State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : 42/O/2006



DATE OF FILING : 04.12.2006 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 06.03.2009

COMPLAINANT



Mr. Rajendra Singh

S/o Late S.D.Singh

Residing at 23/19B, Cossipore Road

P.S. Cossipore

Kolkata-700 002.



OPPOSITE PARTIES



1. Dr. N.R.Bhansali

Residing at 25-D, Harish Mukherjee Road

Kolkata-700 025

Consulting Physician, Cardiologist & Endoscopist

Of Shree Vishudhanand Hospital & Research Institute

35-37, Burtolla Street, Kolkata-700 007.

2. SHREE VISHUDHANAND HOSPITAL & RESEARCH

INSTITUTE

35-37, Burtolla Street, Kolkata-700 007.

3. Dr. S.Pattnaik

Consulting Physician at Kothari Medical Centre

8/3, Alipore Road

Kolkata-700 027.

4. KOTHARI MEDICAL CENTRE

8/3, Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027.



BEFORE : HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A.CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT

MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. G.Gupta Roy, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. R.K.Chaumal, Ld. Advocate (OP 1)

Mr. P.K.Basu, Ld. Advocate (OP 2)

Mr. N.R.Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate (OP 3&4)





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

This is a complaint U/S 17A of the Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant, Mr. Rajendra Singh, against the Ops who are doctors and hospitals and/or medical institutes for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 25.00 lacs for medical negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant’s minor son, Master Manish Kr. Singh, aged about 17 years, was suffering from mild fever since February, 2006. The complainant in order to ascertain the reason for such continuous mild fever of his son got some preliminary clinical tests of his son done and approached the OP No.1, Dr. N.R.Bhansali, at his private clinic for medical assistance. The OP No. 1 after perusal of the clinical test reports came to a finding that the complainant’s son was suffering from lung Tuberculosis and prescribed two medicines namely Tab. Akurit-4 and Tab. Benadon-40 and advised to take those medicines for a month. As per such advice of the OP No. 1 the prescribed medicines were continued for three weeks and as no desired result was found the complainant once again approached the OP No. 1 for medical treatment. As there was no remission of fever of the complainant’s son, the OP No. 1 added two more medicines like Loxof and Dolamide with an advice to have them regularly. It is the complainant’s case that after consuming those medicines there was no improvement. Rather the son of the complainant developed abdominal pain and skin rashes all over the body and the fever also increased to the range of 101º to 106ºF. Thereafter on the advice of the OP No. 1 the son of the complainant was admitted to Shree Vishudhanand Hospital & Research Institute, Burtolla Street, Kolkata-7, i.e. OP No. 2, where the son of the complainant kept under the medical care of the OP No. 1. According to the complainant, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 gave contradictory opinions as regards the health condition of the complainant’s son. While the OP No. 1 suggested that the complainant’s son was suffering from Tuberculosis, the hospital authority was of the opinion that the complainant’s son was suffering from some fever of unknown origin. As there was no improvement of the health condition of the complainant’s son even after several medical tests and application of different line of medical management, the OP No. 1 advised the complainant to shift his son to a tertiary care hospital for better management. As per such advice of the OP Nos. 1 & 2, the complainant’s son was admitted to Kothari Medical centre, i.e. OP No. 4, under the care of Dr. S.Pattnaik, i.e. OP No. 3. During the stay of the complainant’s son under the care and supervision of OP Nos. 3 & 4 for seven days several more clinical and pathological tests and administration of new drug therapy was applied. There was still no improvement. Subsequently on 4.5.06 when the complainant had been to the medical centre of the OP No. 4 to meet his ailing son, to his utter surprise he found his son in comma stage. On query the complainant could understand that on the previous night Injection Methyl Prednisolone was administered to his son which gave rise to further deterioration in the health condition of his son and ultimately his son went into comma in the early morning of 4.5.06. It is the specific case of the complainant that though the complainant and other relatives were present in the lobby of the said hospital throughout the night since the preceding night, the doctor never found it necessary to inform the complainant about the administration of the said injection and/or take consent of the complainant before such administration when the said injection is well-known in the Medical World for its side effects like development of comma and other contra-reactions. The complainant could understand that recovery prospect of his son was bleak and after considering other aspects including monetary expenditure, there was no alternative left before the complainant but to release his son from the medical centre of the OP No. 4 and got his son admitted in a nursing home which is near to his residence. Within two days from the date of shifting of the complainant’s son from the medical centre of the OP No. 4 he breathed his last. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such mismanagement and ill-treatment of the Ops, which, according to the complainant, tantamounts to medical negligence and/or deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the present complaint for monetary compensation as already mentioned above.

The OP No. 1 is contesting the case by filing written statement thereby denying all the material allegations of the complainant contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable and the case is bad for defect of parties. During the period in which the patient was admitted under OP No. 1 he rendered all possible medical help and advice which is necessary for a patient of Tuberculosis as that of the patient under reference. According to the OP No. 1, prior to the approach of the patient before the Op No. 1 he was treated by a doctor named Dr. S.K.Safiullah, according to the choice of the complainant. The diagnosis of Tuberculosis by OP No. 1 was done after observing requisite procedures and obtaining clinical test reports. The patient was referred to Kothari Medical Centre for better treatment and nothing else. The OP understands that even at the Kothari Medical Centre the patient was given adequate medicine management, but for reasons best known to the complainant he got released his son therefrom and ultimately the complainant’s son expired two days thereafter for which this OP is not at all responsible. The present complaint has been filed on all false and fictitious grounds and also with malafide intention to harass the OP No. 1 and hamper his goodwill and reputation and on all these grounds the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The OP No. 2 is also contesting the present case by filing a separate written version thereby denying all the allegations of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the present case has been filed on all false and concocted stories. The contents of the complaint petition are misleading, motivated, unfounded and frivolous and it was filed with ulterior motive and intention to extort money from the OP. The OP No. 2 is a charitable hospital which runs on grants and donations and the allegations put forward against the OP No. 2 are not sustainable either on fact or under legal provisions. In the absence of examination of any expert evidence on behalf of the complainant, the allegations are not sustainable and the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

The OP Nos. 3 & 4 are contesting the case by filing a written objection contending inter alia that there is no negligence or deficiency at the instance of OP Nos. 3 & 4. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence or date in support of complainant’s claim or aspersion no adverse view should be taken against these Ops. From the face of the record it would be apparent that prior to the admission of the patient under the supervision and care of these Ops the patient was under the care and supervision of other doctor and institution. There was no occasion of lack of care at the instance of the Ops in respect of medical management of the complainant’s son. The son of the complainant was admitted under the supervision and care of the Ops only for seven days. Thereafter the complainant on risk bond released his son from the supervision and care of these Ops. The Ops were rendering best possible medical management and help to the son of the complainant. The petition of complaint having been filed on all false and frivolous grounds the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Upon pleadings of the parties the following issues have been framed for proper adjudication of the present case.



1. Is the complainant a Consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act?

2. Was there any medical negligence at the instance of the Ops in rendering medical help/treatment to the son of the complainant all alleged?

3. Was there any deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops in rendering medical help/management in respect of the complainant’s son as alleged?

4. Is the complainant entitled to any relief or reliefs as claimed?



All the issues are taken up for consideration together for the sake of convenience. At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the OP No. 1 that the OP No. 1 happens to be a medical practitioner of repute and he is doing medical practice in the capacity of a general physician and consulting cardiologist and endoscopy expert. Besides that the OP No. 1 is also a specialist physician in the field of Tuberculosis. It has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP No. 1 that prior to approaching the OP No. 1 the patient namely Master Manish Kr. Singh, since deceased, was being treated by Dr. S.K.Safiullah and some tests were conducted on the instruction of Dr. Safiullah. Xray of the chest, Typhoid Test, blood test for malaria, Mantoux tests were conducted and on the basis of those test reports and keeping in mind that the patient was suffering from fever for a prolong period the OP No. 1 was sure that the patient was suffering from T.B. and accordingly he started treatment of the patient after following the established norms and procedures which are to be followed in case of a patient suffering from T.B. According to the Ld. Advocate, the patient was kept under observation and under the treatment and care of the OP No. 1 for about one month. As there was no remission of the fever, the patient was advised for his admission in Shree Vishudhanand Hospital & Research Centre (OP No. 2) under the care of OP No. 1. The patient was administered adequate dose of medicines and some further tests were conducted upon the patient. The tests so done indicated that there was distention of the abdomen and presence of Porta Hepatic Lymphadenopathy with Ascities Hepatomegaly was found. But in spite of administration of anti-T.B. drug also administration of Offloxacin and Azithromycin there was still no improvement. Thereafter as enzyme level was found to be raised on routine testing, the anti-T.B. drugs were stopped. It is further submitted on behalf of the OP No. 1 that the patient party never put any reliance and confidence upon the treatment conducted by the OP No. 1 and other doctors which would be apparent from the conduct of the patient party inasmuch as very frequently they shifted the patient from one hospital to another hospital. During the stay of the patient under the care of OP No. 1 there was no material deterioration of his health condition and for better treatment on the request of the OP No. 1, the patient was shifted to the hospital, i.e. OP No. 2. There was no lacuna or negligence at the instance of the OP No. 1 in the course of medical management on the patient. From the materials on record it can be safely said that no case was established as regards deficiency in service rendered by the OP No. 1 towards the treatment of the patient. The OP No. 1 has rendered medical help to the patient to the best of his professional competency and experience. Question of medical negligence or deficiency in service at the instance of the OP No. 1 does not arise at all. While summing up his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1 has urged before us that in a case of present nature the risk factor is always there and the complainant has not been able to substantiate the allegations put forward by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. In this regard it has also been submitted before us that in the absence of any expert evidence no adverse inference should be drawn against the OP No. 1 so far as it relates to medical negligence. The course of medicine management adopted by the OP No. 1 is the established procedure and it cannot be called in question at any point of time. In this regard the Op No. 1 had also administered the medicines which are approved by the World Health Body in the treatment of a patient suffering from T.B. As the complainant has utterly failed to substantiate his case, the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 2 while advancing his submissions before us has submitted that in this case there is no iota of evidence on record for a legal presumption that the hospital authority neglected in the medicine management adopted for the purpose of the patient in question. According to the Ld. Advocate, there is no doubt about the fact that the patient who was of very tender age has died due to the disease from which he was suffering, but for this the OP No. 2 cannot be held responsible. While elaborating his submission on this point the Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 2 has submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that all the doctors of the nursing home was negligent towards the patient in question. The line of treatment adopted in respect of the patient during the patient’s stay in the hospital was the approved line of treatment and as per accepted medical practice and question of what was done should not have been done or that what was not done should have been done as per settled principles of law does not arise also. In the absence of any positive evidence as regards medical negligence and/or deficiency in service at the instance of the OP No. 2 the complainant’s case must fail.

The Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos. 3 & 4 while advancing his submissions has urged before us that prior to the admission of the patient in Kothari Medical Centre under the care of Dr. Pattanaik, the patient was treated by other doctors. According to the Ld. Advocate, in order to substantiate a case of medical negligence the complainant must prove that the doctor has done something which no doctor of ordinary skill acting with reasonable care should not have done. While elaborating on this point the Ld. Advocate has further submitted that in this case the complainant has utterly failed to adduce any medical expert’s evidence in support of his case. The abnormal amount of claim put forward at the instance of the complainant has got no basis at all. After the admission of the patient in Kothari Medical Centre, all possible steps were undertaken for proper treatment of the patient. But unfortunately though the patient was given good care under the prescribed norms and procedure, the patient party could not put reliance upon the ability of the doctor in question and for reasons best known to the patient party the patient was released from the hospital on risk bond and placed to another nursing home where ultimately the patient breathed his last. According to the Ld. Advocate, the patient was actually placed under the care and supervision of the OP Nos. 3 & 4 for a temporary period and without giving proper opportunity and scope for rendering proper treatment the patient was shifted therefrom, for which the OP Nos. 3 & 4’s competency should not be called in question and their sincere attempt to render all possible medical help to the patient should not be thrown away. While concluding his submissions it has been submitted on behalf of OP Nos. 3 & 4 that the present complaint has been filed on all false and fictitious grounds and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Before going into the merit of the case we would like to discuss and analyse the evidence of the medical expert namely Dr. Swapan Kumar Jana. On perusal of his evidence we find that Dr. Jana had apprised himself of the relevant documents including different pleading, evidence of the witnesses and documents relating to medicine management adopted in respect of the patient. After taking into account all these materials Dr. Swapan Kumar Jaha has observed that Dr. N. R. Bhansali (O.P. No. 1) advised anti TB drugs to the patient without endorsing any thing as regards the clinical history, physical examination findings provision on diagnosis and monitoring advices etc. in the body of the prescription. At the time of issuance of the second prescription similarly O.P. No. 1 did not notice any clinical history, examination findings etc. on the prescription itself. Dr. Jana has expressed his surprise as to how O.P. No. 1 would be able to assess clinical condition of the patient on patient’s next visit. Similarly in the third prescription issued by the O.P. No. there was no clinical history, examination findings, provisional diagnosis etc. noted on the body of the prescription. In his evidence Dr. Swapan Kumar Jana has noted the day by day medical treatment given to the patient either by O.P. No. 1, O.P. No. 2 and other O.Ps till the patient breathed his last. While analyzing and discussing the medicine management given to the patient by O.P. No. 1 and other O.Ps Dr. Jana has observed that it was unfortunate that first prescription issued by O.P. No. 1 did not contain any vital information and data like clinical history, physical examination, investigation report etc. though any TB drugs were advised for administration to the patient. According to Dr. Jana absence of clinical history, general survey, physical examination caused hindrance to the scientific approaches of management modalities without of which it was not possible to assess the clinical condition of the patient. In this context it has been observed by Dr. Jana that in order to ensure rational treatment one should follow the following steps namely :-



(i) Define the patient’s problem.

(ii) Specify therapeutic objective.

(iii) Verify suitability of P-Treatment.

(iv) Start the treatment.

(v) Give information, instruction and warning.

(vi) Monitor (and stop) treatment.



According to Dr. Jana O.P. No. 1 did not follow the basic steps of rational treatment as it appears from the prescription issued by him. In this connection Dr. Jana has further observed in his evidence that O.P. No. 1 diagnose the patient’s problem as TB basing on inconclusive blood report, chest X-ray report and Mantoux Test. In this regard Dr. Jana has stated that the positive Mantoux Test is not diagnostic for active tuberculosis while referring the Mantoux in this context Dr. Jana has observed that the test report indicates only positive hypersensitivity reaction. Quoting a text Dr. Jana has observed that “a postive reaction indicates thepresence of a tuberculous focus in the body, but does not distinguish between an active and inactive lesion. Except in the first few years of life, a positive reaction is of very limited value in the diagnosis clinical tuberculosis”. While criticizing the manner in which O.P. No. 1 gave medicine management to the patient, Dr. Jana has observed that a hasty and causal approach is manifested from the prescription O.P. No. 1 dated 21.03.2006 which reflects O.P. No. 1’s failure of skill and reasonable care. According to Dr. Jana the medicine prescribed in that prescription is an irrational anti TB drug combination. There was no information, instruction and warning for drug used and nutritional advice. In this context Dr. Jana has observed that this sort of prescription writing is insufficient and irrational which reflects physician’s negligence on drug therapy. Dr. Jana has further observed that prescribing Fluoroquinolones like Levofloxacin and Ofloxacin along with anti-TB drug is irrational and unscientific because fluoroquinolones are the reserved drug against TB not used as first line drugs. While criticizing O.P. No. 1’s lines of treatment towards patient in question Dr. Jana has stated in his evidence that as patient’s fever was not subsiding the O.P. No. 1 advised loxof tablets to the patient which is rational and scientific method for the treatment of TB. In this connection Dr. Jana has also observed that a TB patient who is on first line anti-TB drug is not responding to the treatment positively the physician should go for reassessment of the case which for the instant case means provisional of diagnosis whether patient was suffering from TB or not or drug resistant tuberculosis. According to Dr. Jana that the very fact that the patient did not respond to anti-TB drugs administered to him by O.P. No. 1 which prompted O.P. No. 1 to shift the patient from domiciliary management to hospital care in as much as the patient was shifted to the care and management of O.P. No. 2. Dr. Jana has assessed that when there was unsatisfactory clinical improvement continuence of anti-TB drugs for more than one month without reassessment is unscientific and irrational. From the medical documents produced before him Dr. Jana has observed that patient’s health condition deteriorated more and more in spite of anti-TB drugs and other antibiotics. Then the patient was referred to specialized centre with advanced facilities for better management. Dr. Jana in this aspect has put a question mark as to whether the decease of the patient itself led him to Kothari Medical Centre or the intervention of drugs compelled him to be placed there. However, Dr. Jana has himself answered the question to the effect that the intervention of drug was the most important cause of deterioration of patient’s health and in this aspect Dr. Jana has methodically and substantially pointed out the loopholes in the medicine management given to the patient in this regard. Dr. Jana in his evidence has concluded that evidence on record was sufficient enough to show that O.P. No. 1’s therapeutic transactions to the patient were not properly skilled and also there was failure of reasonable care. In this aspect Dr. Jana has also methodically and specifically mentioned the loopholes in respect of the medicine management given to the patient by O.P. No. 1. While summing up and concluding on the points Dr. Jana has stated in his evidence that there was assessment failure after ATD therapy which lead to O.P. No. 1 to a wrong step again by prescribing Loxof along ATD. All these factors lead the patient’s domiciliary care to hospital and secondary level to tertiary care that there was late detection of drug reaction (Hepatic damage) after ATD, Fluoroquinolones and Azithromycin and finally Dr. Jana has opined that drug intervention accelerated the life and death contradiction to the patient to a very critical one during the period handled by O.P. No. 1 i.e. Dr. N. R. Bhansali.

As regards the evidence of Dr. Swapan Kr. Jana, we also take note of the fact that Dr. Jana has not stated anything adverse towards the medical management rendered in favour of the patient by Kothari Medical Centre and Saraju Nursing Home. From the evidence of Dr. Jana we find that he has refrained himself from making any comment in this aspect on the ground that as the management of the patient during the period of the patient’s stay in those two institutions was very complicated and the life and death contradiction of the patient was so critical that Dr. Jana restrained himself from making any comment.

Thus, from the foregoing discussions and analysis of evidence of Dr. Jana (Medical expert) we find that Dr. Jana has pointed his finger of accusation against the OP No. 1, Dr. N.R.Bhansali. From the analysis of evidence of Dr. Jana it has also come to light that there was certainly some wanting on the part of Dr. Bhansali as regards rendering medical help to the patient. If a doctor who claims himself to be an expert on the medical field of Tuberculosis, in our opinion, should not have done what he has done in the medical management of the patient in question. In fact, we are unable to reconcile the situation wherein it has become evident from the evidence on record that Dr. Bhansali never thought it necessary to make necessary notes/endorsements on the prescriptions which he had issued towards medical management of the patient on some basic data and information which a physician of ordinary prudence should have done, not to speak of an expert as claimed by Dr. Bhansali himself. In this regard, we also find that from the evidence of Dr. Jana it has also become quite clear that though the patient was not responding to the anti-T.B. drugs and other medicines prescribed by Dr. Bhansali, the aggravated situation was completely overlooked by Dr. Bhansali which raises a grave doubt about his medical competency in the field of T.B. treatment.

As we have already mentioned that Dr. Jana has refrained himself from commenting against Kothari Medical Centre and Saraju Nursing Home and regard being had to the fact that during the patient’s stay in the institution of OP No. 2 the patient was under the care and supervision of OP No. 1, we are to concentrate our attention towards OP No. 1 only so far as it relates to allegation of medical negligence and/or deficiency in service put forward by the complainant.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the OP No. 1 in order to thwart the allegations put forward against the OP No. 1 and in this connection, it has been submitted before us that “Diagnosis of Tuberculosis remains problematic despite many new advances in diagnostic methods. Despite the discovery of the bacillus more than a hundred years ago all the advances in our knowledge disease made since then, tuberculosis still remains one of the most elusive disease and a major health problem facing mankind particularly on our country.” While advancing such proposition, attempt has been made to convince us that considering the present position in the field of T.B.treatment, it is to be borne in mind that the OP No. 1 made best possible medical arrangement/management in respect of the patient under consideration and the sincerity and anxiety of the OP No. 1 should not be called in question by putting up some wild and baseless allegations. It has further been submitted on behalf of the OP No. 1 that the adverse opinion of Dr. Jana has got no resemblance/ relevancy in the present matter and when the World Health Organisation has approved the medicines for T.B. treatment and more so, when the OP No. 1 has adopted the same line of treatment as prescribed by W.H.O., the accusation of irrational anti-T.B. combination as raised by Dr. Jana is not at all tenable and should be discarded outrightly. It has further been submitted on behalf of the OP No. 1 that much has been agitated before this Commission on the basis of Dr. Jana’s inference that the OP No. 1 has failed to re-assess the case in respect of the patient which has resulted untimely death of the patient. But this sort of allegation does not hold much water. When it is an admitted position that after observing the patient with anti-T.B. drugs for the permissible time-length of one month and when there was no remission of fever, the OP No. 1 promptly stopped all medicines. According to the Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1, if such be the state of affairs, question of putting the finger of accusation towards the OP No. 1 as regards failure of re-assessment of the case does not arise at all. While concluding his submissions on this point it has been urged before us by the Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1 that after considering all things said and done, there is no denial of the fact that ultimately SRL Ranbaxy Report has shown the test to be positive. According to the Ld. Advocate, this single factor is sufficient enough to stop all the criticism that has been put forward against the OP No. 1 at the instance of the complainant so far as it relates to render proper and adequate medical treatment/management towards the patient.

We have duly considered the present case from the materials which have come before us with an open mind and clear consensus. From the analysis of evidence we find that there is no denial of the fact that the OP No. 1 has failed to do what a medical practitioner of his stature as claimed by him ought to have done. In this connection, we find the principle laid down in a decision reported in III (2008) CPJ 150 (NC), which is very much relevant, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that “Drug meant for ATT prescribed without appropriate tests jaundice and hepatitis resulted – withdrawal of anti-ATT advised by another doctor whereupon patient felt better – negligence on the part of OP for starting ATT without proper tests proved.” In our case we find similar circumstances inasmuch as OP No. 1 started anti-T.B. drug without being confirmed that the patient was actually suffering from T.B. Similarly, the principles laid down in a decision reported in II (2008) CPJ 332 is also relevant in this case wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that course adopted to abruptly decide on diagnosis and commence the treatment would not normally be followed by a professional man of ordinary skill – OP’s negligence and deficiency in service proved. Here, in this case we find that the OP No. 1 relying on the line of treatment of Dr. Safiullah started administering anti-T.B. drug to the patient and kept under such line of treatment for one month to the extreme detriment of health condition of the patient. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on analysis of evidence as made above we are of confirmed opinion that the OP No. 1 is definitely guilty of medical negligence and at the same time we hold that there is deficiency in service at his instance. As there is no supportive and corroborative evidence of negligence and deficiency in service in respect of other Ops, we restrain ourselves from commenting or deciding against them on the issues under consideration. All the issues are accordingly disposed of in favour of the complainant against the OP No. 1 only. In our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the OP No. 1 be directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards medical negligence and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service together with litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

Hence, ORDERED that the complaint stands allowed in part on contest with cost against OP No. 1 only and dismissed against rest OPs. The OP No. 1, Dr. N.R.Bhansali, is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs only) and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) towards deficiency in service together with litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) within 60 (sixty) days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree into execution.