IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Compensation whatever may be big or small but it is no substitute for life.
2. Medical services are rarely rendered gratuitously, particularly in private hospitals.

S.N. Aggarwal, President—Sushma Devi (in short “the patient’) wife of Jagdish Rai Sharma respondent No.1 and mother of Taranvir Sharma and Bharatvir Sharma respondents No. 2 and 3 had medical problem. She was examined on 19.5.1996 by Dr. Ranjit Kaur proprietor of Bhupindra Maternity Home, Faridkot appellant No. 1. The patient was advised to get conducted certain medical tests from Chandigarh Laboratory, Faridkot. After examining the medical reports the patient was told by Dr. Ranjit Kaur appellant that she had developed a tumour in her uterus and operation was the only alternative. The patient was admitted in the appellant hospital on 8.6.1996 at 12.00 noon after receiving a sum of Rs.10,000 as operation fee. At that time the patient was accompanied by her husband respondent No.1, his brother, brother’s wife, patient’s sister’s husband, his sons and some other persons. The operation was started on that day at 2.30 p.m. The operation continued till 7.45 p.m. During the operation neither respondent No.1 nor the other attendants of the patient were informed about the well being of the patient.

2. It was further pleaded that suddenly at 7.45 p.m. Dr. Ranjit Kaur appellant No.1 called respondent No.1 inside the operation room and told him that the patient had died due to brain haemorrhage during the operation. Nothing was told to respondent No.1 about the seriousness of the patient at the operation theatre during the operation period of about five hours.

3. It was further pleaded that on the day of operation i.e. on 8.6.1996 Dr. Ranjit Kaur herself was having an injury on her leg and she was unable to walk properly. Therefore she did not perform the operation herself but she only supervised the same. The operation was conducted by Dr. Bhupinder Singh appellant Son of Dr. Ranjit Kaur and by Dr. Mandeep Kaur respondent No. 5 (wrongly named as Dr. Manjit Kaur) daughter-in-law of Dr. Ranjit Kaur. These doctors, namely, Dr. Bhupinder Singh and his wife Dr. Mandeep Kaur were neither surgeons nor they were competent doctors to conduct the operation for extracting the tumour from the uterus. Moreover Dr. Ranjit Kaur appellant had assured to conduct the operation herself and to call other specialist/expert doctors.

4. It was also pleaded that at the time of operation, no expert of anaesthesia was called. The appellant Hospital was ill-equipped and was not having necessary instruments or apparatus to be used at the time of operation. Precautions were not taken by the appellants at the time of conducting the operation. No specialist of anaesthesia was called to handle the situation at the time of seriousness of the patient. The patient died because of gross medical negligence on the part of Dr. Ranjit Kaur appellant other appellants and her daughter-in-law Dr. Mandeep Kaur who were running the appellant Hospital.

5. It was further pleaded that the dead body of the patient was handed over by the appellants to respondent No.1. The dead body of the patient was cremated and after the performance of necessary rituals respondent No.1 filed an application to the SSP, Faridkot on 5.7.1996 for registration of a criminal case against the appellants punishable under Section 304A/34 IPC. However no action was taken against them as the appellants were influential persons.

6. It was further pleaded that the patient was working as a JBT teacher. She was earning Rs. 5,400 per month as salary and she used to spend the amount on the respondents. By her death, the respondents have suffered the financial loss. Respondent No.1 has lost the company of his wife while respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have lost the love and affection of their mother. Respondent No. 2 was a student of 8th Class while respondent No. 3 was a student of 6th Class. They were being tutored by the patient. Now respondent No.1 had to engage a tutor for their education at the rate of Rs. 200 per month for each of them. Respondent No. 1 had to employ a permanent servant to look after the household wor