The legal principle established in the judgment is that the cause of action in torts is extinguished on the death of the accused, and the liability for damages is extinguished upon death.

Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra, Member—The complaint has been filed by the parents of late Manpreet Singh Makol who is alleged to have been the victim of medical blunder committed by Dr. J.S. Makhani, Senior Orthopaedic Consultant, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. According to the complainant his son was a patient of Osteosercoma upper end tibia. The malignant tumor was suspected at the very initial stage and radio therapy and open biopsy was advised by the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh. The complainant on the advice of Dr. M.P. Singh of General Hospital, Chandigarh, consulted Dr. Makhani, opposite party No. 2, herein, for second opinion. On the advice of Dr. Makhani, opposite party No. 2, the complainant’s son was admitted in the Ganga Ram Hospital, opposite party No. 1 on 27.7.1989 and bone grafting was done on 28.7.1989. The patient was discharged on 2.8.1989 with the biopsy report ‘awaited’. The complainant was pacified when he questioned the doctors about the doing of bone grafting without the biopsy report. The complainant was told by the doctors of the Ganga Ram Hospital, opposite party No. 1, that there was no such disease, i.e. ‘osteoblastoma’ as diagnosed by the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh. According to the complainant amputation was done on 26.10.1989 and his son succumbed on 3.8.1990. After this unfortunate incident, he had submitted a memorandum to the cancer research review programme held at PGI, Chandigarh and had written to the Tata Cancer Institute, Bombay, according to whom, the only treatment was mid- thigh amputation. According to the complainant the bone grafting to a patient of osteosarcoma was a criminal act on the part of the doctors who operated upon the patient. The complainant in his complaint alleges that the doctors knowingly, deliberately and intentionally gave wrong treatment to make money. According to him, had his son been given proper services, the life of his son would have been saved. According to the complainant, he had made various representations to the Indian Medical Association, to the Secretary, Medical, Delhi Administration and to the Lt. Governor, Delhi and so far, he had not received any reply to any one of them. Apart from that, he had also sent representations to the Prime Minister and to various Ministers. He alleges that simple leg amputation could have saved his life and unwanted bone grafting and delayed amputations caused the complainant and his wife a precious life.

In view of the above the complainant has claimed the following reliefs :

(i) a sum of Rs. 50 crores for the compensation/damages;

(ii) to award costs of this complaint; and

(iii) any other order(s) which this Commission deems fit as per the facts and circumstances of this case.

In the complaint the complainant has not given the details of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 50 crores or the manner in which such a figure has been arrived at.

2. In response to the complaint, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have filed their replies. In the reply filed by the opposite party No. 2, it was denied that the Manpreet Singh Makol was a victim of the unmatched medical blunder. According to opposite party No. 2, the report of the PGI, Chandigarh, cannot be treated as confirmation of the patent suffering from Osteo Sarcoma of the upper end of the tibia. This report was based on the Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology. The opposite party No. 2 states that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was imperative to first perform a biopsy before any remedial measures - surgical or medical couldbe taken resort to because it was only after the availability of the biopsy report that any medical practitioner could commence treating the afflicted patient. According to the opposite party No. 2, bone grafts are not performed in the absence of due and sufficient reasons. While denying the allegation that the earlier bone grafting done on 28.7.1989 was a mindless, wasteful operation, it is stated by the opposite party No. 2 that the surgical procedure of 28.7.1989 wa