ORDER

REASONS POINTS 1&2: Complainant-1 is practicing advocate at Hubli and Dharwad. Complainants 2 and 3 are son and daughter of complainant-1. one Shrilaxmi was the wife of complainant-1 and mother of complainants 2 and 3, she was said to be 32 years old when died. As per complainant-1 he had taken his wife Shrilaxmi to the hospital of respondent on 3-5-2007 for medical check up about her pregnancy even treatment was said to be continued by the respondent by that lady. When Shrilaxmi was taken to the hospital on 31-12-07 she was asked to come on 3-1-08 again on that date she was taken there but respondent told her and get admitted in the hospital on 4-1-08. Accordingly she had gone to that hospital and got admitted at about 1 pm on 4-1-08. an injection was said to be given for labour pain and it was said to be told that labour pain may start within 3-4 hours.

At about 7 pm labour pain started and that lady was taken to the labour room and she gave birth to a female baby at about 7.35 pm on that day and it was normal delivery. These facts are not in dispute. As per the complainants Shrilaxmi was taken to Room NO.G3 at about 8.30 pm at that time the clothes of that lady were seen wet with blood. As per the complainant-1, respondent was not present at the time of delivery and subsequently. When there was continuous bleeding, the nurses present there were asked to bring the respondent and inspite of efforts made respondent could not be procured.

The nurses present there made an attempt to stop the bleeding by putting cotton. Even then it could not be controlled. The respondent came to the hospital only at about 10.50 pm to whom the complication of Shrilaxmi was explained and the respondent came to Room no. G3 at about 11pm but by that time Shrilaxmi was unconscious and her body had become pale yellow coloured looking like dead body.

The respondent was said to have taken that patient to the operation theatre. But in short time respondent declared her dead. It was a shocking news to complainants and his relatives and friends. The main allegation of the complainants is that if timely treatment was given at the time of delivery and subsequently that Shrilaxmi would have survived and bleeding could have been controlled.

Since respondent was not present at the relevant time as such bleeding could not be controlled which has resulted her in death, which amounts to dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of respondent. This is the main allegation against the respondent. Per contra the respondent has contended that, BP of the patient was checked at 8.30 pm which was normal & even her general condition was good & there was no post partum hemorrhage at any point of time but at about 9.30 pm Shrilaxmi complained of eipgastic pain, the pulse was normal and for the pain necessary medication was administered.

There was no trace of hemorrhage. However, around 11pm Shrilaxmi suddenly developed hypoxic shock and her BP was not recordable, the pulse was feeble and necessary treatment in the form of cardio pulmonary recessication was done including incubation. But, the death occurred suddenly due to pulmonary embolism of Amniotic fluid. The respondent advised for post mortem but complainant-1 refused for the same. It may not be out of place to make a mention about the fact that, post partum hemorrhage is not instantaneous and it will take 2-4 hours for the patient to collapse if the patient does not react to the treatment. Contending so, the respondent has stated that there was no either dereliction / negligence on her part in treating to Shrilaxmi so, not liable to pay any compensation and it is further contended that, only to extract money, a false complaint is said to be filed. In view of such rival contentions whether there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent in treating Shrilaxmi is the crux of the material point for consideration.

Respondent has produced original case sheet only to prove that, it is genuinely recorded and not tampered or created as contended by the complainant. Even if such original case sheet is considered, how far it supports the contention of the respondent is also another point for consideration.
That case sheet is dtd.4-1-2008. Some observation has been recorded in that case sheet. As per respondent after the death of Shrilaxmi it was advised for post mortem but, complainant-1 refused, as such no PM was conducted. On the back of that case sheet the following words are written “patient’s attender refused for post partum”. It is not the specific contention of respondent that those words have been written by the complainant-1 or some other person on behalf of complainants. Moreover, those words appear to be same with the remaining words in that case sheet, as such whether complainant-1 refused for post mortem or post partum is not clear.

There is difference between post mortem and post partum. If complainant-1 had refused for post mortem then why respondent has written refusal for post partum, nothing is explained. Even it is not the contention of respondent that, by oversight or negligently the word post partum is written instead post mortem. The respondent being a responsible medical officer cannot be expected to write words at whims and fancy. On the other it shows negligence on the part of respondent. This is the one point.

Another point is that, no signature of respondent is found either on the first page or second page of that original case sheet. As rightly argued for complainants, there is difference in writing of that case sheet. The way of argument for respondent if seen goes to show that, every treatment and procedure was followed by her while treating Shrilaxmi. As per respondent Cardiac Pulmonary resuscitation was done including Incubation. Whether respondent did incubation, has not been specifically stated. On the other, the respondent in answer to interrogation has clearly stated that, she has not done the incubation. The incubation was done by the attending anesthetist. Who was the anesthetist, his name is not mentioned. Even affidavit of that anesthetist is not filed.

To a question in the interrogatory that, what are the consequences/complications to the patient if placenta & its membrane not expelled completely or in part after delivery, for that question the respondent has answered as post partum hemorrhage, even then an attempt has been made by the respondent to state that, there was no bleeding at all to Shrilaxmi after delivery, even in the case sheet nothing is stated whether placenta was expelled completely or partly.

The complainant has produced a case sheet and other medical documents in relation to one Mrs.Poornima J.P who had also given birth to a female baby in the same hospital of respondent and subsequently died. In the case sheet of Mrs.Poornima J.P it has been clearly mentioned that baby cried immediately after birth and placenta expelled completely. But, in the instant case, whether female baby born to Shrilaxmi cried and whether placenta was expelled completely or not, nothing is stated.

Even it is not shown by the respondent that, its mentioning is not necessary. When Shrilaxmi gave birth to a female baby by normal delivery subsequently whether she felt some chest pain, nothing is stated by the respondent in the case sheet. The learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that, in case of death due to pulmonary embolism of amniotic fluid generally patient will feel chest pain.

Even in the case of Mrs.Poornima J.P there was chest pain to her. The reason given by the respondent for the sudden death of Shrilaxmi it is said to be pulmonary embolism of amniotic fluid. Even then some question mark is put at the relevant portion. Perhaps the respondent may have suspected the death of Shrilaxmi due to Pulmonary Embolism of Amniotic Fluid.

Whether that was the only cause of death, has not been specifically proved by the respondent. In the affidavit of complainant-1, his mother, sister and friend have specifically stated that, after delivery Shrilaxmi had bleeding and it was noticed when she was shifted to room no.G3 of the hospital of respondent. It was argued for respondent that, absolutely there was no bleeding and such a fact is falsely stated by the complainants and other deponents and false case is filed only to extract money. Complainant-1 is not an illiterate, he is practicing lawyer in Hubli, Dhrwad Courts since few years.

As per the records since the beginning Shrilaxmi was consulting the respondent in case of her pregnancy. As such if complainant-1 and his relatives had doubt or unfaith with the respondent should not have continued consulting her and they would not have gone for delivery in that hospital. When affidavits of 3-4 persons are filed about bleeding to that Shrilaxmi, no good reason is noticed to disbelieve it. These deponents cannot be expected to maintain records about such bleeding. Only it can be seen from their deposition and other evidence. If the entire case papers are seen preponderance of probability seems to be in favour of complainants rather than the respondent.

As rightly argued for complainants the presence of respondent at the time of delivery and subsequently is not specifically mentioned in the written version. But, in the affidavit of respondent it has been stated rather it shows an improvement in the contention of respondent. One more point was argued for the respondent that, the matter involves mixed question of law and facts as such this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it may be heard as preliminary issue. From the pleadings of both the parties only it is to be seen whether there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent or not, which may not require complicated question of law and facts to direct the complainants to approach the civil court of law. As per the case sheet only at 9.30 that Shrilaxmi complained Epigastric Pain. However, pulse was normal and at 10.30PM Colic Tablet was given. That case sheet further shows that, at 11.10Pm Shrilaxmi suddenly had Hypoxia Shock and her BP was not recordable and pulse was feeble & Cardio Pulmonary resuscitation was done including Incubation, even then she breathed law at 11.30PM. in between 9.30 PM to 11.30PM whether respondent made any attempt to secure/procure an expert or assistance of other doctors to treat Shrilaxmi, nothing is stated and no document is produced.

However, expert the respondent may be in case of necessity and emergency, assistance of other doctors may be necessary some times. The complainants have produced some documents about the death of delivered women and child in the hospital of respondent. One Laxmi Jakkannanavar, died in the hospital of respondent on 28-5-2007 after giving birth to a female baby, similarly another lady by name Shahin Mahaboob Ainapur also died in the hospital of respondent on 1-8-2007 after giving birth to a female baby. Likeso, another female baby died in the hospital of respondent on 5-10-2007 and one Usha Shanbag had given birth to that child. Another male child also died in the hospital of respondent on 12-10-2007 which was the child of one Tejsingh Chavan. Likeso, another male child of Hanumantagouda Patil also died in that hospital on 22-10-2007. even respondent in an answer to interrogatory has stated that, there are 8 maternal deaths occurred in her hospital and 2 cases relate to atonic post partum hemorrhage, 2 cases of amniotic fluid embolism, one case died in KLE Hospital due to rupture uterus likeso.

Frequent deaths either of mother or born child in the hospital of respondent rather takes the forum to see the case papers to whether proper treatment was given to Shrilaxmi or not however only on that ground that case is proved on the other, other facts and circumstances are also to be considered. Even if complainant-1 had refused for post mortem the respondent would have informed it to concerned police and DHO for PM to avoid such allegations. Respondent has clearly admitted that, DHO was not informed. Whether respondent felt it not necessary to inform it to DHO or concerned police, nothing is stated. To an question the respondent has answered that, there CPR Team has an anesthetist and physician since the patient had already collapsed and gasping the anesthetist was called immediately and he had incubated trying to resuscitate the patient. As already stated who were anesthetist and physician their names are not stated and their affidavits are not filed.

For what reason their names are not stated and why their affidavits are not filed for respondent to disprove deficiency in service, no materials are produced. Again it is doubtful whether respondent did incubation or anesthetist to resuscitate the patient. To a question that respondent has not mentioned in case sheet of Shrilaxmi as to whether there was post partum hemorrhage or not, the respondent has answered stating abnormal bleeding if any after the delivery is registered. Does it mean that, if there was normal bleeding the same need not be registered in the case sheet.

Moreover, Shrilaxmi had normal delivery under such circumstance even if there was some bleeding subsequently same should have been mentioned in the case sheet and necessary steps should have been taken. Even the affidavits of concerned nurses who were present at the time of delivery and attended on Shrilaxmi subsequently are not filed. To another question the respondent has answered that, she was in the hospital from 2PM to 12.30 midnight and she was on her rounds at 10.50Pm and after her OPD to attend patients in the first floor and the movement the complainant-1 explained about the could and clammy condition of the patient to her, the duty doctor was sent immediately to the room and since the BP was not recordable she rushed to the room to resuscitate her. Who was the duty doctor and why his affidavit is not filed, nothing is stated.

At one stage it is stated by the respondent that, anesthetist has incubated trying to resuscitate the patient but at another she has stated, she resuscitated Shrilaxmi. To that extent there is self-inconsistency in the contention of respondent. The respondent cannot blow hot and cold at a time. As per the respondent when the patient had sudden collapse and after excluding all the possibilities of shock she has come to the conclusion that Pulmonary Embolism could be the reason. Even it is the evidence of respondent that Shrilaxmi had a normal delivery and her general condition was good even at 10.30Pm when she had Porridge in sitting position and she collapsed at 10.50 pm which proves that this complication was unexpected and sudden in such cases the diagnoses of AFE is only by an exclusion.

Even in that complication whether respondent made any effort to secure other expert to treat that Shrilaxmi, nothing is stated. As precautionary measure the respondent should have collected the blood of the group of Shrilaxmi in case of any emergency. What is the blood group of Shrilaxmi and whether any effort was made to secure or preserve some blood or whether complainants were told to secure such blood in case of necessity, nothing is stated. It is not in dispute about respondent treating Mrs. Poornima J.P. her case sheet is also produced. In that case sheet no date is mentioned. Hower, it bears the signature of the respondent. Whereas in the case sheet of Smt.Shrilaxmi date is mentioned but signature of the respondent is not found. For what reasons date was not mentioned in the case sheet of Smt.Poornima and why respondent has not signed in the case sheet of Shrilaxmi it has not been properly explained.

An attempt was made for the respondent to state that, in case of Pulmonary Embolism of Amniotic Fluid which may occur during labour, caesarian, after normal vaginal delivery or during second trimester termination of pregnancy and mortality rate is 26% to 86% and more than half of the patients die within the first hour. It may be the general assessment, it can be taken as a guideline that, irrespective of any type of treatment such causalities are likely to occur. When respondent noticed Shrilaxmi collapsed at 10.50 pm should have made an attempt to secure an expert or concerned doctor to save her life as far as possible. whether respondent was actually present near Shrilaxmi at 10.50 pm also seems to be doubtful, because as per respondent she was on rounds at 10.50 pm at that time complainant-1 explained about the cold and clammy condition of the patient then, duty doctor was sent immediately to the room but, BP was not recordable then she rushed to the room resuscitate her. From such contention of the respondent when Shrilaxmi collapsed at 10.50 pm actually she was not there. Even after hearing serious condition of that Shrilaxmi respondent should have rushed to attend her.

On the other she claims to sent a duty doctor. As already stated who is that duty doctor his name is not mentioned so also affidavit is also not mentioned. All these facts clearly show deficiency in service on the part of respondent. The learned counsel for complainant referring to some passages of textbook on normal labour and Pulmonary Embolism of Amniotic Fluid argued that, the necessary precautions to be taken as required by a medical practitioner, has not been done by the respondent. The learned counsel for complainants has cited quite number of decisions on the point of medical negligence. As per II (2008) CPJ 267, Gujarat, consent of parties is not required for post mortem examination in cases of unnatural death. On the other, opponent ought to have made it medico legal case as routine medical practice. Same principle is also held in III (1996) CPJ 605 Gujarat and I MLCD (J) 307 Gujarat (Dr.Sheruben Jamindar and another v/s Nalinibhai Hiralal Modi and others) A commentary of a text book on an objective in relation to PM Examination is also relied on as to what precaution is to be taken by a medical practitioner in treating a patient. In 2007 MED LR 1335 NCDRC, wherein treating doctor sent requisition for blood after about 2 hours and specialist came when condition of patient had become critical and episiotomy was not sutured in time and death of patient occurred after 3-4 hours. Held: medical negligence. In the instant case the respondent neither requisitioned for any blood nor secured any specialist.

In a decision rendered in Bhajanlal Gupta and another v/s. Moolchand Karatiram Hospital & ors. (SC and National Commission consumer law cases) 1996 (2005) pg.428, wherein their lordships have held that, the medical negligence is one that something which is required under medical practice to be done was not done or what was done was contra indicated amounts to medical negligence. A specialist is required to know the latest techniques for management of the patient and if he is ignorant about it, he would be considered to be negligent in his profession. In 2007 MLR 37 NCDRC, their lordships have held that, medical records not maintained properly about treatment given by doctor amounts to deficiency in service. Same principle is also found in 2007 MED LR 1262 Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. On the same point a passage found in medical negligence and legal remedies is also relied on for complainants. In 2007 MLR 187 NCDRC, wherein doctor not attended on patient ultimately resulted her death held: deficiency in service. More or less same principle is found in 2007 MED LR 1341 NCDRC and 2000 (1) CPR 191 Bhopal Consumer Commission. In 2008 MED LR 39 Delhi, wherein their lordships have held that, in every case of medical negligence, it is not necessary that in every case expert opinion should be produced by the aggrieved party.

On the point of quantum of compensation AIR 2006 Rajasthan 66 is relied on for complainants. Some commentary on Sec.12 of CP Act is also made available for consideration. Apart from that, the complainants have obtained some documents in the form of guidelines and instructions in case of maternity delivery of child from the District Hospital, Haveri under right to information act. Those case papers are produced in relation to the measures to be taken by a medical officer in relation to a pregnant women and precautions to be taken before delivery, at the time of delivery & post delivery.

Already much more discussion has been made on the points. After hearing argument of both the parties orally, case is posted for judgment by 13-3-2009. But, the learned counsel for respondent by filing an application u/s.151 CPC on 11-3-2009 has sought for production of affidavits of some deponents and also written argument. Knowing well that case is posted for judgment by 13-3-09 the said application is filed on 11-3-09 with quite number of citations and affidavits of nearly 7 deponents. It is also stated that, the learned counsel for complainant was not available and complainant has refused to receive the application and copies of deponents. The respondent would have filed her written argument and affidavits of deponents and citations either at the time of argument or at the earliest. Filing written argument and affidavits of deponents along with number of citations only one or two days earlier to decision may cause some inconvenience to the forum to go through all those documents and deliver the judgment. However, it is made clear that, only on that ground those affidavits, written argument and citations cannot be rejected or overlooked without consideration.

Forum has considered that application, affidavits and citations relied on for respondent. The following rulings have been relied on for respondent. In 2003 (3) CPR 360 Uttaranchal state, wherein complainant alleged negligence on the part of doctor but failed to give any expert evidence. under such circumstance doctor was not held guilty of negligence. When the records made available before the forum if they speak themselves about negligence of the medical practitioner then expert evidence may not always be necessary.

In 2006 SAR (civil) 158 Supreme Court, wherein complainant had no trouble at the time of discharge from hospital and at the time of discharge she was advised to take some medicines prescribed. Moreover, no complaint was made at the earliest. Moreover, no negligence on the part of doctor was found who operated operation. Under such circumstance no deficiency in service was found. Whereas in the instant case complaint has been filed at the earliest. In II (2004) CPJ 639 Andhrapradesh, wherein patient died due to kidney failure and administration of medicine for malaria had no effect on kidneys as per Nephrologist opinion and moreover patient had gone to the doctor with high fewer, chill and rigor and doctor gave treatment suspecting symptoms of malaria. Under such circumstance doctor was not found guilty of negligence. In III (2005) CPJ 399 Chattisgad, wherein prescribed medicines were safe and not likely to cause loss of vigin as per doctors opinion and allegations were not proved and moreover there was no expert evidence in its support. Under such circumstance no deficiency in service was noticed.

The facts and circumstances of that case are altogether different from the instant case. In II (2004) CPJ 724 Tamilnadu, wherein death was not linked to any act of omission and commission of respondent. under such circumstance complaint came to be dismissed in absence of satisfactory proof. That principle may not be disputed. As per II (2004) CPJ 365 Tamilnadu, negligence cannot be presumed moreover, pregnancy after sterilizations not always sufficient to jump the conclusion of negligence.

On the other, negligence must be manifest and apparent. There cannot be different opinion on that principle. In II (2004) CPJ 504 Bihar, wherein it is held that all care and caution shall be taken by the opponent and doctor can only be found guilty only when fallen short of standard of reasonable medical care. Even on that points also there cannot be different opinion. In I (2005) CPJ 72 Chattisgad, wherein treatment could not be given as patient left hospital against medical advice. Such situation has not arisen in the instant case. IV (2004) CPJ 186 Chandigad Union Territory, wherein it is held that, mere fact that, different procedure, subsequent to delivery of child undertaken by another hospital not sufficient to fasten liability on opponent no.1. As already stated at later stage affidavits of 7 deponents are filed.

One Raghunathsa s/o.Parusa Habib who in his affidavit has deposed about presence of respondent in the hospital at the relevant dates and time and at that time his daughter had also given birth to a child. Smt.Sujata Rajeshkumar Gandolkar is said to be the staff nurse working in the hospital of respondent who has deposed that, there was normal delivery to Shrilaxmi and thereafterwards there was some complication to her and it was brought to the notice of respondent who asked duty doctor to look at the patient and Dr.Ravind Anaesthesiologist was secured who joined in resuscitating the patient and he intubated the patient even then she expired.

Only for the first time this deponent has given the name of anaesthesiast. Smt.Devika w/o.Manjunath Naik, who is another staff nurse in the staff of respondent hospital has deposed that, during her duty hours she attended the patient Smt.Shrilaxmi Shripad Kulkarni and her general condition was good and respondent after seeing her advised to give 2 injections, which were given. It is not clearly stated by this deponent that such injections were given when Shrilaxmi collapsed at 10.50 pm on 4-1-2008. Affidavit of Dr.Rajanahalli S.Ravind Anaesthesiologist is filed who has deposed that, he received emergency call from the hospital of respondent on 4-1-08 at about 11 pm he reached there within 5 minutes and Smt.Shrilaxmi was in the operation theatre and respondent and her staff were making all efforts to resuscitate her on examination it was found that pulse of Shrilaxmi was threaddy and feeble and her BP was not recordable and she was gasping. Immediately he intubated her to assist for respiration and resuscitate her but even then she breathed last.

Why the affidavit of that Anaesthesiologist was not filed earliest, has not been explained. Even if his deposition is believed at the most he might have intubated to Shrilaxmi. An affidavit Vinod S/o.Mohanrao Kalyanpurkar is filed, he is also medical practitioner and husband of respondent. He has deposed about presence of respondent in the hospital all along on 4-1-2008. An affidavit of Smt.Prafulla Gunjal, a receptionist in the hospital of respondent is also filed. As per her deposition on 4-1-2008 respondent had attended more than 60 patients only having tea break for half an hour. Her deposition appears to be filed only to show presence of respondent in the hospital. An affidavit of one Smt.Salomi w/o.Sundar Munigity, a staff nurse of respondent hospital is filed. As per her deposition there was normal delivery to Shrilaxmi and placenta expelled completely.

It is further deposed that no patient will be shifted from the labour room unless the placenta is completely expelled and if it is not expelled within half an hour respondent will perform a manual removal of the placenta of the general anaesthesia. This deponent only for the first time has deposed so. Moreover, she has deposed a fact which is not stated by the respondent. Even it is not clearly stated whether placental was expelled immediately or respondent performed a manual removal of placenta. Whatever may be the allegations and defense of botht he parties existing facts cannot be denied or disproved.

When both the parties have produced sufficient material with quite number of decisions. under such circumstance it is for the forum to see whether respondent was negligent in treating that patient or not. If negligence is proved the complaint is to be allowed. Otherwise it is to be dismissed. In the instant case, after considering the pleadings, affidavits, other materials of both the parties the forum is of opinion that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent in treating Shrilaxmi. As such even if the application filed for respondent on 7-3-09 is allowed in the opinion of the forum it does not take away the real facts existed then. Some extracts are produced from two books 1) Differential Diagnosis in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Vol.1 and another Operative Obstetrics are produced by the learned counsel for respondent on the point of Amniotic Fluid Embolism, its clinical features, occurrence of AFE, percentage of maternal mortality in case of embolism etc., are produced.

The general principles cannot be denied or different opinion cannot be expressed. Even after all these facts it is to be seen whether there was either deficiency in service or negligence on the part of respondent. Only on that point case has to be disposed of. Even that is not the circumstance in the instant case. It was not the first delivery of Shrilaxmi she had already given birth to a male child, even there is no clear evidence that, either at the time of normal delivery or subsequently Shrilaxmi had some tension about her delivery and child. When there was normal delivery how she developed such complication even if there was such complication what preventive actions were taken rather the evidence of respondent is not satisfactory. In relation to general measures it is noted in the textbook referred that, the patient should in the bed, constant supervision is mandatory and FHF is recorded at every 5 minutes and to administer inhalation analgesics if available in the form of gas N2O and O2 to relieve pain during contractions and vaginal examination is done at the beginning of the 2nd stage not only to confirm its onset but to detect any accidental cord prolapse.

The position and station of the head are once more to be reviewed and the progressive descent of the head is ensured. If the patient is at the 3rd stage which is said to be a crucial stage of labour under such circumstance at any stage patient can become abnormal within a minute with disaster consequences. Under such circumstance the principles underlying the management of 3rd stage are to ensure strict vigilance and to follow the management guidelines strictly in practice so as to prevent the complications, the important one being post partum hemorrhage.

In the instant case, the respondent has made an attempt to state that, there was no hemorrhage at all. Such contention is quite contrary to the sworn to affidavit of complainant-2, his sister, mother and friend. Even in relation to placental separation, it is observed in the textbook that, the placental separation and its descent into the vagina are allowed to occur spontaneously. Minimal assistance may be given for the placental expulsion if it needed.

If it needed but however constant match is mandatory and the patient should not be left alone. Even then in the instant case, nothing is stated about separation of placenta and presence of respondent near that patient. It was argued for respondent that, respondent was all along present in her nursing home on 4-1-08 right from 2.30 pm to midnight, even if such contention is considered, mere presence of respondent in the nursing home is different from being present near the patient even after complication arose. It was argued for respondent that, the complainant has not produced expert evidence as such the sworn to affidavit of complainant-1 cannot be accepted. But as per a decision 2008 CTJ NCDRC 457, when a patient approaches hospital for treatment then primary liability in case of deficiency in service is that of the hospital. As per another decision 2007 MLR 351 Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, an expert evidence not required where doctrine res ipsa laquitor applies.

Even as per another decision 2005 CTJ 1130 NCDRC, the principle res ipsa laquitor itself speaks expert evidence is necessary. From the facts, documents and evidence of both the parties in this case deficiency in service is noticed on the respondent under such circumstance forum is of opinion that, expert evidence may not be necessary to prove such a fact. Complainant has produced one document dtd.4-1-2008 about normal labour. In that document it is only mentioned that, patient delivered a female baby at 7.30 pm on 4-1-2008 baby weight 2kg 660 grams injection vit-k given, patient expired at 11.30 pm on 4-1-08 due to pulmonary embolism ? Amniotic fluid embolism. The respondent has not specifically denied that, it is not her document & that writing is not her writing or writing of any other doctor or nurse.

That document only speaks about normal delivery and death of Shrilaxmi. After delivery what was noticed, what treatment was given, is not mentioned in that document. The complainant has also produced a certificate. As per that certificate Smt.Shrilaxmi Kulkarni expired on 4-1-2008 at 11.45 pm due to Pulmonary Embolism of Amniotic Fluid. In one document death of Shrilaxmi is stated at 11.30 pm but in that certificate time mentioned is 11.45 pm, such fact is not clarified. During pendency of the complaint some applications were filed for complainant with a prayer to cross examine the respondent.

Those applications have been disposed of by the forum by passing an order directing the complainant to file interrogatory another form of cross examination, for which even respondent has filed her answer. Complainant has produced a certificate issued by one G.M.Chabbi, in which it is stated that, she was working in that office as a computer operator since 3 years and she was paid monthly Rs.5000/- however affidavit of that G.M.Chabbi is not filed. Birth certificates of complainants 2 and 3 are produced. Complainant-1 is practicing advocate in Hubli Dharwad courts, he is below 40 years old. When Shrilaxmi died hardly she was 32 years old. It means at the young age complainant-1 has lost his life companion. Similarly complainants 2 and 3 have lost affection of their mother. If reasonable care and caution taken by the respondent there was possibility of surviving that Shrilaxmi. In view of all these reasons forum is of opinion that, there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent in treating Shrilaxmi particularly after delivery. Though loss of life cannot be compensated in terms of money, even then if some compensation is awarded to complainants it may be helpful to some extent. Even compensation cannot be quantified abnormally which shall not burden the respondent bearing it in mind and applying the principle of natural justice, if reasonable compensation is awarded may meet the ends of justice. With this observation point.1 is answered in Positive and point.2 in Positive but accordingly. Point.3: In view of the finding given on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following

O R D E R

The complaint is allowed in part with a direction to the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- apart from Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @8% p.a from the date of order till its realization. The application filed for respondent on 11-3-2009 is disposed of accordingly. (Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 13th March 2009)