The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the hospital to provide prompt and effective medical attention to the patient, and the liability of the insurance company being limited to the amount specified in the insurance policy.

ORDER

Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member - These two First Appeal Nos. 115/2007 and 471/2007 have been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant/Insurance Company ) and Bangalore Children's Hospital and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant/Hospital) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the 'state Commission') in Complaint No. 50/2001 decided in favour of Sridhar Holalkere and Master Shashank Holalkere, original complainants before the State Commission and Respondents in F.A. No. 471/2007. Since the facts and the parties involved in both Appeals are the same, it is proposed to dispose of these cases by a common order by taking the facts from First Appeal No. 471 of 2007.

2. In their complaint before the State Commission, Respondents had contended that, Respondent No. l had taken his pregnant wife (hereinafter referred to as the patient ) to the Appellant/Hospital with complaints of vomiting on 31.3.1999. Preliminary diagnosis revealed that the patient was suffering from acute pulmonary edema and as per advice, she was admitted to the Appellant No. 1/Hospital. It was contended that the doctors at that hospital were not capable of handling the case and they experimented on her by administering different antibiotics because of which she developed serious complications by the evening. Even thereafter, there was no doctor on duty to attend on the patient and the Respondents, therefore, requested the nurse on duty to summon the doctor when the patient's condition deteriorated but was told that since no doctors were available during the night, there was no option but to wait till the next morning. The next day i.e. on 1.4.1999 when the doctor came to examine the patient, she was unable to detect what was wrong with the patient and only kept assuring that there was no cause for anxiety. Respondent No. l suggested that if her condition was serious, she could be shifted to another hospital to which the doctors at the Appellant/hospital did not agree but a little later, the same morning, doctors at the Appellant/hospital themselves decided to shift the patient to Manipal Hospital (Respondent No. 4 herein) but did not provide any ambulance and the Respondent No. l had to procure the same from outside. By the time the patient had arrived at Respondent No. 4/Hospital, her condition was critical and there was no recordable blood pressure. The doctors at Respondent No. 4/Hospital opined that the patient had developed intensive crepitation in both lungs and the tachycardia was irreversible. She died on the same day at 3.30 p.m. Being aggrieved by the medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/Hospital and the concerned doctors, Respondents filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that Appellant/Hospital and the concerned doctors be directed to pay them Rs. 15 lakh as compensation with interest.

3. Appellant/Hospital and Dr. Arthi (OP-2 before the State Commission and Respondent No. 3 herein) on being served denied that there was any negligence in the matter of treatment of the patient and stated that all possible treatment was given to her and that it was factually not correct that doctors were not present during the night on 31.3.1999. In fact, doctors who have been provided quarters in the premises were available for any emergency or treatment of the patients at all times. Required medication was given to the patient. It was, however, admitted that it was decided to shift the patient to Respondent No. 4/Hospital which had better facilities and since the ambulance of Appellant/hospital was engaged elsewhere; another ambulance was obtained and the patient shifted to Respondent No. 4/Hospital. Thus, there was no medical negligence on the part of the Appellant/Hospital of its doctors.

4. The State Commission after hearing both parties partly allowed the complaint by observ