Mrs. Panchudevi Narendrakumar Kanuga the complainant herein has preferred this consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party No.1-Hospital and Dr. D.N. Chatrapati and Dr. Satyendra B. Shah alleging medical negligence by the opposite parties in the treatment of her husband Shri Narendrakumar Kanuga as also deficiency in service with following prayers: - ) The Honle Commission may be pleased to pass order and direct the opponent to pay Rs.5,00,00,000/- jointly and severally, as amount of compensation as stated hereinabove along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization. b) The Honle Commission may be pleased to grant the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the costs of this complaint. c) Any other relief and orders, in favour of this complainant, for which the Honle Commission deems fit. 2. The opposite parties on being served with the notice of the complaint filed their objection praying for dismissal of the complaint. 3. On hearing dated 17.10.2003 the matter was adjourned with the direction to the complainant to file rejoinder if any and evidence on affidavit -3- in support of the complaint within six weeks and the direction to the opposite parties also to file their evidence by way of affidavit within six weeks thereafter. The complainant however failed to file rejoinder and the evidence on affidavit in support of the complaint. The Commission therefore vide proceedings dated 12.4.2004 fixed the matter for final disposal on 5.10.2004 and directed issue of notice to the complainant. 4. On 15.7.2011 counsel for the complainant informed the Bench that the husband of the complainant has died on 26.7.2007 and sought adjournment for moving for necessary amendment in the complaint. The matter was accordingly fixed for 4.11.2011. On 4.11.2011 no one appeared on behalf of the complainant. Accordingly, notice to complainant as well as her counsel was directed to be issued for 13.3.2012. On 13.3.2012 counsel for the complainant sought time to file certain additional documents. The request was granted and the matter was directed to be listed before the Registrar on 17.4.2012. Thereafter, the rejoinder was filed under the signatures of the counsel for the complainant though it was titled as affidavit in rejoinder of the complaint. The complainant also moved two interim applications I.A. No.01/2012 and I.A. 02/2012 requesting for condonation of delay in filing of rejoinder and evidence as well as for permission to amend the complaint in order to incorporate the subsequent -4- events. Thereafter the complainant again stopped to put in appearance. Thus taking note of non-appearance of the complainant, the Commission vide order dated 30.11.2012 dismissed the above interim applications for non prosecution. Counsel for opposite party No.1 also made statement that since the complainant has failed to file any evidence, she was not interested in filing evidence. Fresh notice was directed to be issued to the complainant as well as her counsel for final hearing returnable on 7.2.2013. 5. When the case came up for 7.2.2013 it was noted that complainant had sent a communication by post requesting for decision of the case on the basis of record also requesting that if some assistance is required, she may be served with the notice. Accordingly, a notice was sent to the complainant as well as opposite parties fixing 15.5.2013 for final arguments. The complainant did not care to appear even on 15.5.2013 and the matter was adjourned for 18.7.2013. 6. Even today nobody is present on behalf of the complainant. On perusal of record, it is evident that the allegations made by the complainant on facts pertaining to the medical negligence or deficiency in service have been denied by the opposite parties in their written reply. Since there is a dispute of facts and parties have joined issues, the onus of proving -5- deficiency in service and medical negligence was on the complainant. The complainant has however opted not to lead any evidence despite the opportunity given. In absence of any evidence in support of the complaint, we are constrained to hold that complainant has failed to establish medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties or deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 7. In view of the discussion above, complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.