Dr. Jatin P. Vaidya, Member—Complaint No. 252 of 93 is filed by opponent No. 6 in Complaint No. 77 of 93 and she has filed this complaint for indemnification from the New India Assurance Company Limited in case she is held liable to pay compensation to the complainants of Complaint No. 77 of 1993. Thus, the two complaints being interconnected, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The complainants and opponents of Complaint No. 77 of 1993 are hereinafter referred to as complainants and opponents for the sake of convenience.

2. Complainants in this case are the widow and children of late Dineshchandra Kothari who died during operation. The complainants claim that late Mr. Kothari died due to negligence and deficiency in service by opponents-Navdeep Clinic & Hospital and doctors named in the complaint and compensation of Rs. 8,20,000 /- be paid.

3. Brief observations of case are that Shri Dineshchandra had sustained injury to his right arm about six months prior to seeing the opponents. Patient initially took treatment at Surendranagar where he underwent Orthopaedic surgery of insertion of plate and screws in his right forearm and was later on sent home. He saw opponent Dr. Rashmi Vora for pain, deformity etc. at operation site and for operation on 23.9.90. Dr. Vora examined him, got his x-rays done and referred him to Dr. Shailesh DesaiPhysician-Cardiologist for fitness for operation. Dr. Desai examined patient, took cadiogram and declared him fit for surgey. Patient was scheduled for surgery on 24.3.90. On the day of operation (24.3.90) around 9 a.m. patient was taken for surgery after obtaining consent for anaesthesia and operation. Patient was anaesthetised by Dr. Minaxiben, assisted by Dr. Pinaben and operation was started by Dr. Vora. Dr. Gajjar was assisting Dr. Vora. When the operation was half way through patient developed cardio respiratory arrest from which he did not revive and was declared dead around 10.10 a.m. by Dr. Desai. Incidentally Dr. Desai came to scene only after sometime of cardio respiratory arrest and his findings suggested that patient was practically dead when he saw the patient. It is not possible to understand why and how without first hand knowledge, Dr. Desai issued the death certificate. Certificate only mentions mode of death and not the cause of death. Opponents say that they were not negligent. That they took all possible care, that they were qualified and experienced in the subject. Opponents further say that they are no responsible for the death of patient and that they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed.

4. Complainants have claimed that amount of drugs used for the anaesthesia were more than maximum and death was direct result of such use of drugs. Complainants have given reference of book (Lee’s Synopsis of Anaesthesia Page 163 etc.)

5. Complainants further state that proper monitoring of the patient was not done. It is also further claimed that patient underwent major surgery than the present one in a relatively underdeveloped centre successfully and died because of negligence of opponents in minor surgery. Dr. Vora in his deposition has said that surgery was relatively a minor one and that death could not have been caused because of surgical procedure. He does not rule out anaesthetic procedure as cause of death in present case. Dr. Minaben was anaesthetist in charge of patient and Dr. Pinaben just came to help her. As per statement of Dr. Pinaben, she even did not involve herself in observing monitoring the patient. Dr. Pinaben is more qualified than Dr. Minaxiben. That she was free. Therefore, she came to the theatre where Dr. Minaxiben was to anaesthetise the patient. That Dr. Minaxiben and Dr. Pinaben are visiting Anaesthetists at Navdeep Hospital and attend the hospital on call. In present case the choice of Anaesthetist was that of Dr. Rashmi Vora and patient had no say in it. It therefore can be assumed that relation of anaesthetist Dr. Minaxihen to patien