State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amitabh Rishi vs Escorts Heart Institute And Research ... on 23 May, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 23rd May, 2007 Complaint Case No. 377/1997 1. Mr. Amitabh Rishi, Complainant No.1 S/o Shri T.R. Rishi, Through R/o G-4/46,Double Storey, Mr. S.C. Chawla, Lajpat Nagar, Advocate. New Delhi. 2. Master Nishant Rishi, Complainant No.2 Through father, legal and Natural guardian, Mr. Amitabh Rishi, R/o G-4/46, Double Storey, New Delhi. Versus 1.Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Opposite Party No.1 Okhla Road, Through New Delhi. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. 2. Dr. Naresh Trehan, Opposite Party No.2 Director, 3. Dr. (Mrs.) Savitri Shrivastava, Opposite party No.3 4. Medical Superintendent, Opposite Party No.4 Escorts Heart and Research Centre, Okhla Road, New Delhi. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Mr.Mahesh Chandra - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complainant No.1 has alleged medical negligence in the treatment of his son, complainant No.2 on the part of all the OPs and has claimed compensation of Rs. 15 lacs.
2. Allegations of the complainant No.1, in brief, are that his son was suffering from a disease Hole in the Heart since birth and he approached the OP No.1-Escorts Hospital who advised for Haematology Test which was carried out on 12-08-1996. Second Haematology test was conducted on 09-09-1996 and operation was advised. Complainant was told that the total expenses of the operation would be Rs. 1,50,000/-.
He admitted his son in OP-Hospital on 13-09-1996 at 11.30 A.M. and also deposited Rs. 10,000/- as necessary advance for admission. Immediately after admission his son was taken for C.T. Scan which was taken at 13.30 hours.
Though the report showed that the brain of his son was normal but his son was feeling breathlessness and was, put on an oxygen cylinder to aid breathing.
3. That after the CT Scan Test when his son was being brought back form the CT Scan 1ab room on a trolley at 14.00 hrs, he noticed that his son was fainting and immediately he informed the doctor on duty about the condition of his son. On examination of the child, it was found that there was no oxygen in the Cylinder on which the child had been put as a result of which the child was fainting. The doctor on duty directed the nurses to take the child to Emergency.
4. That the Nursing Staff pushed the trolley on which his son was 1ying, in such a reckless and neg1igent manner, that both I.V. Fluid bottles, one which was being given and the other lying spare, were broken while taking turn in the corridors' and the child had such a severe attack on the brain that his right side' was completely paralyzed. His face, mouth and eyes all turned towards right and the chi1d became unconscious.
5. That on reaching the Emergency, Dr.(Ms) Savitri Shrivastava (OP No.3) after examining the child informed the complainant that his son had suffered serious brain problem. The condition of his child was continuously deteriorating as no proper treatment was given to him. The complainant approached the Hospital authorities and requested for summoning a brain specialist immediately but the OP No.3 did not listen to his request and it was only on repeated requests of Complainant No.1 that OP No.3- Dr.(Ms) Savitri Shrivastava agreed to call Dr.Aggarwal, a brain specialist.
6. That on examination of the child Dr.Aggarwal advised Dr.(Ms) Savitri Shrivastava-OP No.3 to immediately shift the child to Apollo Hospital if the life of the child was to be saved. OP No.3 wasted 2 more hours consulting other doctors and Escorts authorities for transfer of petitioner No.2 to Apollo Hospital. As soon the child reached Apollo Hospital, he was put under the care of Dr.Aggarwal who told that considerable damage had been caused to the brain because of delay in treatment. Child was immediately sent to I.C.C.U and remained there for 16 days in an unconscious condition and it was only on 16th day, the child regained consciousness but because of negligence of Dr. Shrivastava and staff of Escorts Hospital his right side was paralyzed and the child has become handicapped for the rest of his life.
7. At the time of leaving Escorts Hospital, the Hospital staff and authorities apologised to complainant for their negligence and as a cover up paid Rs.10,000/- as damages to the complainant.
Due to the negligence of the OPs, the child has lost future prospects in all aspects of 1ife vi z. Job, marriage etc. and is forced to lead a life of dependent.
8. As is apparent, there are no allegations against OP No.2 as to any medical negligence on his part either in the line of treatment or otherwise. Whi1e denying negligence in the treatment OP No.1-Hospital has raised the following pleas:-
(i) That Master Nishant Rishi was treated at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (EHIRC).
In accordance with the world wide accepted and recognised medica1 standards or practices and that there was no deficiency, imperfection in the treatment.
(ii) That the complainant is guilty of suppressing the true and correct facts. The child was not suffering from a simple hole in the heart. He was suffering from a very serious disorder of the heart known as "Tetralogy of Fallot". Master Nishant was suffering from the problems since birth but the complainant brought him to the Respondent Institute for the first time on 12.8.96 when he was above two years already with history of cyanosis since 6 months of age and cyanotic spells since one year of age. Considering the seriousness of the disease all initia1 investigations were comp1eted the same day. It was also explained to the complainant NO.1 and his wife and other relations that it was not a case of simple hole in the heart as they claimed rather it was a serious defect in which a 1arge hole in the ventricular septum is associated with obstruction to the pulmonary blood flow and as such the blood is not oxygenated fully and the unoxygenated blood is pumped in the body and the brain. The complainant No. 1 contacted the Institute after a period of almost one month.
9. While controverting allegations of the complainant as to the non-availability of oxygen in time and breaking of IV bottle as well as inordinately long delay in arranging Neuro Physician the learned counsel for the OP has referred to and relied upon hospital records namely the entire record relating to the treatment to the patient. According to him the records show that when the child was admitted in the morning of 13-09-1996 he was in deep sinus with excessive crying. This showed that the child already was in cyanotic spell. However, his oxygen level was 85% at 12 Noon and the child was put on oxygen immediately and thereafter oxygen level was noted as 100% at 2.00 P.M. At 4.00 P.M. it was seen that the child had alerted sensorium and there was neck rigidity. In view of this the specialist was consulted who advised CT scan and at 5.30 P.M. CT scan was completed which showed suspicion of intra cranial tension. In view of the CT scan treatment in the form of Dexamethasone and Mannitol was started.
Dr. Rakesh Aggarwal was called in and he agreed with the line of treatment and did not had any other medicine.
10. Learned counsel further contended that in view of the symptoms of the child it was also decided that he should be placed on Neuro ICU setting and therefore was shifted to Appolo hospital.
The child was throughout on oxygen and whatever problem he suffered was because of cyanotic spells which he suffered at the time he was admitted in the hospital. Any child suffering from Tetrology of Fallot is always advised to undergo surgery before the child reaches one year of age. In this case the child was more than two years old when he was brought to the hospital. For reasons best known to the parents, they delayed the surgery. When he was brought to the hospital, surgery was advised on 13-09-1996 and when the child was brought he was in the midst of cyanotic spells and therefore surgery was not possible. The fact that the surgery should be carried out before one year of age is evident from the medical literature The Science and Practice of Pediatric Cardiology by Arthur Garson, Jr. MD, MPH & Ors. (Second Edition), which is as under:-
Surgical management The symptomatic infant or child requires surgery. Symptoms result principally from hypoxaemia which can only adequately be relieved by surgical means. In the truly asymptomatic and acyanotic patient, operation may be delayed to 1 year of age, but in major centers no advantage is gained by further delay. The real decision in the symptomatic patient is whether to palliate or whether to attempt total correction. As surgical results have improved, preference for the later course of action has impressed.
However, the criteria for patient selection and timing of complete repair are still controversial. Some groups have advocated primary repair of tetralogy of Fallot in symptomatic infants with favourable anatomy under one year of age, regardless of their size (157
159). Currently in our institution, we prefer primary repair in early infancy between 4 and 6 months of age if there are no significant prohibiting factors.
Contradictions include an anterior descending coronary artery arising from the right coronary artery, severely hypoplastic pulmonary arteries, or pulmonary atresia.
11. Learned counsel further contended that there is no record of the Appolo hospital showing that the child has suffered any permanent damage or what was the damage if any suffered by the child.
12. Question of ascertaining medical negligence has been cropping up time and again. Guidelines and criteria for ascertaining the medical negligence laid down in Bolams case reported in (1957) 2 AII ER 118, 121 D-F still hold the field. This test, in popular parlance is known as Bolam Test after the name of the petitioner.
In short the test is as under:-
[Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is to the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill. It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art (Charles worth & Percy, ibid., para 8.02)
13. Bolam test was accepted with approval in the following judgments:-
(I) Sidway V. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and Others 643 All England Law Reprots (1985) 1 All ER.
(II) Maynard V. West Midlands Regional Health Authority 635 All England Law Reports (1985) 1 All ER.
(III) Whitehouse V. Jordan and Another 650 All England Law Reports (1980) 1 All ER.
14. Presumably because of persuasive value of Bolams case that our own Supreme Court has in case after case and particularly in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Others (1995) 6 SCC 651 wherein Bolams case was also discussed has adopted this test as guidelines for the courts to adjudicate the medical negligence. Latest judgment of Supreme Court on this aspect is Jacob Matthew Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2005) SCC (Crl.) 1369. Observations of Supreme Court are as under:-
(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, which reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
(4) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolams case, WLR at p. 586 holds good in its applicability in India.
15. While dealing with the concept of criminal medical negligence as well as the medical negligence the broad principles laid down by the Supreme Court are -
(i) That the guilty doctor should be shown to have done something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.
(ii) Hazard or the risk taken by the doctor should be of such a nature that injury which resulted was most likely imminent.
16. Although, there is a distinction between the medical negligence of a criminal nature and simplicitor medical negligence but consumer is entitled for compensation on account of both kinds of negligence. The test for holding the medical professional liable for criminal negligence should be such which should manifestly demonstrate utter act of rashness and negligence whereas ordinarily the medical negligence or deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service (Section 2(1)(g)).
17. To ascertain the medical negligence, cumulative conclusions drawn from various judicial decisions can be summed up in the form of following queries? Decision will depend upon the answers:-
(i) Whether the treating doctor had the ordinary skill and not the skill of the highest degree that he professed and exercised, as everybody is not supposed to possess the highest or perfect level of expertise or skills in the branch he practices?
(ii) Whether the guilty doctor had done something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional would do when in ordinary senses and prudence?
(iii) Whether the risk involved in the procedure or line of treatment was such that injury or death was imminent or risk involved was upto the percentage of failures?
(iv) Whether there was error of judgment in adopting a particular line of treatment? If so what was the level of error? Was it so overboard that result could have been fatal or near fatal or at lowest mortality rate?
(v) Whether the negligence was so manifest and demonstrative that no professional or skilled person in his ordinary senses and prudence could have indulged in?
(vi) Everything being in place, what was the main cause of injury or death. Whether the cause was the direct result of the deficiency in the treatment and medication?
(vii) Whether the injury or death was the result of administrative deficiency or post-operative or condition environment-oriented deficiency?
18. A question arose before the Supreme Court for consideration in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) whether the services rendered at a Government hospital, health centre, dispensary where services are rendered on payment of charges and also rendered free of charge to other persons availing of such services would fall within the ambit of expression service as defined under section 2 (1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who do not pay for such service. Supreme Court laid down the following criteria for determining as to the applicability of provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vis--vis Government hospitals, health centres, dispensaries as well as private nursing homes.
(1)Service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medical and surgical, would all within the ambit of service as defined in Section 2(1)
(o) of the Act.
(Emphasis supplied) (2) The fact that medical practitioners belong to the medical profession and are subject to the disciplinary control of the Medical Council of India and/or State Medical Councils constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act would not exclude the services rendered by them from the ambit of the Act.
(3)A contract of personal service has to be distinguished from a contract from personal services. In the absence of a relationship of master and servant between the patient and medical practitioner, the service rendered by a medical practitioner to the patient cannot be regarded as service rendered under a contract of personal service. Such service is service rendered under a contract of personal services and is not covered by exclusionary clause of the definition of service contained in Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act.
(4)The expression contract of personal service in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act cannot be confined to contracts for employment of domestic servants only and the said expression would include the employment of a medical officer for the purpose of rendering medical service to the employer.
The service rendered by a medical officer to his employer under the contract of employment would be outside the purview of service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
(5)Service rendered free of charge by a medical practitioner attached to a hospital/nursing home or a medical officer employed in a hospital/nursing home where such services are rendered free of charge to everybody, would not be service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.
(6)Service rendered at a non-Government hospital/nursing home where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the service and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service is outside the purview of the expression service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.
(7)Service rendered at a non-Government hospital/nursing home where charges are required to be paid by the persons availing such services falls within the purview of the expression service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
(8)Service rendered at a non-government hospital/nursing home where charges are required to be paid by persons who are in a position to pay and persons who cannot afford to pay are rendered service free of charge would fall within the ambit of the expression service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who are not in a position to pay for such services. Free service, would also be service and the recipient a consumer under the Act.
(9)Service rendered at a Government hospital/health centre/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service is outside the purview of the expression service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.
(Emphasis supplied) (10) Service rendered at a Government hospital/health centre/dispensary where services are rendered on payment of charges and also rendered free of charge to other persons availing such services would fall within the ambit of the expression service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who do not pay for such service. Free service would also be service and the recipient a consumer under the Act.
(Emphasis supplied) (11) Service rendered by a medical practitioner or hospital/nursing cannot be regarded as service rendered free of charge, if the person availing the service has taken an insurance policy for medical care whereunder the charges for consultation, diagnosis and medical treatment are borne by the insurance company and such service would fall within the ambit of service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
(12)Similarly, where as a part of the conditions of service, the employer bears the expenses of medical treatment of an employee and his family members dependent on him, the service rendered to such an employee and his family members by a medical practitioner or a hospital/nursing home would not be free of charge and would constitute service under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
19. Once consideration except token charges as registration or administrative fee is received by a Govt. Hospital, health Centre or dispensary from any section of the society, rich or poor such a consideration is towards the service known as medical service and therefore brings the hospital within the embrace of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To distinguish such charges from the charges of the Doctors or team of Doctors treating or operating the patient is not permissible. Such a distinction may be available in respect of private nursing homes, medical Centres etc. It is the service as a whole which forms component of service envisaged by Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act and not service in parts i.e. service for consumables, service charges, charges for wards or administrative expenses.
20. So far as the private nursing homes, hospitals and medical practitioners are concerned, there is no dispute that those who receive consideration from the patient for providing administrative service as well as treatment including the private medical practitioner who charges consideration for providing medical treatment are liable to compensate the consumer if they are found guilty for medical negligence.
21. So far as the case of Government hospitals, health centres and dispensaries is concerned, where the doctors do not charge fees nor do they receive consideration for providing treatment in the form of operation or in other form like private practitioners, nursing homes and medical centres, the doctors providing treatment even if found to be guilty for negligence cannot be held liable either individually or jointly or severally. The reason is simple. Doctors at the Government hospitals, dispensaries and health centres are employed on monthly salary basis and not on case to case basis nor do they receive the consideration by way of their fees for operation or for providing any treatment from individual patient. Thus the relationship of a patient qua these Doctors is not that of a consumer and service provider. They provide these services on behalf of the Govt. hospital, health centres and dispensaries and if there is any negligence on their part the consumer/patient is entitled to compensation only from the Govt. hospital or health centre or dispensary and not from the individual Doctor who was guilty for negligence.
Thus for their negligence, their employer alone is liable.
22. Why? Because these doctors attend to large numbers of patients in a day but are paid monthly salary and not as per individual patients charges. On the contrary private medical practitioner charges fees/consideration from individual patient by way of contract of personal service.
23. If we hold the Doctors of Government hospitals, health centres and dispensaries liable for compensation to every patient arising out of their negligence then the Doctor who is receiving salary of Rs. 20,000/-
or Rs. 30,000/- or Rs. 50,000/-has to shell out lakhs of rupees to large number of patients and the Government hospitals, dispensaries and health centres would be left with no doctors and present a deserted look.
24. Doctors of the Government hospitals who receive Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 40,000/- per month as salary to treat or operate upon hundreds of patients and attend to large number of outdoor patients in a single day and therefore cannot be held jointly or severally liable, because such a service does not come within the contract of personal service. Such a contract if any is anything but not a contract of personal service and therefore relationship of a patient qua doctors of Government hospitals, dispensaries etc. is not that of a consumer and a provider of medical service. Such a relationship exists between the patient and the Govt. Hospital/Dispensary or Health Centre. Sometimes what a Government doctor gets for giving treatment to hundreds of patients, a private medical practitioner gets many times more for treatment/operation of one patient. Thus both categories of doctors cannot be placed on the same pedestal.
25. Thus in our view if the patient dies or suffers injuries due to the negligence of the doctor at the Government hospitals, health centres and dispensaries the Government hospital, Health Centre or Dispensary alone is liable for compensating the patient or his legal heirs.
26. In this regard conclusions can be summed up as under:-
(i) Only those Government Hospitals/Health Centre/Dispensary fall outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 where no charge is made from any person rich or poor availing the medical services.
Nominal or token amount of registration or on any such count does not amount to consideration for service as envisaged by section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
(ii) Where services are provided against charges including the charges for consumables, charges for ward, service charges etc. by the Government Hospitals/Health Centres/ Dispensaries, these services fall within the ambit of service for the purpose of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and the patient availing such service falls within the definition of consumer as defined by section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It is immaterial whether these charges are not charged from poor sections.
If such charges are charged from any other patient, poor patients can avail the benefit as a consumer.
(iii) Since consideration for a contract of personal service is essence of relationship of consumer and service provider and since such a consideration is received by the Government Hospital/Health Centre/Dispensary and not by a treating doctor or team of treating/attending doctors, patient paying such charges is a consumer qua the Government Hospital/Health Centre and not the treating Doctor/Doctors.
(iv) Since Doctors at Government Hospital /Dispensary/Health Centre do not receive either from the patient or from the Hospital consideration for treatment of individual patient as private medical practitioners charge per patient and since Government Doctors receive monthly salary for treating thousands of patients and not patient-wise consideration which even otherwise is pea-nut as compared to private medical practitioners, there is no contract for personal service between the patient and these doctors.
(v) In case of Government Hospitals/Health Centres/Dispensaries, treating doctors cannot be held liable either individually or jointly or severally for medical negligence for the purpose of compensating the patient/consumer. For every kind of deficiency administrative as well as medical, Government Hospital/Health Centre/ Dispensary alone is liable being the service provider qua the consumer.
(vi) In case of private Nursing homes/medical centres/practitioners, where charges for medical treatment are received by them and or paid to the individual doctors per patient, both Nursing home/Medical Centres and treating Doctors are jointly and severally liable.
27. The close scrutiny of the rival claims of the parties boils down to the following two questions:-
(i) Whether there was any administrative deficiency on the part of the staff of the OP-Hospital firstly in not providing the oxygen well in time and properly as the cylinder fitted was empty and in the process of pushing the trolley to the O.T. carelessly even the I/V bottle was broken and secondly no Neuro-Physician was available and it was only after four long hours that a Neuro-Physician was called from the Apollo Hospital who shifted the child from Escorts Hospital to Apollo Hospital, where the treatment was started.
(ii) Whether on account of administrative deficiency the child had suffered the damage of paralysis of body as alleged by the complainant due to non-supply of oxygen when he was sent for C.T. Scan or due to the nature of the disease, i.e. hole in the heart since birth, which in medical parlance is known as Tetralogy Fallot.
28. As is evident by the medical literature, the operation can be delayed upto one year of age and no advantage is gained by further delay. If such a child is brought at the age of two years the decision to be made by the doctor is to see whether to pallatiate or to attempt total correction.
Record of treatment given to the child relied upon by the OP shows that the oxygen level was 85% when the child was brought to the hospital at 12.00 noon and level improved to 100% by 2.00 P.M. and still oxygen was continued. It is not understandable if this was the condition of the patient then where was the need to break the IV bottle. At 4.00 P.M. the child started feeling difficulty in as much as neck rigidity. Had the oxygen level as projected by the OP is accepted then the question of the child having suffered brain hemorrhage would not arise. According to the counsel for the OP the main factor that caused the aforesaid problem was deep sinus which was present for more than 24 hours.
29. Admittedly the child was first taken to the OP-Hospital on 12th August 1996 and was again asked to come on 09-09-1996. After subjecting him to various tests he was asked to come again on 13-09-1996 and he was admitted in the hospital on 13-09-1996. Even after accepting Rs. 10,000/- towards the total quoted expenses of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the OP refunded the said amount on 13-09-1996 itself as the condition of the child became too precarious because of the lack of oxygen. Involvement of Neuro Physician was also because of the complication the child developed and therefore observation of 100% oxygen level is difficult to accept.
30. It is also not understandable as to why the child was taken to Apollo hospital where he remained for 16 days and ultimately suffered permanent disability by way of paralysis and till date he is paralyzed.
31. For such kinds of deficiencies, hospital alone is liable. Even otherwise the direct privity of contract is between the hospital and the patient unless the Doctor is personally found to be negligent or deficient while treating the patient.
32. In view of the fact that the child was suffering from not only a simple hole in the heart but he was also suffering a very serious disorder of the heart known as Tetralogy of Fallot since birth and he was brought to the OPNo.1 Hospital when he was two years old with a history of cyanosis since months of age and cyanotic spells since one year of age, we do not subscribe to the allegation of the complainant that oxygen cylinder was empty merely because he started having breathlessness. However, there was a considerable delay on the part of the OP in not providing oxygen well in time and also taking inordinately long time in not arranging Nuero Physician and that too from the Apollo Hospital. These shortcomings amount to deficiency in service or medical negligence.
33. Taking over all view of the matter, we deem that lump sum compensation of Rs. 2.5 lacs shall meet the ends of justice.
34. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
35. Aforesaid payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
36. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
37. Announced on the 23rd May, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Mahesh Chandra) Member jj