Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President — One Sri G. Bharat filed a complaint C.D. 251/90 in District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against one Dr. G. Sarangapani who is an Orthopedician for negligence in performing operation to the left hand of the complainant. On 17.3.93, the District Forum allowed the com- plaint in part and directed the opposite party i.e. Dr. G. Sarangapani to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and costs of Rs. 300/-.

2. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, Dr. G. Sarangapani, the opposite party preferred an appeal C.D.A. 152/93 to the State Commission. On 5.4.94 the State Commission allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the District Forum, and remanded the matter to the District Forum to conduct fresh enquiry after giving notice to both the parties and with liberty to file all the documents available with both the parties. After remand the District Forum by its order dated 28.12.94 dismissed the complaint stating that the notice was issued to the complainant and the complainant failed to appear to give evidence before the District Forum. It accordingly considered the evidence on record and dismissed the complaint.

3. After dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum on 28.12.94 Dr. G. Sarangapani the opposite party expired on 27.1.95.

4. This appeal with S.R. No. 1173/95 was filed by the complainant on 17.4.95 with I.A. No. 573/95 to bring Smt. G. Lakshmi, wife of Dr. Sarangapani, G. Dilip, son of Dr. G. Sarangapani and G. Sunita, daughter of Dr. G. Sarangapani who were arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in the above F.A.S.R. on record as legal representatives of Dr. G. Sarangapani i.e., deceased opposite party in the main appeal.

5. Notice was ordered to the proposed respondents on 26.4.95 and 5.7.95. After service of notice the proposed legal representatives entered appearance through an Advocate and filed a counter opposing the I.A. to bring on record the legal representatives of late Dr. Sarangapani in the main appeal as respondents 1 to 3. In the appeal it was mainly contended that the dispute related to deficiency of service rendered by late Dr. G. Sarangapani which is merely a personal lis and personal dispute. The cause of action does not survive against the legal representatives of the opposite party i.e., proposed respondents in the appeal, as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It was further stated that after notice as the complainant did not appear before the District Forum on the date of adjournment the District Forum rightly considered the evidence on record and dismissed the complaint. It was further stated that the copy of the order in all probability was served on the Counsel for the complainant Sri D. Vasistha on 21.1.95 and the opposite party also received order on the same date, they therefore prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. The only question therefore that arises for consideration is whether the dispute against the opposite party is purely a personal 'lis' and does not survive after his death or whether the cause of action survives and the legal representatives are liable to pay any compensation. It is to be seen from the allegations in the complaint and earlier order passed by the District Forum that the complainant claimed compensation for negligence of the Doctor in conducting the operation on his left hand. The cause of action being the negligence of the Doctor which is purely personal. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 28.12.94. It was therefore, held that there is no proof of any negligence on the part of Dr. G. Sarangapani in conducting the operation. The cause of action and the lis does not survive against the legal representatives as it is purely an action against the doctor for his negligence in performing the operation which is purely personal. No cause of action survives after the death of the doctor. As there