ORDER PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER These two First Appeals No.115/2007 and 471/2007 have been filed by Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ppellant/Insurance Company and Bangalore Children Hospital & Research Center (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant/Hospital) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the tate Commission in Complaint No.50/2001 decided in favour of Sridhar Holalkere and Master Shashank Holalkere, original complainants before the State Commission and Respondents in F.A.No.471/2007. Since the facts and the parties involved in both Appeals are the same, it is proposed to dispose of these cases by a common order by taking the facts from First Appeal No.471 of 2007. In their complaint before the State Commission, Respondents had contended that, Respondent No.1 had taken his pregnant wife(hereinafter referred to as the atient to the Appellant/hospital with complaints of vomiting on 31.03.1999. Preliminary diagnosis revealed that the patient was suffering from acute pulmonary edema and as per advice, she was admitted to the Appellant No.1/hospital. It was contended that the doctors at that hospital were not capable of handling the case and they experimented on her by administering different antibiotics because of which she developed serious complications by the evening. Even thereafter, there was no doctor on duty to attend on the patient and the Respondents therefore, requested the nurse on duty to summon the doctor when the patient condition deteriorated but was told that since no doctors were available during the night, there was no option but to wait till the next morning. The next day i.e. on 01.04.1999 when the doctor came to examine the patient, she was unable to detect what was wrong with the patient and only kept assuring that there was no cause for anxiety. Respondent No.1 suggested that if her condition was serious, she could be shifted to another hospital to which the doctors at the Appellant/hospital did not agree but a little later, the same morning, doctors at the Appellant/hospital themselves decided to shift the patient to Manipal Hospital (Respondent No.4 herein) but did not provide any ambulance and the Respondent No.1 had to procure the same from outside. By the time the patient had arrived at Respondent No.4/hospital, her condition was critical and there was no recordable blood pressure. The doctors at Respondent No.4/hospital opined that the patient had developed intensive crepitation in both lungs and the tachycardia was irreversible. She died on the same day at 3.30 pm. Being aggrieved by the medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/hospital and the concerned doctors, Respondents filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that Appellant/hospital and the concerned doctors be directed to pay them Rs.15 lakhs as compensation with interest. Appellant/hospital and Dr.Arthi (OP-2 before the State Commission and Respondent No.3 herein) on being served denied that there was any negligence in the matter of treatment of the patient and stated that all possible treatment was given to her and that it was factually not correct that doctors were not present during the night on 31.03.1999. In fact, doctors who have been provided quarters in the premises were available for any emergency or treatment of the patients at all times. Required medication was given to the patient. It was, however, admitted that it was decided to shift the patient to Respondent No.4/hospital which had better facilities and since the ambulance of Appellant/hospital was engaged elsewhere, another ambulance was obtained and the patient shifted to Respondent No.4/hospital. Thus, there was no medical negligence on the part of the Appellant/Hospital of its doctors. The State Commission after hearing both parties partly allowed the complaint by observing as follows: W2 is the Chief Administrator of OP1 Hospital and he says in his Affidavit that it was Doctor Sudha who was incharge of the patient in the night of 31.03.1999 upto 6.00 AM in the next morning. He says that R1 to R5 are the documents which reveal the particulars of treatment given to Smt.Sunitha when she was in OP1 Hospital. But he admits that none of these documents were signed by any of the Doctors who were supposed to be on duty in the night of 31.03.1999. He also says that he is having documents to show that Dr.Sudha attended the patient in the night of 31.03.1999. Such document has not been produced. OP2 in her Affidavit says that she is the only Gynecologist working in OP1 Hospital and she would be available in the Hospital from 8.30 AM to 5.00 PM every day. According to her, the duty Doctors are provided with quarters in the premises of the Hospital itself. It if was Dr.Sudha who attended on the patient in the night of 31.03.1999, OP1 has no explanation as to why evidence of Dr.Sudha is not produced to show that she had examined the patient and had prescribed the course of treatment. The complainants contend that the patient was left to the care of the Nurses only without the Doctors attending on the patient. It is the complainantscase that the Nurses have given some medicines and that is the main reason for the worsening of the condition of the patient. This contention of the complainants appears to be highly probably. Once the patient has come to the Hospital expecting to get proper medical attention and once Hospital admits the patient for treatment, it is the duty of the Hospital to provide prompt & effective medical attention to the patient. If, for any valid reason the Hospital is unable to provide prompt medical attention to the patient, the Hospital is not expected to admit the patient. May be that the patient has come during the night and the Doctor was not readily available. If the Hospital is unable to secure the presence of the Doctor in the night, the Hospital would be rendering great service advising the patient to go to any other Institution where Doctors are available even during night. Having admitted the patient into the Hospital, the Hospital would be failing in its duty if it is unable to provide medical attention immediately. The Hospital cannot say that since you have come in the night you have to wait till the next morning to get attention of the Doctor. In our view, this approach adopted by the OP1 Hospital has resulted in the deterioration in the condition of the patient and that, according to us, is deficiency in service. We, therefore, fix the responsibility on OP1 for failure to provide prompt medical attention to the patient. OP2 is however exonerated because the complainant is unable to prove that information of admission of the patient was promptly given to OP2. The State Commission after taking into account the above facts and the compensation to the Respondents No.1 & 2 who had lost their mother and wife respectively, awarded a global compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. In this connection the order of the State Commission reads as follows: he complaint is partly allowed against Ops 1 & 4. OP1 & 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainants a global compensation of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Only). Complaint against OP2 & 3 is dismissed. Payment shall be made within 30 days. On failure to pay the amount within 30 days, the amount shall carry interest @ 10% P.A. from this day till realization. Out of Rs.5 lakhs awarded, Rs.2,50,000/- shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the name of minor complainant No.2 in a Nationalized Bank for such term till complainant No.2 attains majority and on his attaining majority the same sum shall be paid to him. Interest accruing thereon from time to time shall be paid to his guardian Complainant No.1 Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company in F.A. No.115/2007 contended that since the liability under the insurance policy issued by it in respect of Appellant/hospital in F.A.471/2007 was limited to Rs.1 lakh, the State Commission erred in directing it and the Appellant/hospital to jointly and severally pay the global compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. Counsel for Appellant/hospital in F.A.No.471/2007 stated that the State Commission erred in holding it guilty of medical negligence. If at all there was any medical negligence, it was on the part of the concerned doctor(s) and since, the Appellant/hospital was well-managed with all necessary medical and diagnostic facilities as well as qualified staff, there was no medical negligence on its part. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The fact that the patient was brought by Respondent No.1 to Appellant/hospital is not in dispute. Further, it is also admitted that the patient was advised admission and the next day referred to Respondent No.4/hospital with purportedly better facilities since her medical condition aggravated and where she died a few hours later. From the documents submitted in evidence by the Appellant/Hospital, we note that as per the Discharge Summary, it has been stated that the patient was suffering from acute pulmonary edema and she was, therefore, shifted to Respondent No.4/hospital for further management. However, in the history of clinical findings, it has been stated that the patient was suffering from vomiting and other symptoms which were suggestive of threatening eclampsia. She was given medication (calmpose strabuton, IV fluids, lasix, antibiotics etc.) but there is no specific mention that any diagnosis such as chest X-ray was done or that she was investigated/treated for pulmonary edema. On the other hand, it is confirmed that she was suffering from pulmonary edema because this is stated in the Discharge Summary of the Appellant/Hospital and confirmed by the doctors at Respondent No.4/Hospital (Manipal Hospital) where she was shifted later. It was specifically stated there that she had intensive crepitation in both lungs which is inter alia indicative of accumulation of fluids in the lungs and a potentially dangerous medical situation. Lung crepitation is also referred to as crackles because crackles are heard in the lungs of the person who has crepitations which can also be detected by using a stethoscope. In the instant case, there is no evidence that this condition was either detected or treated in the Appellant/hospital which clearly indicates that reasonable care and precaution was not taken in the treatment of the patient. Appellant/Hospital has denied that doctors were not available round the clock and stated that one Dr.Sudha was in-charge of this patient during the night but no document or credible evidence has been produced to confirm the same. For example, no affidavit of Dr.Sudha has been filed to confirm this contention. Even the medical documents indicating the medicines prescribed which were filed in evidence by the Appellant/hospital have not been signed by any of the doctors who were supposed to have attended on the patient. As is legally well established, production of a document is one thing and proving the same is another. In the instant case, the documents produced have not been proved since the signatures of doctors who had attended on the patient and prescribed the medicines are not available on the prescriptions nor have these been confirmed by the affidavits of any of the doctors in support of the same. Keeping in view these facts, we agree with the findings of the State Commission that a case of medical negligence as also deficiency in service has been established against the Appellant/hospital. Appellant/hospital cannot take the plea that it is not responsible for any medical negligence and this should be against the concerned doctors. In fact, doctors are a part of staff of the Appellant/hospital and hence an integral part of it. Medical institutions, therefore, cannot excuse themselves of any negligence committed by their own staff/doctors. In view of the above facts, we uphold the order of the State Commission pertaining to medical negligence and deficiency in service against the Appellant/Hospital. However, so far as the Appellant/Insurance Company in F.A.No.115/2007 is concerned, since it is a fact that the insurance policy issued to the Appellant/Hospital by it was only for Rs.1 lakh, the Appellant/Insurance Company liability is necessarily limited to payment of Rs.1 lakh only and it cannot be directed to pay jointly and severally the global compensation of Rs.5 lakhs along with Appellant/Hospital. Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company states that an amount of Rs.1 lakh has already been deposited by the Appellant/Insurance Company before the State Commission. Counsel for Appellant/hospital also states that Rs.2 lakhs have been deposited by them before the State Commission. If that be so, these deposited amounts of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.2 lakhs along with accrued interest be released in favour of the Respondents in terms of the order of the State Commission. The remaining amount of Rs.2 lakhs should be paid by the Appellant/hospital in F.A.No.471/2007 to the Respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till payment. Both First Appeals stand disposed of on the above terms.