rs.2500/- for this purpose and OP No.2 and 3 assured that abortion was minor process, which could take 15 minutes only. That after sometime, both OP Nos.2 and 3 came out in nervous and jitterery conditions and asked the complainant no.1 to arrange four blood units for Pooja. Four blood units were arranged and at 5.40 PM, first blood unit no.1574 was injected  to Pooja. The complainant Tej Bhan called his in-laws family there as well.  Second blood unit no.1578 was injected at 6.30 PM and third blood unit no.1579 was injected at 7.10 PM to Pooja. That OP No.2 and 3 referred  Pooja  to Ludhiana  for higher management to higher Institute. That neither the complainant No.1 nor her brother Kamal Kumar was allowed to talk to Pooja and complainant arranged Ambulance and found that there was no movement in the body of Pooja by that time and two ladies  were allowed to sit in the backside of the ambulance and they  also observed that Pooja was not then breathing. It was disclosed that Pooja breathed her last at the operation table of OP No.1  due to the negligence and carelessness of OP No.2 and 3. That enroute to Ludhiana, OP No.3 asked the driver to turn the ambulance towards Bathinda. That Pooja was taken to Nova Heart Institute and Research Center, (Nagpal Hospital Enterprises) Bathinda, where Dr.Sukhdev Singh DM, checked the body of Pooja and declared her brought dead and issued letter dated 15.5.09 in this regard.  That the complainant, Kamal Kumar and the other relatives requested the doctor to conduct the postmortem on the dead body of Pooja, but it was not conducted thereat nor the dead body of Pooja was allowed to be kept in the morgue of Civil Hospital Mansa. That ultimately, her dead body has to be cremated on 16.05.2009 due to bad weather, lest decomposition should set in therein. That OP No.1 to 3  have not explained any reason for the death of the Pooja whatsoever. OP No.3 issued letter dated 24.5.09 in the shape of the summary admitting therein the possibility of air-embolism in causing death of Pooja. That person suffering from air embolism cannot be transfused blood. That transfusion of blood to the patient suffering from air-embolism, was tantamount to carelessness and negligent handling on the part of the OP No.1 to 3 of Pooja and record was not provided to the complainant by OP No.2 and 3 about it. They further did not get the postmortem conducted on the dead body of Pooja at Civil Hospital Mansa by using their influence thereat. The complainants further averred that Pooja was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month as a beautician during her life time. The complainants have filed the complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10 lacs against them for causing the death of Pooja due to medical negligence on the part of OP No.2 and 3 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 15.5.09 till its actual payment.

3                 Upon notice, OP No.1  to 3 filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in the legal objections by OP No.1 to 3  that there is no expert medical opinion against the OPs to prove their medical negligence in this case. That instant complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive by the complainants to extract the money from the OPs  and to tarnish their image only. That OPs had demanded charges from the complainant no.1 and instead of paying the charges, this case has been filed just to bulldoze the OPs by the complainant. That complex facts and law are involved in this case, which cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings by Consumer Fora. That OP No.1 to 3 were insured with OP No.4 and 5 for professional indemnity. It was pleaded on merits by OP No.1 to 3 that previous delivery of Pooja took place with caesarian sections. That she conceived third time against medical advice. At the time of ultra-sonography at Civil Hospital, Mansa, she was detected to be 10 weeks pregnant and very risk factor was involved in this case, as Pooja was a case of missed pregnancy. Even in the ultrasound report conducted at Civil Hospital Mansa, it  was recorded that cardiac activity of foetus could not be seen, which is a pointer to this effect that foetus was already dead.   Pooja and her brother had already taken decision of getting her pregnancy terminated. All the risk factors, as involved in this procedure, were duly explained to her and due consent for this high risk procedure was also taken of the patient Pooja. That D & C was performed by the OPs, as it was a diagnosed case of missed abortion with bleeding per vegina off and on since last one and half month. Pooja also had a history of taking MTPILL (Kit) about a month back at +10 to + 12 days ammenorrhoea. That the patient Pooja narrated in her history that she had been bleeding about 10-15 days after taking the pills. That after explaining all the high risk of the procedure to the patient Pooja, in the language easily understood by her, her consent was taken and D&C was done under all aseptic conditions by the OP no.2 and 3. Fourth line was started and all the products of conception were removed satisfactorily and bleeding per vagina was within normal limits. That she was shifted to ward in a satisfactory condition at about 5.00 PM, later on at 5.10 PM and patient started complaining of Nervousness and Nausea and her condition deteriorated thereafter. It was further averred that no amount of Rs.2500/- was deposited with the OPs by the complainant till now. It was denied that OP No.2 and 3 assured the patient that abortion was only a minor process and its high risk procedure was also duly explained to her by the OPs. That abortion procedure conducted by the OPs were uneventful procedure and was completed normally and satisfactorily. The problem started 10 minutes thereafter, after the shifting of the patient to the ward and the patient was conscious and responding well by that time. That condition of Pooja deteriorated as her BP fell down to 80, her sweating started and she became dyspnies. That necessary treatment was given to her and blood was also arranged for her. She was properly monitored by the team of doctors consisting of OP No.2 and 3, Dr.K.P Singla and expert Physician, Dr.Amrit Pal a medical expert and Dr. Raj Kumar, a renowned Surgeon started attending on her and best possible treatment, as available according to medical science, was provided to her. That it is impossible for a doctor to give guarantee for successful result in every case. That there could be misjudgment or error in medical treatment and it would not be decisive of any negligence at all. That the patient Pooja was shifted to ICU and in consultation with medical and surgical specialist, patient was intubated and ventilator was started. That the patient was provided critical treatment  till 7.00 PM and at that time, the team of doctors stated that after consultation with cardiologist at Bathinda, that it was better  to advise the attendants of the patient to shift her to higher center. That it was wrongly stated by the complainants in the complaint that patient was referred to Ludhiana or any other higher institute instead of to Bathinda. That OP No.3 accompanied the patient Pooja to Bathinda to look after her on the way and there had been no malafide involved on the part of the OPs in this case at all. It was further pleaded in the written reply by OP No.1 to 3 that as per the medical literature of the Dutta's book of Obstetrics, the dangers of D&E operations are i) Trauma to cervix and uterus leading to haemorrhage and shock ii) Haemorrhage and shock due to trauma, incomplete abortion atonic uterus or rarely coagulation failure iii) Thrombosis or embolism. In view of such position of the medical science, the exact cause of her death cannot be ascertained,  but in the present case, any of above could have caused her death. That blood was rightly transfused to the patient and OP No.1 to 3 controverted the other allegations in the complaint and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       OP No.4 filed its separate written reply raising preliminary objections that  no cause of action has arisen against OP No.4. That there is no relation/contract between the complainant and OP No.4. That the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed against it. OP No.4 pleaded that complainant has not filed any paper along with the complaint to show that OP No.4 is a necessary party in the complaint and clarified that OP No.1,2 and 3 are not insured by OP No.4 and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground there is no privity of contract with OP No.4. 

5.       OP No.5 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was pleaded that OP No.2 and 3 are insured with OP No.5. It was pleaded that patient Pooja was treated by OP No.2 and 3. It further pleaded that OP No.5 issued Professional Indemnity Policy No.040100/46/08/35/00001131 with effect from 16.6.2008 to 15.6.2009 to OP No.2 and professional indemnity policy no.040100/46/08/35/00001130 with effect from 16.6.2008 to 15.6.2009 to OP No.3 respectively and it. prayed for dismissal of the present complaint. 

6.       The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, affidavit of Kamal Kumar Ex.C-2, copy of case summary Ex.C-3, copy of prescription slip Ex.C-4, copy of Form No.4 Ex.C-5, copy of prescription slip of mother and child care Ex.C-6, copy of prescription slip of mother and child care Ex.C-7, copy of bill of ward Ex.C-8, copy of diagram of Ultrasound Ex.C-9, report of ultrasound Ex.C-10 and copy of Form No. F Ex.C-11, affidavit of Sangam Kumar Ex.C-12. As against it, OPs tendered evidence treatment file of Pooja  containing OPA-1 to OP/A-8 , affidavit of Dr.Rajiv Singla Ex.OP-2, affidavit of Dr.K.P Singla Ex.OP-3, affidavit of Dr.Amrit Paul Ex.OP-4, affidavit of Dr.Raj Kumar Jindal Ex.OP-5, affidavit of affidavit of Gurjant Singh Ex.OP-6, affidavit of Monica Singla Ex.OP-7. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Mansa accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of the order of District Forum dated 5.8.2010. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Mansa dated 5.8.2010, the OPs now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.

7.       We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

8.       The foremost submission raised by the appellants before us is that no medical expert has been examined by the complainant to prove any medical negligence on the part of the OPs and as such the District Forum has not appreciated this matter in proper perspective. That unless and until medical expert is examined to prove the medical negligence on the part of the doctor, the mere version of the complainant cannot be accepted. The appellants also referred to affidavit Ex.OP-3 of Dr.K.P Singla  MD, Water Works Road, Mansa to the effect that he attended the patient Pooja as she underwent D&C due to missed abortion and she was conscious and responding at that time. That the doctor used best expertise in the field of medical science to properly treat her. He further stated in affidavit that her condition suddenly deteriorated and BP fell down. In view of shock, second and fourth line was started and blood was arranged. Dopamine drip was added in view of persistent shock and she was shifted to ICU and put on ventilator and provided intensive treatment  and monitored regularly. That she was shifted to Cardiologist at Bathinda after consultation. Similarly reliance was placed by the appellants on the affidavit Ex.OP-4 of Dr.Amrit Paul, M.D Amrit Nursing Home, Water Works Road, Mansa  on this point. He has also stated on oath that he attended on Pooja patient, when she was being attended to Dr.Rajiv Singla, Dr.Monika Singla, Dr.K.P Singla and Dr.Raj Kumar Jindal that patient was in shock and all the measures to treat shock i.e blood transfusion and dopamine drip were put on her and she was shifted to ICU and intubated and ventilator started. That best possible treatment was provided to her, thereafter, in consultation with cardiologist Bathinda, where she was shifted. Similarly, reliance was placed by OPs on the affidavit Ex.OP-5 of Dr.Raj Kumar Jindal, M.S Jindal Nursing Home, Mansa to the effect that best possible treatment according to medical science was provided to Pooja. On the basis of the above referred evidence, coupled with the affidavit of Dr. Monika Singla, the submission of the appellants is that above doctors have established it on the record that there was no medical negligence on the part of the appellants in this case. It was stressfully contended by the appellants that there is no medical expert opinion examined by the complainant to the contrary to establish it on the record on the point as to whether medical negligence can only be established by the complainant without any expert evidence. The District Forum relied upon case titled as Martin F.D Sauza V Mohd, Ishfaq 2009 CTJ 352 (SC) (CP) (2009) 3 SCC I. However, the Apex Court has recently held in case titled as V.Kishan Rao  Vs. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital and Another reported in III (2010) CPJ (SC) that  "that examination of expert medical expert witness is not essential in all cases, where the medical negligence is evident and the principle of res-ipsa loquitor applies or there are other circumstances, which established medical negligence, then the Consumer Fora can come to independent conclusion irrespective of the fact that medical expert witness has  been examined by the complainant or not." In view of the law laid down by Apex Court in the above referred authority, the contention of the appellants that no medical expert witness has been examined by the complainant to prove their medical negligence and hence the complaint should be thrown out of hand is not acceptable at the threshold.

10.     We have to examine the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on the record to adjudicate the controversy. We have to come to the conclusion that whether any medical negligence on the part of the OP No.1 to 3 is established on the record in this case or not. The affidavit of the complainant Tej Bhan and Kamal Kumar are Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and have been examined by us on the record in this case. The case summary of patient Pooja supplied to the complainant is Ex.C-3 on the record by OP No.2 and 3. The case summary Ex.C-3 records that Pooja was diagnosed, as case of missed abortion and D&C was conducted at 4.30 PM on 15.05.2009. Procedure was uneventful. Patient complained pain. Earlier BP 100/80 , Pulse 120/uf , at 5.20 PM condition of the patient Pooja became worse and her BP fell down and blood was transfused to her, dopamine drips were started. Specialist were called to manage her and she was taken to ICU and ventilator started and she continued to be critical. That possibility of air-embolism was there. That she was shifted to Cardiologist at Nova Hospital Bathinda for further management. The case summary Ex.C-3 has recorded the history of the patient, which is noted on record, which carries weightage to the contention of the complainant that this case summary has been prepared later on by the OPs just to hush-up the matter. The exact cause of death of patient Pooja is due to medical negligence on the part of the Ops. Ex.C-4 is the certificate issued by Dr.Sukhdev Singh, Cardiologist at Bathinda being Head of Nova Heart Institute and Research Center that patient was brought dead thereat 10.00 PM on dated 15.5.2009. Ex.C-5 is certificate issued by Sh.Sukhdev Singh and cause of death is recorded as mentioned in the referral slip. He simply declared her to be brought dead in his hospital and had not  himself examined her and no record of cause of death was prepared by him and only record of cause of death is in Ex.OP-5 that cause of death is mentioned in referral slip of OP No.2 and 3. Ex.OP-6 is the certificate issued by the OP No.2 and 3 at 9.00 PM on dated 15.5.09 that condition of patient Pooja is in irreversible shock and is not improving, Ex.C-7 is the important document, which is document of the OPs in this regard. Ex.C-7 has recorded that Pooja was in irreversible shock due to air-embolism. Ex.C-7 is vital document on the record. This document of the OPs is regarding problem of air-embolism leading to the death of the Pooja. Ex.C-10  is the photocopy of ultrasound report of Civil Hospital, Mansa, which has recorded that she has been advised second opinion and it has been recorded that no surgery of procedure was advised on the basis of this report only. No single scan is sufficient to diagnose a congenital anomaly repeated scans after every two weeks are needed after 12 weeks of pregnancy up to the end, as set out in it. It is recorded in the impression as Missed Abortion. Ex.C-11 is in continuation of Ex.C-10 on the record. Affidavit Ex.C-12 of Sangam Kumar is on the record regarding clarification of the Dr.Raj Kumar Singla and Dr.K.P Singla.

11.     The OPs to establish their innocence in this case strongly relied upon Ex.OPA/1 is ultrasound report , Ex.OPA/2 is ultrasound report of Civil Hospital Mansa. Ex.OPA/3 to Ex.OPA/8 are laboratory reports on the record.  On the basis of the above referred evidence and documents, the OPs now appellants strongly contended before us that even the above-referred evidence exonerated them from any medical negligence on their part. 

12.     From the documents prepared by the OPs themselves with regard to patient Pooja , vide Ex.C-3, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, we find that patient Pooja was normal till 5.20 PM and her condition deteriorated suddenly at 5.20 PM and her BP plummeted. The blood was transfused  and Dopamine Drip was arranged for her and specialist were consulted only thereafter. The condition of the patient Pooja was well before 5.20 PM despite the procedure and her condition suddenly became worse at 5.20 PM. The Sudden worsening of the condition of patient Pooja at about 5.20 PM and thereby sending her in irreversible shock is due to some negligent procedure conducted by the OPs and nothing else.  It was argued before us that air-embolism was detected in Pooja, even as per record of the OPs, vide Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7, then blood transfusion was not justified. Even otherwise, this air-embolism could have happened at the time of the transfusing the blood due to some air in the syringe for transfusion of blood or on account of some contaminated blood, air-embolism has developed due to the negligence of the OPs only and quite possible that the air in the syringe was not properly vacated before injecting the blood to patient Pooja by the OPs. There was no question of development of air-embolism in such type of procedure and sudden development of the air-embolism on 5.20 PM and thereafter sent her in irreversible shock due to medical negligence of the OPs only. She was advised for second opinion only by the radiologist of Civil Hospital Mansa. OP No.2 straightway started aborting without her own independent investigation and independent analysis and examination of the patient. There is no document on the record prepared by the OPs and shown to this Commission that any such investigation were conducted by OPs to ascertain the condition of Pooja patient before starting the procedure. No laboratory reports were taken and no other analysis in this regard from the symptoms or from the own judgment of OP No.2  is evident on the record to this effect. On the basis of the report of the ultrasound radiologist regarding the second opinion, OP No.2 straightway proceeded to conduct abortion without conducting her own independent investigation in this regard. There is no record that she medically examined the patient and got her investigation done on her. The counsel for the appellants could not point out any substance on the record to this effect that there was any independent analysis on the basis of the clinical tests by OP No.2 of patient Pooja before proceedings to conduct this procedure on her.

13.     The above-referred circumstances point to negligence on the part of the OPs. The mere calling of the doctors like Dr.K.P Singla, Dr.Amrit Paul, later on Dr.Rajiv Singla, when the condition of Pooja was already worsening would not absolve the OPs from their negligence due to mishandling of the patient. There is nothing on record in case summary that the above-referred doctors were very much present, when the condition of the Pooja started becoming verse and she started feeling, nervousness and sweating.

14.     In addition to above, we find that the complainants have taken specific stand that high risk factor were involved in this case and it was not explained to Pooja or to the attendants by the OPs. On the other hand, the submission of the appellants is that it was duly explained to her and her consent was duly taken in this regard. We find that Ex.OP-A/2 the history sheet of the treatment does not disclose anywhere that consent of Pooja was obtained as per requirement under  Section 33 of the Medical Council Act 1956. The Apex Court has also held in case titled as "Samira Kohli ..Versus… Dr.Prabha Manchanda & Another, AIR 2008 SC 1385" has laid down the following principle governing obtaining of consent :

          (i) A doctor has to seek and secure the consent of the patient before    commencing a 'treatment' (the term 'treatment' includes surgery    also). The consent so obtained should be real and valid, which     means that : the patient should have the capacity and competence       to consent has consent should be voluntary; and his consent should        be on the basis of adequate information concerning the nature of    the treatment procedure, so that he knows what is consenting to.

          (ii) The 'adequate information' to be furnished by the doctor (or a         member of his team) who treats the patient, should enable the       patient to make a balanced judgement as to whether he should     submit himself to the particular treatment as to whether he should        submit himself to the particular treatment or not. This means that the doctor should disclose (a) nature and procedure of the    treatment and its purpose, benefits and effect; (b) alternatives if any    available: ( c) on outline of the substantial risks: and (d) adverse     consequences of refusing treatment. But there is no need to explain         remote or theoretical risks involved, which may frighten or confuse a        patient and result in refusal of consent for the necessary treatment.     Similarly, there is no need to explain the remote or theoretical risks        of refusal to take treatment which may.

          Persuade a patient to undergo a fanciful or unnecessary treatment.      A balance should be achieved between the need for disclosing     necessary and adequate information and at the sometime avoid the         possibility of the patient being deferred from agreeing to a           necessary treatment or offering to undergo an unnecessary       treatment."

          The Apex Court has also held in case titled as Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences VS. Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors 1009(2) CPC 402 (SC)  that "Once the complainant had discharged initial burden , it was incumbent upon hospital authorities to prove that they had done their duty without any negligence on their part which they have failed to do."

15.     We find that the version of the complainants carries weightage that  high risk factor involved in this case were not explained to them and their consent was not taken by the OPs before entering on this procedure. The consent must be actual and voluntary consent, which means that patient, should have the capacity and competence to give his consent and it should be on the basis of the adequate information consisting of nature of the treatment, procedure so that patient knows what is his or her consent. Herein, we find that there is nothing on the record that OPs disclosed the nature of the procedure of the treatment and it is purpose and benefits and adverse effects.

16.     Consequently, we also affirm the findings of the District Forum in this case that there was no consent of the patient taken on the record by the OPs nor there is any substance on the record that any high risk factor of this procedure, were duly explained to the patient  by the OPs. The consent must be informed, actual voluntary and real consent and not paper consent only, having been obtained in ignorance of the patient.

17.     We , thus, find that the sudden deterioration in the health of the patient Pooja  is due to mishandling and negligence of the OPs and air-embolism developed due to their negligence only. Nervousness, sweating were due to air-embolism and sending Pooja in just irreversible shock is due to the medical negligence on the part of the OPs, which is established by the circumstances of the case on the record.

18.     The mere submission of the appellants that they have also conducted the case of Swaranjeet Kaur and no such symptoms manifested therein. The appellants filed an application to place on record, the treatment record of Swaranjeet. We do not find any substance in it, as it is not necessary that the body of each patient responds to the same in the similar manner. Quite possible, there was no air-embolism developed in the case of the Swaranjeet Kaur due to any medical negligence and hence there is no substance in this application regarding production of record of the some other lady Swaranjeet Kaur and same is of no consequence. Each case has its own peculiar history.

19.     It is alleged by the complainant that Pooja was beautician. There is no document on the record to establish her income from this profession. In the absence of any such document, the District Forum took income of the Pooja rightly to be Rs.3000/- per month by deducting 1/3rd for her own expenses like a domestic lady. The dependence of the complainants was taken to be Rs.2000/- per month, which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum.  Keeping in view of the age of the Pooja, the multiplier has been rightly applied by the District Forum as 14. The District Forum awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,36,000/- to the complainants for death of Pooja due to medical negligence of the OPs, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the complainant no.1 and amount of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainant no.2 and 3 for loss of love and affection and Rs.4,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 15.05.2009 till its actual payment. Since OP No.5 admitted that OPNo.2 and 3 were insured against the professional indemnity vide policy no. 040100/46/08//35/00001131 and 040100/46/08/35/000011310 with effect from 16.6.2008 to 15.6.2009 for a sum of Rs.5 lac, therefore, above-referred amount of compensation would be indemnified by OP No.5. The District Forum rightly apportioned the amount of compensation to the complainants and rightly ordered for depositing the amount of compensation in the fixed deposit receipts of minor complainants to the extent of their shares. We find that order of the District Forum suffers from no illegality or infirmity in this case, calling for any interference therein. 

20.     As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed with costs, which are quantified to Rs.2500/-.     

21.     The appellants have deposited the amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest, if any accrued thereon, be remitted by the registry to the respondents No.1 to 3/complainants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum along with costs imposed, vide this order, be paid by the appellants to the complainants within 45 days time from the date of receipt of this order. The District Forum shall monitor that the amount is deposited in fixed deposit receipts of the share of the minor complainants to the extent of their shares.

22.     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.         

23.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

 

February 18, 2015.                                                                  

RAVI