IMPORTANT POINT
Doctor cannot be held guilty without any cogent evidence.

These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner C.Pramod Kumar & 2 Ors. in RP No.4812-4813 of 2013 and Amreshwara Nursing Home & Anr. in RP No.3600 of 2014 against the order dated 2.9.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, passed in Appeal No.1050 & 1123 of 2011.

2. The complaint in brief is that Dr. Amareshwara. T is the owner of the 1st Respondent Nursing Home. The respondent No.2 Dr. T.Udayashankar is the Orthopaedist who conducted the operation for fracture of both the bones of left forearm of Smt. Udayavani at the 1st respondent Nursing Home on 13.04.2006. The respondent No.3 Dr. Jambanalli Govindaraj is the Anaesthetist who administered anaesthesia. The 1st complainant is the elder brother of the deceased Smt. Udayavani who by depositing Rs.13,000/- admitted her at 1st respondent Nursing Home.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the patient died on the operation table itself due to excessive dose of anaesthesia though when the hospital and doctors informed about the death, the patient was taken to another hospital where she was declared “brought dead”. The complainants filed complaint with the Medical Council of Karnataka and in their investigation it was found that the death was due to cardiac arrest by excessive dose of anaesthetic drugs. The consumer complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bellary. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. However, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint vide its order dated17.02.2011 as under:—

“The complaint filed by the complainants is partly allowed, as against respondent No.3.

The complainant No.2 is entitled to recover sum Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 21.08.2009 till realization from the respondent No.3.

The complainant No.2 is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings, from the respondent No.3.

The Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the entire amount ordered and interest to the complainant No.2, within two months from the date of this order.

The complainant No.1 and 3 shall deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the complainant No.2 Kum Chandana as Fixed Deposit in a Nationalized Bank till she attains the age of majority and shall produce the copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt within one month of receipt of the compensation amount.

The complaint filed by the complainants as against the Respondent No.1 and 2 is dismissed.

Inform the parties accordingly.”

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainants as well as respondent No.3/opposite party No.3 preferred separate appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 02.09.2013 dismissed the appeal No.1050 of 2011 and allowed the appeal No.1123 of 2011 of the complainants and passed the following orders:—

“Appeal No.1050/2011 filed by the OP 3 is dismissed. Appeal No.1123/2011 filed by the complainants is allowed in part and modified by enhancing the compensation. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.4,47,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 21.08.2009 till its realization and to pay the same with cost as awarded by the DF with accrued interest within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Out of Rs.4,47,000/- the OPs are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant No.3, which includes a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards consortium to the husband of the deceased Smt. Udayavani for the maintenance of his daughter.

The remaining balance amount of Rs.3,47,000/- is to be deposited by the complainant No.3 in a Nationalized Bank, in the name of his daughter, till she attains the age of majority. Complainant No.3 is entitled for the interest accrued out of the amount deposited in the FD.

Complainant No.1 who is the brother of the deceased is not entitled for any compensation.

The amoun