S.N. Aggarwal, President — This complaint was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 30.9.2002 with a direction to the complainant to approach the Civil Court, if so advised. The complainant had filed the appeal against the said orders in the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. The said order was set aside by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 11.12.2003 and the matter was remanded back to this Commission for 6.1.2004 for being decided on merits. This is how the matter is again before us.

2. The version of the complainants is that Uma Mehta was the wife of complainant No.1 and the mother of complainants No. 2 & 3. On 15.11.1998, she fell ill and she was got admitted in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, respondent No.1 at 10.00 a.m. She was suffering from Vomiting and Ghabrahat. She was attended by Dr. Shefali. The Blood Pressure, Heart, Lungs, Brain etc. of Uma Mehta were found to be normal. However, her Blood Sugar was found to be 339(fasting). Uma Mehta was admitted in Emergency Ward. From there, she was shifted in the general ward where she was treated for Diabetes and Injection Insulin was administered to her. On the night of 15.11.1998, the condition of Mrs. Uma Mehta deteriorated. She was shifted to Intensive Care Unit under the direction of Dr. Aalok, respondent No. 4. 13 bottles of I.V. Fluid were injected into the Blood Vessels of Uma Mehta while her urine output was very much less. This clearly revealed that the respondents had treated medically Uma Mehta very negligently. Tests like L.F.T., Sonography for Liver etc. were not got done. This was another negligence on the part of respondents. Ultimately she expired on 16.11.1998. It was also pleaded that Uma Mehta was working as Lecturer in Master Tara Singh Memorial College for Women at Ludhiana. Her basic pay was Rs. 2,200 per month and she used to get Rs. 3,740 plus dearness allowance besides other allowances. Her pay scale was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 and she was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,560 and her total emoluments came to be Rs.13,013 per month. She was only 44 years of age at the time of her death. The complainant has suffered a great loss by her death and the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.6,705 paid in hospital as well as compensation amount of Rs.19,56,705/-.

3. The respondents filed the written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the complaint was vague, indefinite, false, frivolous and vexatious; complicated questions of law and facts were involved which needed elaborate and voluminous evidence and the complaint cannot be decided in summary procedure in this Commission; no basis of damages has been pleaded; there was no deficiency in rendering medical treatment to Uma Mehta. The theft of medical record was alleged and it was pleaded that complainant No.1 had himself visited the record room of respondent hospital in July, 2000 to inspect the patient file of Uma Mehta; the file was shown to him by the concerned clerk on the verbal instructions of Medical Record Officer who after seeing the same told the clerk that he has placed the file back in the rack. At that time shifting of record room was being done from OPD Complex to Front Block Basement; the Record File is not available in the record of the hospital; the explanation of the dealing clerks was called and they have deposed that the file has been stolen by the complainant. Hence, it was pleaded that the respondents are not in a position, for want of record, to give full facts before this Commission; the respondents are filing the defence on the basis of reasons of death recorded in Death Certificate and from the memory of the attending doctors(though it was difficult for them to remember such an old patient); an element of fraud and unlawful acts on the part of the complainant was alleged and jurisdiction of this Commission was also disputed; the complaint was b