These three appeals are filed against the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 9/2006. Complainant/ B.T. Sridhar, together with his son, has filed FA No.6 of 2009, seeking enhancement of compensation from the amount of Rs.15 lakhs, awarded by the State Commission to Rs.90 lakhs, originally prayed for in the complaint before the State Commission. FA No.22 of 2009 is filed by OP-1/Vokkaligara Sangha and FA No.27 of 2009 by OP-3/Dr. L. Krishna, who had performed the operation. The two appeals filed by the OPs have sought setting aside of the award of the State Commission.

2. Except delay of just a day in filing of FA No.22, the appeals have been filed within the permissible time limit. The nominal delay in the appeal of OP-1 is therefore condoned. Considering that the award made by the State Commission itself is in challenge in FA No.22 of 2009 filed by OP-1/Vokkaligara Sangha, it is taken as the lead case for consideration of the three appeals together.

3. While admitting them, this Commission on 10.2.2009 had ordered stay of the impugned order, subject to the Appellants depositing, without prejudice, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, with the State Commission. It was also ordered that the Complainant/ B.T.Sridhar would be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs out of the deposit on furnishing sufficient security. The records have been perused and the matter has been heard at length. Complainant B T Sridhar assisted by Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Advocate argued his own case. For Appellant/ OPs -1 and 2 Ms. Rajani Prasad, Advocate, for Appellant/OPs-3,4 and Mr Ravinder K Verma, Advocate for Appellant/OPs-6 and 8 have argued their respective cases.

4. The facts as seen from the record are that Dr. T. Ashalatha, since deceased (wife of the Complainant/B.T.Sridhar), was a member of the teaching faculty of a medical institute/hospital run by OP-1, her son Complainant No.2 was born on 5.9.1991. Satisfied with one child family, the couple decided on family planning operation. The Laparoscopic Tubectomy operation was planned for 16.9.2003. She was taken into the operation theatre at about 8:50 AM and brought out at about 11:20 AM. Allegedly, after about 20 minutes she had breathing difficulty and was shifted into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

5. The Consumer Complaint before the State Commission does not give any chronological details of subsequent events. But, it shows that this was the case of a lady in good health, who came in for family planning operation, slipped into coma thereafter and eventually died. In this behalf, the Complaint Petition states in para 8 that:-

“It is further submitted that the cause for the death is due to the Injection Tracurium which was administered to the Patient on 16.9.2003. It is pertinent to mention that the said injection is being used by an Anesthetist in the Operation Theatre only and not by any others, and kept in a safe place in the Operation Theatre itself under custody of the Anesthetist and further the said injection is not available for sale to any Public anywhere, and that the Sale is extensively made to Anesthetists only to be used in the Operation Theatre. In view of the peculiar circumstances, it clearly goes to show the gross negligence of the Opposite Parties who were very negligent in using the said Medicine.”

6. The OPs (other than OP-5), in a joint Written Statement before the State Commission have denied the allegations in entirety, claiming that the Complaint does not make out any specific allegations against individual OPs. No deficiency is alleged against OP-1 and OP-2. It is also claimed that allegations made in the Complaint have not been specifically linked to acts of commission or omission leading to ultimate fatality. The version of the OPs carries a narration of the events leading to the death of the patient in following words:-

“After the surgery the patient recovered consciousness fully and she was kept in the Post Operative