The main legal point established in the judgment is that while negligence was found on the part of the hospital, it was not deemed to be the cause of the patient's death, leading to a specific amount of compensation being awarded.

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—The complainant Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, Shri Anand Sharma and Miss Aekta Sharma have prayed for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties - Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research Centre, Chandigarh though its Director, Dr. V.K. Khosla, Professor and Head of Neuro Surgery Department, P.G.I., Chandigarh and Dr. Gauri Joshi, the then Incharge/Senior Resident, I.C.U. Ward 3-A, 3rd Floor, P.G.I., Chandigarh to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs for the deficiency in service on account of negligence of the opposite parties while performing the operation on the person of Smt. Indrawati Sharma w/o complainant No. 1 - Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma and mother of complainant Nos. 2 and 3. The case as set out in the complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act], which are relevant, may be mentioned briefly, as under.

2. Smt. Indrawati Sharma, the deceased, wife of the complainant No. 1 - Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma and mother of complainant Nos. 2 and 3 was taken to P.G.I., Chandigarh - opposite party No. 1 for treatment regarding internal caiotico ophthalmic Aneurysm on 3.9.1999 and was admitted there for further investigation on 3.9.1999 itself. Prior to her admission in P.G.I., she was getting treatment at Amritsar and Ludhiana and was referred to P.G.I. by Dr. Ajit Singh Randhawa of Neuro Centre, Old Jail Road, Amritsar vide letter of reference, the photocopy of which has been filed as Annexure P-46 with the affidavit of the complainant No. 1 - Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma. This letter of reference is dated 1.9.1999. It shows that Dr. Ajit Singh Randhawa advised urgent operation. At the time of her admission, Smt. Indrawati Sharma was aged about 41 years. She was running a boutique and was having her own earning there from. She remained admitted in P.G.I. and it was on 27.9.1999 when she was taken for operation. Copy Annexure P-3 has been placed on record showing that due to non-availability of drill procedure, the operation was abandoned and closure done without clipping of Aneurysm. The name of the surgeon was mentioned as Dr. V.K. Khosla. Smt. Indrawati Sharma was again taken for operation for the second time on 6.10.1999 and was operated upon and Aneurysm was clipped with clippers. It is alleged that the condition of the patient remained rather critical during the period from the first operation which was incomplete i.e. the one undertaken on 27.9.1999 and the second operation which was done on 6.10.1999. The patient Smt. Indrawati Sharma, it alleged, could not tolerate the stress and strain of the surgery done twice on her and she died on 8.10.1999 at 10 a.m. After the second operation which was performed by Dr. V.K. Khosla - opposite party No. 2, the patient was brought back to the I.C.U. where opposite party No. 3 - Dr. Gauri Joshi was Incharge and Senior Resident, who did not care at all for the patient. It is alleged that the said doctor that the patient could breath with great difficulty and was not responding to anything but she did not show any urgency and did not respond properly. It is alleged that Dr. Gauri Joshi summoned a Catheter which was inserted inside the mouth of the patient and due to the faulty handling of the said Catheter and its wrong use, Smt. Indrawati did not survive and died.

3. Regarding the amount of compensation, it was alleged in the complaint in para 10 that the deceased was in the age of 47 years at the time of death. She had been running a boutique at Ludhiana and was earning about Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Apart from it, there was a lot of love and affection for the husband i.e. complainant No. 1 and children i.e. complainant Nos. 2 and 3 who are both unmarried and are still students. They have suffered on account of untimely death of their mother. The husband has also lost the company of his wife due to the negligence of the opposite p