Dr.Inder Jit Singh, Member

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.09.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1120/2015 in which order dated 19.10.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 515/2008 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the State Commission in FA/1120/2015 and for restoring the order dated 19.10.2015 of the District Forum passed in 515/2008.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent-1 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum, the Respondents-1 to 3 (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties-1 to 3 before the State Commission and Respondents- 4 & 5 were Respondents-2 & 3  before the State Commission in FA/1120/2015 and Opposite Parties- 4 & 5 before the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 515/2008.

 3.      Notice on RP as well as on application for condonation of delay was issued to the Respondent(s) on 19.09.2018.  Parties filed Written Arguments on 21.02.2023 (Petitioner), 08.06.2023 (Respondent No.1) 25.11.2019 (Respondent No. 4) and on 09.06.2023 (Respondent No.5) respectively.  Written arguments not filed by Respondents 2 & 3. No reply/response/objection to the application for condonation of delay was filed by the Respondents.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

Petitioner’s wife Vananda (hereinafter also referred to as the patient), who was having pregnancy of six months  went to Respondent No.1 hospital on 30/31.05.2008 at 2-32 A.M. due to abdominal pain.  She was admitted in the hospital of Respondent-1, where the doctors told that baby foetus had no heart sound so an emergency operation/surgery was required to save life of Petitioner’s wife.  Respondent No. 2 along with some other doctors aborted the baby foetus but the doctors of Respondent No.1’s hospital did not allow the petitioner and other relatives to meet his wife on the pretext that she was in intensive care unit.  After 11 hours of operation, the patient was referred to higher centre for further investigations.  On the advise of Respondents, the Petitioner’s wife was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 31.05.2008, where she died on 01.06.2008 at 6-00 A.M.  The Petitioner alleges that due to delay in referring his wife and the cause of her death was excess bleeding, shock as well as haemorrhage and doctors of Respondent 1’s were negligent in treating his wife and kept her condition in dark due to greed of money and doctors were also negligent in mentioning some wrong facts in the discharge summary deliberately. Though treatment card along with regular check-up record of Civil Hospital, Ballabgarh were handed over to the doctors at Respondent-1’s hospital but not mentioning the same and also not described her exact post-operative condition besides date and time of discharge of patient from Respondent-1’s hospital. The doctors acted in violation of professional ethics and moral duties to fulfil their commercial interest as well as inflated the bill because they ought to have avoided surgery of Petitioner’s wife as they lacked infrastructure required in such like cases resulting into the death of patient at a very young age of 30 years leaving behind a child. No qualified surgeon in the hospital of Respondent-1 remained present with her after the said operation to check the post- operative complications but on 31.05.2008 respondent no.1 charged Rs.26,280/- from the petitioner for his wife’s operation and treatment. Hence, the Petitioner filed complaint before District Forum and prayed for directing Respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint before the District Forum.

5.       Vide Order dated 19.10.2015, in the CC No. 515/2008 the District Commission has allowed the complaint and directed the OPs 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Aggrieved by the said Order dated 19.10.2015 of District Forum, OPs-1 to 3 appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 08.09.2016 allowed FA No.1120/2015 set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

6.       The Petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. In view of the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay and reasons adduced during hearing, the delay in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.  IA/14361/2017 stands disposed of.

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 08.09.2016 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:-

(i)      The State Commission failed to consider the brief facts of the case which are matter of record. The State Commission failed to consider this fact that the Petitioner’s wife died due to negligence of the doctors of the respondent no.1. The State Commission failed to consider the facts that the doctors of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, disclosed to the Petitioner that it is a case of medical negligence and the cause of death of Smt. Vandana is excess bleeding, shock and hemorrhage.

(ii)     The State Commission failed to consider the fact that the matter was also reported to the police. The Petitioner served a legal notice dated 07.08.2015 upon the Respondents, which was duly received by the respondents but did not send any reply. The State Commission failed to consider the fact that the respondents take the defense in their written statement before the District Forum on totally wrong submission which are totally contradictory from the documentary evidence/proof filed before the District forum.

(iii)    The State Commission failed to consider the fact that the doctors of the respondent no.1 in the greed of money kept in dark the husband and other family members of the deceased. The State Commission failed to consider the fact that the doctors of the respondent no. 1 made the false statements before the District Forum. The State Commission failed to consider the fact that the respondents failed to prove their stand before the District Forum. The State Commission failed to consider this fact that the petitioner has proved his case before the District Forum.

(iv) The order passed by the State Commission is based on conjectures and surmises, perverse, bad in law and as such is liable to be set aside. The State Commission has failed to appreciate the facts, documents and legal proposition in their true perspective. The State Commission passed the order in a prejudicial manner and has totally disbelieved the defense put forth by the petitioner/complainant. The order passed by the State Commission is not based upon the correct appreciation of pleadings and documents on record and has been passed in total disregard to the law laid down by the various High Courts as well as by the Apex Court from time to time.

(v)     The State Commission has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. If such an order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure and justice and cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.

8.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1     In addition to the averments made under the grounds of Revision Petition (para 7), the Petitioner contended that the State Commission while passing the impugned order has erred in setting aside the Order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the District Forum Faridabad in CC/515/2008, on the single ground that there was no delay in referring the patient to the higher medical centre (Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi) wrongly observing that “She was brought at OP No. 1 at about 2.32 AM and necessary action was taken at 3.15 AM. She was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital at about 6.00 AM. It can not be opined that she was kept unnecessarily at OP No.1 and there was delay in reference. So it can not be presumed that there was any failure on the part of the OP No. 1 regarding transfer of patient to Safdarjung Hospital." It is evident that the State Commission has presumed that the patient was not at all retained in Sarvodaya Hospital in the post-operative period and was immediately transferred to Safdarjung Hospital after doing the surgery and the patient was admitted at 6 AM, i.e., within three hours of doing the surgery, a presumption which is not correct and is contrary to the facts available on record. The State Commission has also not at all discussed the merits of the case in the First Appeal and has passed the impugned order on the basis of assumptions and presumptions only, which are erroneous and based on wrong facts. After 11 hours of the said surgery/operation, the doctors of R-1 hospital referred the patient to higher centre for further investigation and management. The R-1 hospital did not provide any ambulance nor arranged the same through Safdarjung Hospital where the patient was being referred, nor any doctor was deputed to accompany the patient to get her admitted in Safdarjung Hospital. The doctors at Safdarjung Hospital tried their best to save the patient, but she died at about 6 AM on 01.06.2008. The doctors at Safdarjung Hospital had disclosed orally to the complainant that the doctors at Sarvodaya Hospital committed negligence in not referring the patient early and retaining the patient in R-1 hospital and causing delay in referring the patient and told that the cause of death of the patient was excess bleeding, shock and haemorrhage. The doctors at Sarvodaya Hospital were negligent in giving treatment to the complainant's wife and kept the attendants in dark about the true condition of the patient. The complainant had given all treatment record of the patient in Civil Hospital to the doctors at Sarvodaya Hospital, but the doctors of R-1 have wrongly and deliberately mentioned wrong and false facts in the Discharge Summary of the patient that no records are available. The R-1 hospital should not have admitted the patient, if they were not equipped with facilities or did not have infrastructure to handle and manage the case. There was no qualified doctor to look after or provide care to the patient in the immediate post-operative period. The complainant paid the Bill amount Rs.26280/- and only thereafter the patient was discharged from the hospital. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency on the part of the OPs as no efforts were made in transferring the critical patient to Safdarjung Hospital, no ambulance was provided or arranged by the hospital or any of its staff to carry the critical patient who was in Hypovolemic shock whereas it was the duty of the R-1 hospital to transfer the patient to referral hospital and a precious life was lost due to deficiency on the part of the OPs and the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant.  The State Commission erred in presuming that the patient was admitted at 6 am after the surgery was done at 3.15 am on 31.05.2008 and thus it is wrong to opine that there was delay on the part of the respondents in referring the patient to higher medical centre. The State Commission erred in not appreciating the admitted facts on record that the patient was discharged at 1.30 pm on 31.05.2008 and was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital at 4.50 pm. The State Commission has wrongly presumed that the patient was admitted at 6 am in Safdarjung Hospital, i.e., immediately 3 hours after the surgery in R-1 hospital. The patient was discharged after retention of eleven hours of the surgery. The order of the State Commission, by any stretch of imagination can not withstand the legal scrutiny as the error is apparent on the face of the facts/order.  It is further contended that the condition of the Patient at the time of admission in R-1 hospital was reported at about 2 AM on 31.05.2008 at R-1 hospital with complaint of severe bleeding with prev LSCS with pregnancy 7 months with pain abdomen (G2P1). No any other history. BP-130/90, Afebrile, CVS/CNS - NAD, P/A 26 weeks pre term with No Heart Rate. She was diagnosed Abruptio Placenta with severe anemia and LSCS was advised. But the Discharge Summary wrongly shows that the patient suffered severe pre-eclampsia, which is not supported by any of the initially prepared documents like History Sheet of the patient and examination by doctor at the time of admission. The treatment record of the patient for her treatment in R-1 hospital reveals that the Consultant under whose care the patient was admitted was Dr. Anjali Gupta with diagnosis of Abruptio Placenta with severe anemia and consent for surgery was given in the name of Dr. Anjali only and not Dr. Shalini. The name of Dr.Shalini nowhere reflects in the Discharge Summary filed by the respondents and it mentions only Dr. Anjali Gupta as the Consultant. In the Anaesthesia Records also, it is apparent that the name of Dr. Shalini has been added subsequently. The fact remains that at no stage before the surgery, the R-1 hospital told to the complainant/ patient that the surgery would be done by Dr. Shalini and that Dr. Anjali was not competent surgeon to perform the surgery at the relevant point of time. In case Dr. Anjali Gupta was competent to perform LSCS, why she did not perform the same and called Dr. Shalini to perform the same? The High Risk Consent nowhere mentions the name of the patient for whom it was given or the name of the doctor who accepted it. It is apparent on the face of this High Risk Consent that the same has been written by two different persons and at different stages and is questionable. Performance of Surgery Involvement of Dr. Shalini came to the light only when the complainant filed the complaint case before the District Forum against the Hospital (R-1 and the treating Doctor (Dr. Anjali). Prior to this her name was nowhere to the knowledge of the patient’s family. The hospital never told that the operation would be done by any doctor other than Dr. Anjali Gupta to whom consent was given. Involvement of Dr. Shalini after the complaint had been filed- before the District Forum, raises two possibilities (a) that Dr. Anjali to whom consent was given was not qualified to do LSCS, and the patient was operated by Dr. Shalini who was never authorised by the patient party to perform the surgery, or, (b) Dr. Shalini Jain did not operate the patient and simply gave her name to be mentioned as the competent/qualified operating surgeon, and in reality the patient was operated by Dr. Anjali, who was not competent to do LSCS at that relevant time. Either way, the respondent No. 1 to 3 have done a thing, which they were not supposed to do and this amounts to medical negligence on their part. It is further contended by the Petitioner that legal notice sent by the complainant was also addressed to the Hospital (Sarvodaya Hospital through its MS) and to Dr. Anjali Gupta (as Dr. Shalini was nowhere in picture. The name of Dr. Shalini nowhere reflects in the Discharge Summary filed by the respondents and it mentions only -Dr. Anjali Gupta as the Consultant. The complaint was filed before the District Forum, Faridabad against Sarvodaya Hospital and Dr. Anjali Gupta and not against Dr. Shalini Jain. Thus, it is clear from the evidence available on record that the name of Dr. Shalini has been included later on realizing that Dr. Anjali Gupta was not a competent Surgeon to perform the LSCS on the patient at the relevant point of time. Dr. Anjali Gupta in her affidavit has specifically stated that "as per medical treatment record, the patient Smt. Vandana was treated by Dr. Shalini Jain, being the competent and specialized surgeon, whereas the deponent was the assistant doctor, since the deponent and Dr. Shalini Jain attached with Sarvodaya Hospital." It is thus clear and an admitted fact that Dr. Anjali Gupta was not a competent surgeon, but she operated the patient and this point alone establishes gross medical negligence on her part and deficiency on the part of the OPs. On the other hand, if Dr. Shalini has operated the patient, she did it unauthorisedly and without seeking mandatory consent from the patient. It is surprising that the affidavit has been given based on the treatment record and it shows that Dr. Anjali does not have any personal knowledge as to who and why operated the patient. Almost identical affidavit based on the treatment record has been given by Dr. Shalini Jain. It is not clear under what circumstances the District Forum impleaded Dr. Shalini Jain as one of the respondents/OPs and why her affidavit has been accepted. The respondents No. 1 to 3 contended that the patient party could not arrange the Blood required for the deteriorating condition of the patient. The fact is that the patient party had been asked to arrange 3 units of Blood and FFP 4 units and the same were arranged and were administered to the patient. Thereafter, no more blood/FFP were asked for. It is patently wrong to say that the complainant could not arrange more blood, as more blood was not asked for, rather the patient was referred to higher centre. The Discharge Summary also confirms administration of post operative 2 units of Blood and 4 units of FFA. There was delay in referring the patient to higher Medical Centre (Safdarjung Hospital). Shifting of the critical patient suffering from Hypovolemia was the responsibility of both the hospital as well as the treating doctor. In order to ensure safe transfer of the critically ill wife of the complainant to the referral Safdarjung Hospital, the doctor and the hospital were duty bound to arrange for a well equipped Ambulance accompanied by a doctor for admitting the patient in the referral hospital. The operation was done at 3.15 AM on 31.05.2008 and after the said surgery, the condition of the patient kept on deteriorating as the bleeding could not be controlled by the treating doctors of R-1 hospital. No concrete steps were taken to ascertain the actual source of bleeding. Neither any Exploratory Laparotomy was done, nor Hysterectomy was performed to control the heavy bleeding, rather the patient was kept on conservative treatment and only blood/FFP units were administered from 3.15 AM onwards till 01.30 PM when the patient was discharged for shifting to Safdarjung Hospital. The Ultrasound Report at 9.44 AM indicated free fluid in peritoneal cavity with internal echoes and Hemoperitoneum was suspected. The indication of collection of blood/fluid in peritoneum was clear, but no exploration was done by the respondent No. 1 to 3. The source/cause of bleeding was not ascertained, nor the patient was referred to higher medical centre despite her Hb level going down to 6.5 gm/dL at 6.56 AM to a critical value of 4.0 gm/dL at 11 AM as against the reference range of 11- 16gm/dL. Further, the case was seen by Dr. S. Habboo at 11.30 AM and he opined "USG: free blood in peroneal cavity and ?hemoperitoneum Needs Re-exploration. Pt is of high risk; carries high risk of mortality.". Despite such a strong worded advice of the doctor, the OP No. 1 to 3 did not refer the patient at 11.30 AM also and again detained her till she was discharged at 01.30 PM. This most valuable time of almost 4 hours from 9.44 AM till1.30 PM was wasted by the OP No. 1 to 3 and they did not refer or shift the patient to a higher Medical Centre for further investigation/management. The Discharge Summary does not show the Date and Time of Discharge, but it is an admitted fact that the patient was discharged at 02.32 PM on 31.05.2008. The Respondents have stated a wrong fact in their reply submitted before the District Forum that the patient was discharged at 1.30 PM on 31.05.2008 and have wrongly and deliberately alleged that the patient party wasted valuable time of 3 hours and 20 minutes. The respondents have made all possible efforts to manipulate the facts even in transporting the critical patient. On the one hand they did not arrange any ambulance, nor deputed any doctor to accompany the critical patient, and on the other hand they are wrongly alleging that the patient was discharged at 1.30 pm (their own record shows the time of discharge as 2.32 pm) Even at 2.32 PM, when the patient was discharged, the hospital as well as the treating doctor failed in their duties in arranging a well-equipped Ambulance to shift the critical patient to Safdarjung Hospital. There is nothing on record that the Respondent No. 1 to 3 made any effort to contact the Referral hospital to make arrangements including their equipped ambulance to shift the patient. Had the respondents No. 1 to 3 referred the patient timely and immediately after indication of free blood/fluid in peritoneal cavity and suspected hemoperitoneum, and arranged well equipped ambulance accompanied by a doctor, perhaps, the valuable life of the wife of the complainant could have been saved, but the respondents No. 1 to 3 have failed in their duty towards their patient in particular and society at large and are squarely liable for medical negligence in the treatment as well as serious deficiency in shifting of the critical patient to Safdarjung Hospital, where despite best efforts of the treating doctors, her life could not be saved and she died at about 6 AM on 01.06.2008 due to gross negligence and deficiency attributable to the Respondents No. 1 to 3. Thus, the patient was detained by respondent No. 1 to 3 for 11 hours after the surgery knowing fully that the condition of the patient was deteriorating with each passing minute. It stands proved that even after knowing the presence of hemoperitoneum, followed by advice of physician, a deliberate and avoidable delay of about 5 hours was caused in discharging the critical patient at 2.32 PM on 31.05.2008. Another about one hour could have been saved if ambulance could have been provided/arranged by the hospital/doctor to shift the patient to Safdarjung hospital. Medical negligence as well as deficiency is attributable to the respondents No. 1 to 3 in this case.

8.2     On the other Respondents contended that the patient Vandana was brought to the hospital at about 2.00 A.M. in the night of 31.05.2008 with complaint of severe bleeding with history of 7 months pregnancy with pain in abdomen and was attended to in emergency with advice of admission.  The high risk of life of the patient was duly explained to the attendants of the patient prior to the admission and operation, for which the attendants of the patient had furnished "High Risk Consent" dated 31.05.2008, notwithstanding consent for conducting the operation. The patient was diagnosed as a case of Abruptio with severe pre-eclampsia with severe anemia with previous history of caesarean section. There was severe bleeding through Os. Taking high risk consent and discussing poor prognosis about the mother and baby, after admission initial resuscitation and preterm LSCS was done under GA at 3.15 A.M. As per medical record, the treating doctor - Dr. Shalini Jain on behalf of the opposite party No.1 being the competent & efficient surgeon with the assistance of Dr. Anjali Gupta and para medical staff had performed successful LSCS on Mrs. Vandana W/o Shri Gopal, as a result thereof pre-term still born female baby was extracted out. On shifting of the patient to ICU, patient's urine output remained to be less (total 150 cc in 8 hours) inspite of blood, FFP, Fluids and the patient was having hypotension with soft distension of abdomen, for which third unit of blood was also arranged and started. For the purposes of further management of the patient, more blood was needed but the patient's attendant failed to arrange more blood, resultantly, there was gradual worsening of patient's status. Since, the post operative management was needed in a higher medical centre, so the patient was referred to higher centre for further management and needful. The patient was discharged from the hospital at 1.30 P.M. on 31.05.2008, whereas, having perused medical treatment record of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, the patient is stated to be admitted at 4.50 P.M. on 31.05.2008, resultantly there is a gap of 3 hours 20 minutes, thus, precious time elapsed in managing the condition of the patient, which factum tend to establish on record that there has been no delay or lapse on the part of the opposite party No.1 in referring the patient to higher centre for further management and needful. In view of the procedure adopted by the treating doctor, notwithstanding medical references and instances with regards to such complaint and medical treatment, there has been no medical imperfection or deficiency in attending to and conducting the operation of the patient either by the hospital or the treating doctor Mrs. Shalini Jain or the attending doctor Dr. Anjali Gupta. It is denied that the doctors at Sarvodaya Hospital referred the patient all of sudden to higher centre for needful and that the doctors of the hospital did not allow the complainant and any other relative to see the patient, in the said condition. It is also denied that the doctors at Safdarjang hospital disclosed to the complainant that Smt. Vandana died due to medical negligence of the doctors at Sarvodaya Hospital being delayed in referring the patient and the doctors at Sarvodaya Hospital were negligent in giving medical treatment to the patient and that the doctors kept the complainant and other relatives in dark about her condition. It is vehemently denied that past history of medical check up of the patient with Civil Hospital, Ballabgarh was handed over by the attendant of the patient to the doctor at Sarvodaya Hospital and the said doctors deliberately mentioned in the discharge summary dated 31.05.2008 that no previous investigation record available, resultantly the doctors at the hospital acted in violation of professional ethics and medical duties to fulfil their commercial interest. The Respondent further denied that the doctors at the hospital also failed to take precautionary measures to avoid complications after operation and no qualified surgeon remained present with the patient to check the post operative complications. So far as the death of the patient - Smt. Vandana on 01.06.2008 at 6.00 A.M. in Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi is concerned, the same is denied for want of knowledge of the OPs. It is contended that the complainant has suppressed and concealed the true and material facts and information in lodging of the present complaint. As per medical record, the treating doctor - Dr. Shalini Jain on behalf of the opposite party No.1 being the competent & efficient surgeon with the assistance of Dr. Anjali Gupta and para-medical staff had performed successful LSCS on Mrs. Vandana W/o Shri Gopal, as a result thereof pre-term still born female baby was extracted out. On shifting of the patient to ICU, patient's urine output remained to be less (total 150 cc in 8 hours) inspite of blood, FFP, Fluids and the patient was having hypotension with soft distension of abdomen. for which third unit of blood was also arranged and started. For the purposes of further management of the patient, more blood was needed but the patient's attendant failed to arrange more blood, resultantly, there was gradual worsening of patient's status. As information gathered out of medical record in the name of Smt. Vandana pertaining to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, so placed on the Forum's record, the cause of death has been stated as Cardiac arrest. As such, the allegations that the doctors at Safdarjang Hospital disclosed to the complainant, that it is a case of medical negligence of doctors at Sarvodaya Hospital at Faridabad stands negated.

8.3     Respondent No. 4- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. contended that Insurance Policy was issued in the name of Dr. Shalini Jain  with limit of Rs.15,00,000/- from 25.02.2008 to 24.02.2008.  The District Forum in para 13 of its order dated 11.10.2015 has held that “13. Thus this forum is of the opinion that though no medical negligence has been established against opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 in the treatment of the complainant’s wife due to absence of any expert opinion but deficiency in service and carelessness stand proved against opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 for their failure to transfer the complainant’s wife to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi with the required alacrity……”  Against the order dated 11.10.2015 of the District Forum in CC/515/2008, the Sarvodya Hospital, Dr. Anjali Gupta and Dr. Shalini Jain filed First Appeal No. 1120 of 2015 before the State Commission.  The State Commission had set aside the District Forum’s order.  It is contended that it is clear that the District Forum in its order dated 11.10.2015 has not held medical negligence on the part of
Respondents -1 to 3.  The Petitioner has not filed any First Appeal before the State Commission, challenging that part of the District Forum vide which it was held that there is no Medical Negligence on the part of Respondents -1 to 3.  Thus, this part has become final.  The State Commission has also reiterated that there is no negligence on the part of Respondents-1 to 3.  Therefore, Respondent No.4 –New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner under Professional Indemnity Policy with the insured’s name Dr. Shalii Jain.

8.4     It is contended by Respondent No. 5/United India Insurance Co. Ltd.         that the present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 08.09.2016 wherein the State Commission has set aside the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the District Forum and dismissed the Petitioner’s complaint.  Respondent No.2, Dr. Anjali Gupta has taken a Professional Indemnity Policy from the Respondent No.5 for the period from 01.03.2008 to 28.02.2009.  Respondent No. 5 is not privy to the Petitioner’s allegations against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No.5 is not the necessary party in this litigation.  The Petitioner has not made any plea or claimed any relief against the Respondent No. 5.  The relationship between Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.2 is that of an independent and separate contract.  Once this Commission determines the liability of Respondent No.2, only then cause of action arises for Respondent No.2 to apply for indemnification from Respondent No.5.  The indemnification would be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Reliance is placed on judgment of this Commission in  Mohit Srivastava V. Dr. Neelam Mishra & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 40.

9.       District Forum vide its order dated 19.10.2015 has held that no medical negligence has been established against OPs-1 to 3 in the treatment of complainant’s wife due to absence of any expert opinion but deficiency in service and carelessness stands proved against opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 for their failure to transfer the complainant’s wife to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi with the required alacrity. 

10.     The State Commission in its order dated 08.09.2016 has observed that there was no failure on the part of OP-1 regarding transfer of patient to Safdarjung Hospital. Extract of relevant paras of orders of State Commission are reproduced herein below:-

“8.Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that doctors at   O.P.No.1 did not refer Vandana immediately and kept her just to inflate the bill. Had she been referred to higher centre immediately her life could have been saved, so learned District forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above. He placed his reliance upon opinion of Hon'ble National Commission expressed in revision petition No.946 of 2013 titled as Grewal Hospital Vs. Sher Singh decided on 11.11.2014.

9. This argument is of no avail. There is no evidence on the file showing that there was any negligence on the part of the OPs and Doctors working with O.P.No.1. Complainant has failed to point out any evidence on the basis of which it can be presumed that there was any laxity on their part.

10. It is alleged by OPs that the complainant was told about situation of the patient and risks involved at that time, which is clear from the perusal of Annexure R-3. From the perusal of Annexure R-3 it is clear that the complainant was informed about heavy bleeding and that condition of the patient was serious and there could be danger to her life. After his consent the operation was performed. So it cannot be presumed that there was any negligence on their part. After operation she was kept in ICU and later on she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. It was nowhere opined by the doctors of Safdarjung Hospital that had she been referred immediately she could have been saved. There is no opinion of any expert about any negligence on the part of the O.P.Nos. 1 to 3. She was brought at O.P.No.1 at about 2.32 A.M. and necessary action was taken at 03.15 A.M. She was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital at about 6.00 A.M. It cannot be opined that she was kept unnecessarily at O.P.No.1 and there was delay in reference. So it cannot be presumed that there was any failure on the part of the O.P.No.1 regarding transfer of patient to Safdarjung Hospital. It has no-where come that due to this reason patient had died. Findings of learned District Forum qua this fact are not correct and liable to be set aside. Complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because that is based on altogether different facts. In that case hospital did not provide Ambulance to carry patient to other centre. There was specific allegation about this fact, whereas it is nowhere alleged in the present complaint that O.P.Nos. 1 to 3 did not provide any ambulance.”

11. As a sequel to above discussion, it is clear that impugned order dated 19.10.2015 cannot be sustained. Hence the same is hereby set aside, appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

11.     A bare perusal of para 10 of order of State Commission cited above shows that there is lack of application of mind and appreciation of facts of case and evidence on record by the State Commission.  The State Commission has stated that patient (wife of complainant) was brought to OP-1 hospital at about 2.32 A.M., and necessary action was taken at 3.15 A.M.  She was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital at about 6.00 A.M. (emphasis supplied).  It cannot be opined that she was (emphasis as in the original order) kept unnecessarily at OP-1 hospital and there was delay in reference.  As per above observation, the State Commission has concluded that reference to Safdarjung Hospital was made in less than three hours of taking necessary action (i.e. doing LSCS) as she was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi at about 6.00 AM., meaning thereby, according to State Commission’s finding, she was discharged from the OP-1 hospital, which is located at Ballabgarh, Faridabad, before 6.00 A.M., i.e. less than 3 hours from the time LSCS was performed, as it could have taken atleast 45 to 60 minutes for the patient to be transported from Ballabgarh, Faridabad to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and may be about another half an hour to complete admission formalities there. It is primarily on the basis of this finding of timing of admission, performance of LSCS at OP-1 hospital and time of admission at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi that the State Commission has concluded that there was no failure on the part of OP-1 regarding transfer of patient to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and that it has nowhere come that due to this reason patient has died and that finding of District Forum qua this fact are not correct and liable to be set aside. As we will see, the above stated observations/findings of State Commission are devoid of facts and evidence on record and this shows lack of application of mind in properly appreciating the facts of case and evidence on record by the State Commission and on this ground alone, the order of State Commission is liable to be set aside as it suffers from a material irregularity. It is important to note that OPs have no where in their response to RP/notes of written arguments have taken the plea that admission timing at Safdarjung Hospital at about 6.00 A.M. is a typo error and should be read as 6.00 P.M.  As per OP-1’s own case, as brought out in their written synopsis filed on 08.06.2023, the patient was brought to OP-1 hospital at about 2-00 A.M. on 31.05.2008 (intervening mid night of 30/31.05.2008) State Commission mentions this time at 2-32 A.M.- a difference of about half an hour here), LSCS was done at 3-15 A.M. (this timing State Commission records correctly, patient was discharged from the hospital at 1-30 P.M. on 31.05.2008, and based on perusal of medical treatment record of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, Patient is stated to be admitted at 4-50 P.M. on 31.05.20078 (State Commission takes this time as 6.00 A.M. on 31.05.2008.  Petitioner on the other hand, in his written synopsis filed on 21.02.2023, has reiterated the timings stated in the State Commission’s order “brought to OP-1 hospital about 2-32 A.M., necessary action (LSCS) at 3-15 A.M. and admission at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi at about 6.00 A.M.” The Petitioner specifically contended that State Commission has given its findings in para 10 by wrongly observing facts relating to timing, and that State Commission has presumed that patient was not at all retained in OP-1 Hospital in the post- operative period and was immediately transferred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi after doing the surgery and the patient was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi at about 6.00 A.M. i.e. within three hours of doing the Surgery, a presumption which is not correct and contrary to facts available on record.  The OPs-1 to 3 did not even given any specific response to these contentions of Petitioner in their written synopsis, which was filed on 08.06.2023, i.e. after the date of filing written synopsis by the Complainant.  They have not even taken a plea that 6.00 A.M. mentioned in the State Commission’s order is a typographical error and may be read as 6.00 P.M. They have themselves contended in the written synopsis the discharge time to be 1.30 P.M., although the discharge summary shows the discharge time as 2.32 P.M. only i.e. a variation of one hour as per records from the one contended otherwise.  OPs-1 to 3 admit that time of admission at Safdarjung Hospital was at 4.50 P.M. on 31.05.2008 (as per perusal of medical treatment record of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi).  Hence, even if we assume for a moment that 6.00 A.M. in State Commission’s order is a typographical error for 6.00 P.M. even by OP-1 to 3’s own admission, the time of admission at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi was about 5.00 P.M. (4.50 P.M.) and not about 6.00 P.M. Similarly, time of arrival of patient at OP-1 hospital, even by their own contention in the written synopsis, was 2-00 A.M., although the records (discharge summary) shows it to be 2-32 A.M. Hence, State Commission wrongly  and in a casual manner considered the facts and evidence on record about time of discharge, and consequently set aside the order of District Forum. 

12.     We are in agreement with the contentions of the Complainant that except for the above mentioned observations (i.e. those given in para 10 of its order, which have been reproduced above), the State Commission has not discussed the merits of the case and passed the impugned order on the basis of assumptions and on wrong facts.  Complainant does not deny the time of admission on 31.05.2008 i.e. 2.32 A.M. but contends that referral was after 11 hours of the Surgery/Operation, (which broadly matches with the time of discharge given in the discharge summary.  As per the Complainant, the patient died at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi at 6.00 A.M on 01.06.2008 i.e. on the next day/morning.  Complainant has specifically contended that State Commission seriously erred in presuming that patient was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital at about 6.00 A.M., while as per documents on record, admission at Safdarjung Hospital was at 4.50 P.M. Although the discharge summary shows the date and time of admission as 31.05.2008, 2.32 A.M., it does not show the date and time of discharge, but the same is seen recorded on the final bill, which records the admission date as 31.05.2008, admission time as 02.32.11 (i.e. 2.32 A.M.), discharge date 31.05.2008 and discharge time 14.32.20 (i.e. 2.32 P.M.) Hence, observations of State Commission regarding date of admission at Safdarjung Hospital at 6.00 A.M. on 31.05.2008 are not at all based on facts of the case and documentary evidence on record.  Hence, on this count the State Commission committed a material irregularity. 

13.     Now we look at another aspect of the case and the observations/finding of State Commission therein.  This is about the doctor who performed the LSCS Surgery/operation.  State Commission in para 2 of its order states “OP Nos. 1 to 3 filed reply controverting their averment and alleged that Vandana was brought to hospital at about 2-00 A.M.  ………Dr. Anjali Gupta Performed Successful LSCS and as a result thereof pre-term stillborn female baby was extracted out………” (emphasis supplied). But as per the case/contention of OP-1; (which is also reiterated in their written synopsis filed on 08.06.2023, “……As per medical record, the treating doctor Dr. Shalini Jain on behalf of OP-1`, being the competent and efficient Surgeon, with the assistance Dr. Anjali Gupta and para-medical staff had performed successful LSCS on Mrs. Vandana….” (emphasis supplied).  Hence, although the OP-1 itself contended that it was Dr. Shalini Jain who performed the LSCS and not Dr. Anjali Gupta, who only assisted Dr. Shalini Jain, State Commission, quoting the reply of OP-1 to 3 observed that it was Dr. Anjali Gupta, who performed successful LSCS. On this count too, the order of State Commission suffers from a material irregularity.  OP1 specifically contended that “As per medical record”, the LSCS was done by Dr. Shalini Jain, while the Complainant contended that surgery was performed by Dr. Anjali Gupta stating further that the consent form signed was for Dr. Anjali Gupta and not Dr. Shalini Jain.  The fact is found correct on perusal of the relevant consent form on record.  In fact, in the original complaint, the complainant did not make Dr. Shalini Jain as one of the OP, only the Hospital and Dr. Anjali Gupta were made OP-1 & OP-2 respectively. Even in the Legal Notice sent by the Complainant, Dr. Shalini Jain was not named.

14.     We have carefully gone through various medical records like Discharge Summary, reports/references for various tests like Haematology etc., which mention the name of consulting/treating/referring doctor’s as Dr. Anjali Gupta only. Nowhere in these documents/medical record, name of Dr. Shalini Jain appears.  However, in some documents like Emergency  Consultation Notes, it is stated Dr. Shalini informed Adv. (Advised) Admission ↓(under) Dr. Shalini Jain/Anjali Gupta (Gynae & Obst.), the operation notes also mention name of surgeon as Dr. Shalini and Assistant as Dr. Anjali/Sanjay, and Treatment chart showing consultant Dr. Shalini Jain/Dr. Anjali Gupta. Hence, based on available records, it cannot be concluded with certainty as to whether the LSCS operation was done by Dr. Shalini Jain or Dr. Anjali Gupta.  Operation notes being an important document, do state the name of Surgeon as Dr. Shalini Jain, although discharge summary, another important medical record, names only Dr. Anjali Gupta.  Considering that the District Forum has concluded no medical negligence on the part of doctors, but only deficiency in service in  terms of not arranging the required quantity of blood and ambulance and delay in referral to Safdarjung Hospital, and these findings have not been challenged by the Complainant, we do not consider it necessary to go further into the issue as to whether the LSCS Surgery was done nby Dr. Shalini Jain or Dr. Anjali Gupta.

15.     As regards arrangements of blood, the Respondents-1 to 3 contend that the patient party could not arrange the Blood required for the deteriorating condition of the patient. Petitioner on the other hand contends that the patient party had been asked to arrange 3 units of Blood and FFP 4 units and the same were arranged and were administered to the patient. Thereafter, no more blood/FFP were asked for. It is patently wrong to say that the complainant could not arrange more blood, as more blood was not asked for, rather the patient was referred to higher centre. The Discharge Summary also confirms administration of post operative 2 units of Blood and 4 units of FFA. A perusal of contentions of Respondents -1 to 3 show that they have put the onus of arranging blood on the patient’s family.  In this regard, this Commission in Mr. Arvind Pandey & Anr. Vs. Dr. Mrs. Sulekha Saran & Ors. ,CC No. 209 of 2000 decided on 06.07.2012, held:

“17. xxxxx If the hospital did not have the arrangement for the blood and considering that the elderly pregnant woman was of the Rh-ve factor, in our view, it was very necessary for the doctors to have made prior arrangement for the required blood before embarking on the LSCS. Obviously, this was not done. What, however, we find is that the opposite party/hospital is a purely maternity center undertaking delivery of children including complicated cases all-round the year. In the process, they must have encountered situations wherein even in a normal delivery blood would have been required for transfusion to anaemic mothers. What is more surprising is that if the hospital did not have its own arrangement for the storage of blood, the least it ought to have was an arrangement with the Safdarjung Hospital or the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, which are located very close to it or even with the blood bank of Indian Red Cross Society, Near Parliament Street, New Delhi on S.O.S. basis, so that in case of sudden emergency blood could be arranged at the shortest possible notice. xxxxxx”

“20. xxxx We are of the view that opposite party no.1 ought to have enquired and ensured that before taking the caesarean operation of a high risk patient there was arrangement for the blood and in any case if the hospital did not have such facility, she ought not to have undertaken the caesarean operation and instead ought to have advised the complainant to take his wife to a better hospital equipped with the facility of blood bank. xxxx”

“21. Insofar as the hospital is concerned, it has to share the major blame, as being a maternity hospital it has been specialising in attending to pregnant women and delivery of children and should have been specialising in attending to pregnant women and delivery of children and should have been fully equipped for all emergencies, including a blood bank as in a society as ours many would-be-mothers coming from the not-so-well-to-do-families may face the problem of post-delivery haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion.  The hospital, therefore, would be primarily responsible for this lapse.  Had there been a blood bank, the precious life of the complainant’s wife perhaps could have been saved.”

Hence, we are of the considered view that it is the prime responsibility of Hospitals like the OP-1 herein to have adequate arrangements for blood requirements of emergency/critical patients, either in their own Hospital or in collaboration with other blood banks/Hospitals nearby, and they cannot shift the responsibility for arranging blood for patient in critical stage on the family of the patient.  Failure on the part of Hospital on this count amounts to deficiency in service.

16.     As regards delay in referring the patient to higher medical centre and arranging ambulance and making other arrangements, the complainant contends that shifting of the critical patient suffering from Hypovolemia was the responsibility of both the hospital as well as the treating doctor. In order to ensure safe transfer of the critically ill wife of the complainant to the referral Safdarjung Hospital, the doctor and the hospital were duty bound to arrange for a well-equipped ambulance accompanied by a doctor for admitting the patient in the referral hospital. The source/cause of bleeding was not ascertained, nor the patient was referred to higher medical centre despite her Hb level going down to 6.5 gm/dL at 6.56 AM to a critical value of 4.0 gm/dL at 11 AM as against the reference range of 11- 16gm/dL. Further, the case was seen by Dr. S. Habboo at 11.30 AM and he opined "USG: free blood in peroneal cavity and ?hemoperitoneum Needs Re-exploration. Pt is of high risk; carries high risk of mortality." Despite such a strong worded advice of the doctor, the OP No. 1 to 3 did not refer the patient at 11.30 AM also and again detained her till she was discharged at 01.30 PM. This most valuable time of almost 4 hours from 9.44 AM till1.30 PM was wasted by the OP No. 1 to 3 and they did not refer or shift the patient to a higher Medical Centre for further investigation/management.  The Discharge Summary does not show the Date and Time of Discharge, but it is an admitted fact that the patient was discharged at 02.32 PM on 31.05.2008. Had the respondents No. 1 to 3 referred the patient timely and immediately after indication of free blood/fluid in peritoneal cavity and suspected hemoperitoneum, and arranged well equipped ambulance accompanied by a doctor, perhaps, the valuable life of the wife of the complainant could have been saved, but the respondents No. 1 to 3 have failed in their duty towards their patient in particular and society at large and are squarely liable for medical negligence in the treatment as well as serious deficiency in shifting of the critical patient to Safdarjung Hospital, where despite best efforts of the treating doctors, her life could not be saved and she died at about 6 AM on 01.06.2008 due to gross negligence and deficiency attributable to the Respondents No. 1 to 3. In this regard, OPs 1 to 3 has contended that patient was discharged at 1.30 P.M. on 31.05.2008, whereas, having perused medical treatment record of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, the patient is stated to be admitted at 4-50 P.M on 31.05.2008, time elapsed in managing the condition of the patient, which factum tend to establish on record that there has been no delay or lapse at the part of OP-1 in referring the patient to higher centre for further management and needful. This Commission in Grewal Hospital & Anr. versus Sher Singh, RP 946 of 2013 decided on 11.11.2014 on the issue of duty of the hospital and the doctor in transferring the patient on reference to a higher medical centre has held that :-

“18. We shall now consider the third allegation, viz. non-availability of ambulance for transfer of the deceased to the nearest PCI center. In the Complaint as well as in the affidavit, filed as evidence, it was specifically pleaded that the Petitioners had failed to provide an ambulance for shifting the deceased from the Petitioner hospital to the Cardiac Center, and thus, the delay in the process proved fatal. The averment was denied in the affidavit filed by the Petitioners by merely stating that the hospital had only one ambulance, and at that point of time it was transporting some other patient. Except for the said bald statement, no supporting material was brought on record. As a matter of fact, it was stated in the affidavit that “Just on listening that ambulance may take some time, the patient was taken away by the Complainant in own conveyance to the Cardiac Centre of own choice”. It is manifest from the statement that, on their own showing, Petitioner No.2 or his staff did not make any effort to call the emergency department of PCI to which the deceased was being referred, for arranging ambulance equipped to ferry such patients. Having himself diagnosed that the deceased was under AMI attack, Petitioner No. 2 ought not to have waited for his own ambulance, if at all he had one. Knowing fully well that each minute, if not second, in the given situation was precious, he should have ensured that the deceased was transferred to a Cardiac Center as quickly as possible. We are convinced that on facts at hand, the Petitioners had failed to act swiftly, expected even from a general Practitioner or consulting Physician and a Non-PCI capable hospital. Alas, if an ambulance, equipped to transfer an AMI patient had been arranged by the Petitioners on time, perhaps, a precious human life could be saved. We are of the opinion that this was serious lapse on the part of the Petitioners, amounting to medical negligence and deficiency in service on their part. Thus, we uphold the finding of the State Commission on this issue.

19. To sum up, we are of the opinion that though no medical negligence has been established against the Petitioners in the emergent treatment of the deceased for AMI but medical negligence and deficiency in service stands proved against them for their failure to transfer the deceased to the Cardiac Care Center with the required alacrity.”

17.     In Dr. M.A. Natarajan & Ors. Versus Damodaran T. & Ors. First Appeal No. 571 of 2015, decided on 13.12.2018, this Commission held:

“30. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in all the aforenoted judgements we are of the considered view that the State Commission has rightly made the Hospital also liable for the negligent act of not making available the operation theatre and for not providing the ambulance and making the Patient, in that risky condition with severe bleeding, go in an auto-rickshaw. This kind treatment rendered to a high-risk Patient is extremely deprecated.”

18.     In the instant case, it is on record that ambulance with requisite facilities and atleast a para-medical staff for immediate transfer of patient to Safdarjung Hospital was not arranged by OP-1 Hospital, due to which valuable time was lost in leaving this responsibility on the family of the patient.  Hence, OP Hospital, in not immediately arranging a well-equipped ambulance with requisite medical personnel, immediately after discharge, which they claim to be at 1-30 P.M., is responsible for deficiency in service.

19.     In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that State Commission committed a material irregularity in proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record, hence its order cannot be sustained.  Further, as orders of District Forum with respect to there being  no medical negligence on the part of OP-1 to 3 have not been challenged by Petitioner/Complainant, we endorse the same although it was the case of Petitioner/Complainant that OP-2 Dr. Anjali Gupta was not competent/authorized to do the operation. As regards deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 to 3 in terms of not arranging the required quantity of blood and ambulance and delay in referral to Safadarjung Hospital, agreeing with the findings of District Forum, we hold OP-1/hospital responsible and liable for deficiency in service, including for acts of omissions and commissions in this regard on the part of its doctors and/or officials. As such aspects are part of Hospital management, we hold that OP-2 (Dr.Anjali Gupta) cannot be held responsible for these aspects of deficiency in service. As the Petitioner/Complainant himself contends that LSCS Surgery was not done by OP-3 (Dr. Shalini Jain) and he had not even made her a party in the Consumer Complaint filed before the District Forum, she was impleaded by District Forum on its own, and he did not name her in the legal notice, and no liability can be fastened on her also. Moreover, considering that she cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service on the aspects which are part of hospital management, even if she has performed the LSCS Surgery, she cannot be held liable for deficiency in service on these aspects.  Hence, we hold only OP-1 Hospital liable for deficiency in service in terms of (a) not arranging the required quantum of blood, (b) delay in referring to higher medical institute (Safdarjung Hospital), (c) not arranging a reasonably equipped ambulance with atleast a para-medical staff accompanying etc.

20.     Respondent No. 4 contends that Insurance Policy was issued in the name of Dr. Shalini Jain.  The District Forum in its order, has not held medical negligence on the part of Respondents-1 to 3.  The Petitioner has not filed any Appeal before the State Commission challenging that part of the District Forum’s order vide which it was held that there is no Medical Negligence on the part of Respondents -1 to 3.  Thus, this part has become final.  The State Commission has also reiterated that there is no negligence on the part of Respondents-1 to 2.  Therefore, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.4) is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner under Professional Indemnity Policy with the insured’s name Dr. Shalini Jain.

21.     Respondent No. 5 has contended that the Petitioner has been filed against the order dated of the State Commission, wherein the State Commission has set aside the order  passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.   Dr. Anjali Gupta -Respondent No. 2  has taken a Professional Indemnity Policy from Respondent No.5.  Respondent No. 5 is not privy to the Petitioner’s allegations against the Respondents-1 to 3.  Respondent No. 5 is not a necessary party in this litigation.  The Petitioner has not made any plea or claimed any relief against Respondent No. 5.  The relationship between Respondent -5 and Respondent No. 2 is that of any independent and separate contract.  Once this Commission determines the liability of Respondent-2, only then Respondent=2 can apply for indemnification from Respondent-5. 

22.     As regards responsibility/liability of Insurance Companies, we are of the considered view that if the hospital/doctors have got any Professional Indemnity Policy from any Insurance Company, and if they are finally held liable to compensate the complainant, they are free to lodge their claim  with the Insurance Companies alongwith requisite orders of the Commission under which they have been held liable to pay compensation and the Insurance Company will consider the claim as per the terms and conditions of their Policy. Hence, at the stage of holding hospital/doctors guilty of medical negligence by Consumer Fora, the insurance company cannot be directed by the Consumer Fora to pay the compensation straightway under the policy.  In Mohit Srivastava and Another Versus Dr. Neelam Mishra and Others 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 40, this Commission held that :-

 “26. We restrain ourselves to give any findings on the liability of Insurance Co. in the instant case. It should borne in mind that Medical negligence has been alleged against the hospital and the doctor, and not against the insurance cos. and the claim of the complainants is against the hospital and the doctor (for their alleged medical negligence), and not against the insurance cos. The respective insurance policy concerned is a separate and a distinctively different contract between the hospital / doctor and the respective insurance co., and is governed by its own terms and conditions. However, the Insurance Co. is duty bound to indemnify the doctor/s or hospital.”

23.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, we set aside the orders of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum with certain modifications, holding that only OP-1 hospital shall be responsible and liable to pay the compensation of Rs.6.00 Lakh awarded by the District Forum.  This amount shall be paid by OP-1 hospital (Respondent-1 herein) with interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. date of order of the District Forum.  In addition, the Petitioner herein is entitled to cost of Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs in connection with the Revision Petition in question.  All amounts payable as per this order shall be paid by OP-1 (Respondent-1 herein) to Complainant (Petitioner herein) within 30 days of this order, failing which, all amounts payable at the expiry of 30 days shall bear interest @ 12%  p.a. till the date of actual payment.

24.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.