Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. Both appeals impugn the same judgment and decree dated 6th September, 2002 (of the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.15/2000 filed by the respondent no.1 in each appeal against the three appellants in RFA No.774/2002 and the appellant in RFA No.100/2003) of recovery of compensation in the sum of Rs.4 lacs jointly and severally from the appellants, along with costs and pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum.

2. Notice of RFA No.774/2002 was issued on 3rd December, 2002 and vide ex parte order of that date, subject to the deposit of the decretal amount in this Court, execution of the impugned judgment and decree was stayed; 50% of the amount so deposited was ordered to be released to the respondent no.1/plaintiff on his furnishing personal security. In compliance therewith, a sum of Rs.4 lacs and a further sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was deposited. Vide order dated 13th August, 2003, release of 50% of deposited amount to respondent No.1/plaintiff was made subject to furnishing security to satisfaction of Registrar. Upon filing of RFA No.100/2003, notice thereof also was issued and delay in filing the same condoned. Both appeals were admitted for hearing on 9th December, 2003 and the Trial Court record requisitioned. It however appears that the respondent No.1/plaintiff did not furnish security and thus no part of the decretal amount deposited has been released to him. During the hearing of arguments on 9th February, 2011 the counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff as well as the counsels for the appellants agreed that expert opinion of some independent Medical Board be taken as to whether any negligence was committed by the doctors or the hospital and also whether the proper pre-operative and post-operative procedures were fully complied with by the attending doctors. Accordingly the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) was directed to constitute a Medical Board of three eminent doctors specialized in the field, to give their expert opinion with special emphasis on the following:-

“(i). Whether proper pre-operative and post-operative procedures were fully complied with by the attending Doctors considering the prior medical history of the patient?

(ii). Whether any Junior/Trainee Doctor/s, not fully competent to conduct the cataract operation of the respondent-patient started the procedure without the active involvement of the Surgeon expert in the field?

(iii). Whether Dr. Sushil Adhar was fully competent to handle the complications developed during the course of the said cataract operation?

(iv). Whether the left eye of the patent could have been saved had Dr. B. Ghosh conducted the surgery himself?”

and the all medical papers filed by the respective parties were directed to be sent to AIIMS.

3. Vide subsequent order dated 11th March, 2011, the earlier order dated 9th February, 2011 was modified to the extent that the direction aforesaid was issued to the Chief/Medical Superintendent of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences instead of AIIMS. A report dated 15th June, 2011 was received in pursuance thereto. However vide order dated 10th January, 2012 the following additional question was referred to the same Medical Board:-

“a reference to the questions which have been answered by the report dated 15.6.2011 shows that no question was referred to the Board as to whether on the basis of medical record of the respondent No.1/plaintiff as existing on the date of operation i.e. 6.10.1998, whether the respondent No.1/plaintiff should at all have been operated on his left eye for cataract. Para 7 of the plaint specifically averred that since the respondent No.1/plaintiff was suffering from thyroid, diabetes etc., he should not have been operated on his left eye.”

It was further directed that it will be open to the Medical Board to examine whether the papers revealed that there was no absolute bar/disentitlement for the surgery conducted on