Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President — Vide this order two complaints are being disposed of as the pleadings of the parties are common. The cases were received on remand vide order dated 23.4.1996. After remand, parties produced evidence in OC No. 59/1993. Orally, it was suggested that these cases were earlier consolidated. At the time of preparing Judgment however, it is noticed that on the proceedings of the cases, there was no such order. Since parties produced evidence in OC No. 59/1993 after remand and before that evidence produced in both the cases was the same, except that the affidavits of the two complainants separately were filed in each of the case.

2. In this complaint, Harbhajan Singh is the complainant. His wife Surjit Kaur is the complainant in the connected case. Their son Dr. Dilpreet Singh, suffered injuries in an accident, which occurred on April 10,1993. He was working as Registrar-cum-Post Graduate Student in the Department of Surgery, Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (opposite party No. 1). The accident took place at the main bus stand, Ludhiana. He was brought to Daya Nand Medical College and Hosptial (in short known as DMC). At the time of accident, he was accompanied by his uncle Ranjit Singh, who alongwith driver and Adda Incharge Kesar Singh and Anrez Singh respectively involved in the accident brought Dr. Dilpreet Singh to the DMC, who had suffered blunt trauma abdomen injury. He was medically examined by Dr. K.P. Singh, Professor and Head of Department of Surgery of DMC at about 4.30 p.m. for ultra sound, he was taken to Sigma Diagnostic Centre, Ludhiana where Dr. Amardeep Singh, MD did so and he is alleged to have informed Dr. K.P. Singh on the phone at 5.45 p.m. about the gravity of the injury and continued retro peritoneal, requiring urgent operation. Dr. K.P. Singh performed the operation at 9.30 p.m. inspite of the fact that repeated requests were made to him by relatives of the injured by visiting his residence. Thus, one of the grouses of the complainant is about undue delay caused by Dr. K.P. Singh opposite party No. 2 in performing the operation. Further allegation is that Dr. K.P. Singh was negligent in conducting examination of the injured as he did not notice retro peritoneal cavity injury. He did not observe pulses on the right leg of the injured, whereas the injured was complaining of pain in the right leg. The third grouse of the complainants is that while performing operation on the injured, he did three resections on the intestine whereas, he was required to do only one. Further grouse of the complainants is that on the following day, Dr. K.P. Singh did not attend to the patient inspite of being informed of pain in the leg. The other doctors of DMC examined the patient and advised for his shifting to the PGI, Chandigarh and ultimately, the injured was shifted to PGI, where he was operated upon on the following day i.e. April 12,1993.

3. A sum of more than Rs. 2 lacs was alleged to have been spent in the PGI on different operations and on costly medicines during the period April 11,1993 to May 20,1993. Apart from the above, the complainants had to manage the blood for Dr. Dilpreet Singh on several occasions when operations were performed by meeting taxi expenditure for bringing the blood donors. It was further alleged that had the deceased lived, he would have fetched Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- monthly as pay packet and could also earn from private practice to Rs. 30,000/- per month. A sum of Rs. 7 lacs were claimed on that account. The complainants also suffered great mental distress and agony on the untimely death of their only son and thus claimed a sum of Rs. 95,000/- as compensation. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards litigation expenses was also claimed. The afore said claim was made separately in two complaints. Dr. K.P. Singh was liable on account of his negligent act and DMC on account of vicarious liability.

4. Dr. K.P. Singh contested the claim in the written rep